image quality again

[Fleak]

As much as I like AP, there is sometimes this last step that makes me go mad. The export.

It seems that can't get a quality export from AP. I tried all resample settings and in the end I just get mad and remember that I never hat to think about it in PS.

 

This is a 1669 X 1669 px 400dpi PDF coming from AD I try to get crisp at 565px 144dpi or 72dpi.

I'm aware that it won't be that crisp but these exports are unacceptable.

 

I tried bilinear, bicubic and the others. I don't get a crisp image and I should go out for a walk before

writing further. 

 

http://shahin.de/AP/Screen_Shot_From_AD.png

http://shahin.de/AP/KFL_565_72dpi_Bicubic.jpg

http://shahin.de/AP/KFL_565_72dpi_Bilenar.jpg

http://shahin.de/AP/KFL_565_72dpi_Lanczos01.jpg

http://shahin.de/AP/KFL_565_72dpi_Lanczos02.jpg

 

 

[R C-R]

I'm not sure what you would consider acceptable but one thing that should help is to set the AD document size (in pixels) to the desired output size, or at least an even multiple of that. As it is, you are forcing the resampling algorithm to convert every approximately 2.95 x 2.95 pixel block to a single pixel, so it will never be able to do that cleanly.

 

Another thing that should help is to set AD to use the "Force Pixel Alignment" & "Move By Whole Pixels" settings so that shape edges will align cleanly with pixel boundaries.

 

Keep in mind that if the rasterized output is destined for a web page, the normal <img style=...> tag values will determine its "actual" default view size, but the page might be displayed at some other view size (either larger or smaller) depending on the browser used & its settings. For example, your last jpg is tagged as follows when opened in a separate Safari browser window:

<img style=​"-webkit-user-select:​ none;​ display:​ block;​ margin:​ auto;​ cursor:​ zoom-in;​" src=​"http:​/​/​shahin.de/​AP/​KFL_565_72dpi_Lanczos02.jpg" width="544" height=​"544">​

For this reason, the width & height values in the tag should be considered display options that a browser may or may not use.

[Peterkaosa]

Hello Fleak, I just tried a quick export with your settings in PS and cannot see that huge difference according to crispness. Can you provide us with a bit more information?

[Oval]

Moin, moin, Shahin.

 

Selbst wenn ich Dein kleines Screen_Shot_From_AD.png exportiere, bekomme ich keine so schlechten Ergebnisse, sondern:

 

 

Wenn alle Deine JPGs (warum CMYK?) Bildschirmfotos sind, gibt es eine Erklärung.

 

Tipp: Unschärfe von Texten kann man durch ein »Merge Visible« in AP vor dem Bitmap-Export minimieren.

[Oval]

Hello Fleak, I just tried a quick export with your settings in PS and cannot see that huge difference according to crispness.

 

Why PS? Look above, what AP usually exports. Very crispy without additional filter.  :)

[Fleak]

Thanks all!

 

@R C-R I don't know why I'm operating with those dimensions. You are totally right. Still my exports are quite bad or the same.

 

 

Another thing that should help is to set AD to use the "Force Pixel Alignment" & "Move By Whole Pixels" settings so that shape edges will align cleanly with pixel boundaries.

 

 

Does turning it on already take care of the alignment or do I need to move the elements once to make them snap?

 

@Oval Moin! The JPGs are all exports (changed the Document to RGB again, I don't know why I was in CMYK).  I do not understand why an export from an imported screenshot looks better than any export form an original in AD. This is weird.

[Nazario]

I don't see anything unusual myself. If you are referring to the small reversed out type then at such a small size and PPI it will always look poor. I would suggest increasing the type size to accommodate more pixels to allow for a cleaner edge. The strokes are much too thin to be accurately drawn with pixels.

 

Best practice as other have said would be to design at the size you will be exporting as.

[Fleak]

Thanks Nazario,

I ended up doing everything that was suggested here and I had the same thought with the Fontsize.

This ist the best I can export atm: http://shahin.de/AP/KFL_565_72_02.png

 

I don't use Fonts with (fine) Serifs that often so I'm not used to it maybe?

Anyway, if someone should be able to handle Serifs than its Affinity ;)

 

I really try not to blame anyone but myself mostly but this time and having

the experience with PS it was to easy for me to do so. 

[Nazario]

Thanks Nazario,

I ended up doing everything that was suggested here and I had the same thought with the Fontsize.

This ist the best I can export atm: http://shahin.de/AP/KFL_565_72_02.png

 

I don't use Fonts with (fine) Serifs that often so I'm not used to it maybe?

Anyway, if someone should be able to handle Serifs than its Affinity ;)

 

I really try not to blame anyone but myself mostly but this time and having

the experience with PS it was to easy for me to do so. 

