Live Filter -> Procedural Texture Presets, weird lines when alpha is selected

[Ezbaze]

For some reason adding alpha to the Procedural Texture creates these weird edge lines arround ( unsure as to if this is a bug or not )

The Texture used below in the Procedural Texture is a Checkerd Dafult with Alpha channel enabled, this happens with other Textures as well

 

 

This is with the Group containing the Procedural Texture being on top of everything, and the image hiden ( This happens regardles of the zoom ammount )

 

 

 

 

The File:Procedural_Texture_weird_behaviour.afphoto

[NotMyFault]

Those are anti-aliasing effects at the edges between objects and background. 
At the edges of layers, the colors of pixels get mixed between lower layers and current layers. This often leads to unwanted mix colors. 

In CMYK, this effects is worse that in RGB.
 

[NotMyFault]

It will be easier to understand for you if you use. Simpler test file, e.g. only one circle, one fill layer.

it is not specifically related to the PT filter. 

[GarryP]

In this particular case you can set the Source Layer Ranges in the Blend Options as can be seen in my attached image.
I don’t know if this would ‘break’ something else though because I don’t really understand how this works.

[NotMyFault]

Another comment: if you include a formula for alpha channel in PT filter, in most cases you will not use the same formula as for RGB channels.

In your example the checkered board gets transparent where color white would be, and this leads to many edge areas amplifying the issue.

for me it seems  you may be trying far to much in one step (mastering CMYK, PT filters, alpha channel, …). I would recommend to spend some hours reading a good book (or Wikipedia) or viewing video tutorials about these topics, and try one step after the other before combining all in complex objects.

Make yourself familiar with channels panel, and start with RGB files, and 2-3 layers maximum. 

 

• RGB to HSL conversion formula
• layer blending and blend modes (without alpha)
• alpha blending
• additive vs subtractive color models
• PT filter on RGB (use fully opaque layers only)
• PT filters on alpha channel specifically
• combinations of above topics

[Ezbaze]

1 hour ago, NotMyFault said:

Those are anti-aliasing effects at the edges between objects and background. 
At the edges of layers, the colors of pixels get mixed between lower layers and current layers. This often leads to unwanted mix colors. 

In CMYK, this effects is worse that in RGB.
 

Most likely.

 

I found a way to have it without the antialiasing, made the group with the Procedural Texture erase the image instead, and masked the Procedural Texture using the shapes, i did keep the Alpha channel selected in the same unchanged  Procedural Texture though.

 

The main goal is to use a Procedural Texture as a Mask to achive this:

[NotMyFault]

Then you simply need to nest the PT filter as child to the pixel layer, and use the formula only on alpha channel. No groups required (groups can complicate things dramatically when dealing with alpha channel).

Important:

• the PT filter is restricted to the parent layer only in child position.
• If you move PT filter to "masking" position, alpha channel affects the complete canvas and "escapes" the clipping area of the parent.

[Ezbaze]

2 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

Then you simply need to nest the PT filter as child to the pixel layer, and use the formula only on alpha channel. No groups required (groups can complicate things dramatically when dealing with alpha channel).

Important:

• the PT filter is restricted to the parent layer only in child position.
• If you move PT filter to "masking" position, alpha channel affects the complete canvas and "escapes" the clipping area of the parent.

Yes, but then this kind of stuff happens ^

 

The left side looks fine, but then if we look at the bottom the grid doesn't add up

 

 

[NotMyFault]

While the PT filter is active layer in stack, use mouse pointer to move the point of origin (moves the squares generated by PT filter).

The PT filter is unable to sense the size of the parent layer. You need to adjust the formula (e.g. replace w and h by actual width and heigth).

[NotMyFault]

come on

I didn't care for pixel alignment in my example.

After aligning size and position of the upper layer to integer values (see transform panel), everything is perfect.

 

 

[Ezbaze]

@NotMyFault

I understand what you are trying to explain but in the other example, there should be a gap considering that there are already squares showing to the sides which are at least more than 4-5 px in height ( Inside the red rectangle )

[GarryP]

I can see where there seems to be a ‘missing’ transparent section of the grid in your image but I can’t replicate that – see attached video.
Can you share a document which exhibits this?

[NotMyFault]

10 hours ago, Ezbaze said:

@NotMyFault

I understand what you are trying to explain but in the other example, there should be a gap considering that there are already squares showing to the sides which are at least more than 4-5 px in height ( Inside the red rectangle )

No, it is 1px. 

For this demo document I have chose XGA 800x600 resolution, and it is zoomed  in to fit my 5K screen, so objects in your zooming app are smaller than they appear in screenshots.

[GarryP]

As mentioned in my previous post, I think the thing that Ezbaze is concerned with is the ‘missing’ transparency section within the red rectangle in their image.

In other words, there should be a shallow transparent rectangle where there is none; the bottom of the bushes should be ‘cut off’ but it’s not.

[NotMyFault]

12 minutes ago, GarryP said:

As mentioned in my previous post, I think the thing that Ezbaze is concerned with is the ‘missing’ transparency section within the red rectangle in their image.

In other words, there should be a shallow transparent rectangle where there is none; the bottom of the bushes should be ‘cut off’ but it’s not.

yes, this seemingly missing part was caused by fractional height of the Paris-layer. Nothing else. I've attached the file so you can check it yourself.

My zoom level was 16x, otherwise you would never spot this.

 

Image 1: fractional size H=238.8

Image 2: integer size H=239.0

PT on alpha paris.afphoto

[GarryP]

Ah, right, now I see what you mean, thanks.
I’ve added a video which may help anyone else who is confused.
Watch what happens to the bottom and left of the image when I move it without aligning to pixel boundaries, e.g. non-integer X/Y values.

[lacerto]

Obsolete.