The font you have used as Im sure you're aware has very fine details. Even at large type sizes. Its not just the serfs but the strokes too as they have a slight curve to them which will expand over more than one line of pixels if that makes sense. The particular font won't ever really get drawn well when rasterised except at huge sizes. 

[Oval]

Anyway, if someone should be able to handle Serifs than its Affinity ;)

 

I really try not to blame anyone but myself mostly but this time and having

the experience with PS it was to easy for me to do so. 

 

Just do what I described in my tip and you will be surprised:

 

(Obere Zeile ist aus einem neuen Vektor-Text entstanden. Qualität ist nochmals besser, obwohl keine Filter benutzt wurden.)

 

 

Die Qualitätsprobleme haben nix mit den Serifen und den Details zu tun, sondern wie Affinity Schriften behandelt. Man kann nur hoffen, dass die Programmierer verstehen, wie User denken und arbeiten, statt umgekehrt. Bleibt zu hoffen, dass man in Zukunft die Qualität auch einfach direkt in AD erzielen kann. Für Insider: Das korrekte Schärfen einer Schrift lässt sich nicht mit der Korrektur der Coverage Map vergleichen/erzielen.

[Fleak]

Danke Oval, das war auch meine Vermutung, weil ich nach zig Jahren PS diese Problem in dieser Stärke nicht kenne. Meist war es eine Einstellung oder ich war nicht auf 25% 50% 100% und das Bild war nur scheinbar pixelig.

Die Schrift hat ja sogar riesige Serifen vergleichsweise finde ich. Ich war da auch skeptisch.

 

Aber welchen Tipp meinst du? Ich habe die Ebenen gruppiert und gerastert, sah sofort pixelig aus. Was ja klar ist weil ich von einem Pfad komme. Also keine Besserung verglichen mit den anderen Exports. Ich hab tatsächlich ein Screenshot gemacht, das in AP aufgemacht und wieder abgespeichert. Darf man eigentlich garnicht erzählen.

 

 

Adobe kommt halt einfach mehr Ahnung von Schrift vermutlich – wenn man überlegt wo sie her kommen.

[Oval]

Moin, moin. Ja, Egyptienne-Serifen und fein, … völliger Quatsch.

 

Ich kenne noch keinen einfachen Trick in AD, aber wie oben demonstriert und im Tipp beschrieben, kann man in AP scharfe Bitmap-Schrift exportieren, indem man vorab die Vektor-Texte rastert. Das funzt per »Merge Visible« meist am einfachsten und bietet den Vorteil variabler Qualitäten (abhängig, welche Ebene man aktiviert). Wichtig ist natürlich auch die Wahl des Export-Resamplings (mit »Neuberechnung« etwas unglücklich ins Deutsche übersetzt).

 

Das Problem der unscharfen Pixel-Texte ist nicht neu, leider scheint es noch immer nicht bei den Entwicklern angekommen zu sein. Profis müssen wohl weiterhin auf einfache Antialiasing- und Schriftoptimierungs-Optionen warten.

 

Angesichts der Vokabel “unacceptable” hätte sich Serif ja schon mal melden können. Es handelt sich ja um ein echtes Basic-Problem, das man in Version 0.9 vielleicht noch verschmerzen mag. Leigh hatte beispielsweise anfangs mal reingeschaut …

 

 

Übrigens: Meine grob erstellte Vektor-Zeile ist 8 Pixel hoch und damit sogar einen Pixel kleiner als die nachfolgende Zeile.

[Fleak]

Ah, OK du willst das ich das AD File in AP öffne! Hab ich überlesen.

Hat ein bisschen was gebracht. Zumindest bei der #115. die Qualität deines Exports bleibt dennoch ungeschlagen.

Dabei hast du in der Version noch die kleinere Fliessschrift. Ich gehe mal morgen noch einmal ran. Zum nachvollziehen.

Die Grafiken mussten leider schon raus heute.

 

Danke dir!

[Oval]

Supi! Für die aktuelle Online-Version wurde kein Lanczos genutzt, oder? Das gäbe mehr Schärfe.

 

Warum »Aus« mit versalem »A«? Handy im Aus?

 

Frutiger würde sagen: »Handy Aus!« wirkt kleiner als die Zeile darüber, deshalb wäre ein Tick größer besser.

[Oval]

I do not understand why an export from an imported screenshot looks better than any export form an original in AD. This is weird.

 

Das liegt am Resampling-/Neuberechnen-Algorithmus, der bei Pfaden nicht greift (Leider gibt es ja noch keine Export-Preview). Selbst wenn man in AD die Pfade/Texte vor dem Export in Bitmaps wandelt (rastert), bleibt es etwas komplizierter, die gleichen Ergebnisse wie in AP zu erzielen.

[Peterkaosa]

I don't mean to be rude but I am a little irritated about you going for german… I know how to express myself in that language as well, but as this should be a forum for all alike I consider you switch back to english – its not that hard anyway.

 

No offense.

[Fleak]

Hey Peter,

 

you are totally right! I could resist the first time and stayed in english.

At the end I think I wanted to be fast and so I switched. I'd hate it if

someone else would do the same.

[Oval]

OK, sorry, just thought German would be easier since the problem should be solved quickly ("18. März”) and nobody really had an answer, not even the staff. English is not really easy for people who are cerebral and linguistically ungifted. Just one word and I would have seen my mistake immediately. Again, sorry Shahin and Peterkaosa. And thanks, having learnt once again … German is not welcome.

[R C-R]

"German is not welcome."

 

Even though I cannot not speak German & have lost 98% of the ability to read it I learned in college 50+ years ago, I hope that isn't true. I think it is important for users to feel it is OK to use the language they are most fluent in when asking for help here, even if it is not English. If practical, including an English language version in the post is a good idea because the majority of visitors here seem to be able to read it, but if this is truly intended to be a forum for all users, we should not try to limit it only to those who can read & write English, right?

[Peterkaosa]

R C-R I get your point, of course trouble shooting should be quick. And for not-native speakers (So wie ich es auch bin) it is not always easy to post understandable. 

On the other hand, this specific post is interesting for a vast majority (AFAIC). And as Affinity is british company I suppose the moderators would like to follow the more interesting posts in order to improve their software.

At least that's what I hope for…

[R C-R]

Peterkaosa, I get your points about the moderators & topics of general interest. My comment was only meant to suggest we should be very careful about posting anything implying that if someone can't post in English they should not post at all. I meant it as a general comment, nothing more.

[Fleak]

Group hug!

[Herbert123]

Illustrator web export is quite terrible as well for this type of work. I found that the best way to maintain good sharpness is to export the artwork at a much higher resolution (typically around 2000 pixels width and/or height), and then use Catmull-Rom interpolation to down-sample to web size.

 

I have done a LOT of testing with Illustrator and Photoshop a couple of years ago to find the best workflow to maintain the best quality of vector artwork at lower resolutions. My finding is very simple: NEVER output vector artwork intended for low resolution directly to the intended lower resolution straight out of your design app. ALWAYS output at a much higher resolution, and downsample with Catmull-Rom for the best result.

 

Unfortunately, Adobe and Affinity products do not support this down-sampling method (nor do they support mitchell-natravali, which also results in good downsampling), and you will have to look elsewhere for this. One option is ImageMagick, but it does require the use of the terminal/command line.

 

Photoline does support these two down-sampling algorithms out of the box, which is what I use for this type of work.

 

And you may have to sharpen the result a bit to bring up the contrast for sharp edges (such as small text).

 

Here is an article which compares the various sampling algorithms. Quite informative read.

https://pixinsight.com/doc/docs/InterpolationAlgorithms/InterpolationAlgorithms.html

[paolo.limoncelli]

As much as I like AP, there is sometimes this last step that makes me go mad. The export.

It seems that can't get a quality export from AP. I tried all resample settings and in the end I just get mad and remember that I never hat to think about it in PS.

 

This is a 1669 X 1669 px 400dpi PDF coming from AD I try to get crisp at 565px 144dpi or 72dpi.

I'm aware that it won't be that crisp but these exports are unacceptable.

 

I tried bilinear, bicubic and the others. I don't get a crisp image and I should go out for a walk before

writing further. 

 

http://shahin.de/AP/Screen_Shot_From_AD.png

http://shahin.de/AP/KFL_565_72dpi_Bicubic.jpg

http://shahin.de/AP/KFL_565_72dpi_Bilenar.jpg

http://shahin.de/AP/KFL_565_72dpi_Lanczos01.jpg

http://shahin.de/AP/KFL_565_72dpi_Lanczos02.jpg

 

Hi Fleak, cannot see these pictures... 

You're working at highest resolution and want to down-sample, am I wrong?

Is it a web/UI design work?

[Herbert123]

Btw, most of those examples were saved as JPG files. Bad choice for vector/illustration work - always use PNG for that. JPG is notoriously destructive for vector artwork.

 

Here is the first PNG version reduced to 50% with a bit of sharpening before, Catmul-Rom down-scaling in Photoline, and a bit of sharpening again. The result would have been better if I had had access to a high resolution version or a pdf to convert.

 

http://oi65.tinypic.com/119cbk9.jpg