Option to rasterize at 2X?

[jhdesigns]

It would be useful if there was a setting so that when images were rasterized, it could be at a higher resolution than the document resolution at the size they are currently rendered (2X, 3X, 4X). So, for example, if I set rasterization preferences to 2X, I could still scale that image to twice its dimensions without resolution loss after rasterization. 

 

[NotMyFault]

Rasterize uses the document DPI. If you want higher resolution, you already have 2 options:

1. increase document resolution by factor 2/3/4
2. increase layer size by intended factor, and use rasterize without trim. Reduce layer size. In Photo you may record a macro of those 3 steps.

I don’t see any urgent need for a new feature when 2 alternatives are already available. A more urgent need is to allow choosing the resample method to avoid unwanted blurriness from bilinear resampling.

[jhdesigns]

I disagree. This represents an efficiency when layout adjustments are needed late in the revisions process. It's tedious to scale every image down, then double the size again to rasterize, then scale down again. The other problem with this is if that if you're using an artboard and the image goes off canvas because it's large when scaled up, Affinity will trim the rasterized image to the artboard. 

It's also better to have document resolution set to actual output values while working. That way when I'm in pixel persona I can see what it's actually going to look like when exported. 

[NotMyFault]

1 hour ago, jhdesigns said:

The other problem with this is if that if you're using an artboard

So you request this feature for Designer and use artboards? This is imported information,  Nobody can guess this from the original post. Good you added this.

1 hour ago, jhdesigns said:

Affinity will trim the rasterized image to the artboard.

No, at least not on iPad. Rasterize (without trim) does not trim a layer.

 

1 hour ago, jhdesigns said:

It's also better to have document resolution set to actual output values while working. That way when I'm in pixel persona I can see what it's actually going to look like when exported. 

Why do you rasterize the layers? Why not keep them as image layers and full resolution? To check the result, use view mode pixel.

[jhdesigns]

Designer for Desktop trims to artboard with normal "rasterize" instead of "rasterize and trim." It will not do this with a basic canvas. I need to use artboards all the time. 

There are scenarios where multi-layered images need to be rasterized for proper output. For example, I've gotten antialiasing artifacts on PDFs, which are asked for for print, on images that are composed of multiple layers in a group. Rasterizing solves this. Describing every use case is way too time consuming and complex but I do need to do this on a fairly regular basis. 

[Alfred]

1 hour ago, jhdesigns said:

if you're using an artboard and the image goes off canvas

I presume you’re using the term ‘canvas’ loosely here. You have to choose between a canvas and one or more artboards: you can’t have artboards and a canvas in a document at the same time.

1 hour ago, jhdesigns said:

Affinity will trim the rasterized image to the artboard

Content will always be clipped it it sits partially on an artboard, but it won’t automatically be trimmed.

[jhdesigns]

Sorry, I had tested this right before I posted but must have accidentally missed the target and clicked rasterize and trim (guess I've done this a few times). Even without that issue though it would still be very useful to be able to rasterize at a multiple. This could be a simple setting in the preferences and doesn't seem that complex to implement. Another use for this is that you could cut document file size considerably while still retaining flexibility for scaling larger on rasterized images should there be revisions that require layout adjustments, and you wouldn't have to do this scale up, rasterize, scale down on every single image. I have a huge archive of client files and some are quite large in file size because they contain high resolution images. After a certain point, I don't need original resolution anymore, but I might need the extra flexibility of being able to scale a little larger without loss if someone asks for an update to an old file.

 

 

[jhdesigns]

Additionally, if they're rasterized at a multiple, you could do more detailed edits on raster images after they are rasterized should touchups be needed. 

[NotMyFault]

8 hours ago, jhdesigns said:

For example, I've gotten antialiasing artifacts on PDFs, which are asked for for print, on images that are composed of multiple layers in a group.

Thanks again, another important detail. What you really need is a solution to avoid unwanted antialiasing. What you requested would help as workaround.

Sorry for intensive questioning, but it really helps to understand the background and actual need for your request.

When you say antialiasing: within Affinity this term is used very specifically, mainly only for vector layers and edge antialiasing which can be controlled by the anti-alias setting and AA pressure profile (but this is buggy since day 1).

As you speak of bitmap layers, I assume you mean unwanted blurriness by resampling within the layers, and not edge smoothening?

Let me summarize:

• using Designer
• using artboard mode
• creating PDF with rasterized content 
• having issues with unwanted antialiasing (or is it resampling blurriness?)

[Alfred]

36 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

within Affinity this term is used very specifically, mainly only for vector layers

It could be mainly for vector layers or only for vector layers, but I don’t see how it could be both!

[NotMyFault]

2 hours ago, Alfred said:

It could be mainly for vector layers or only for vector layers, but I don’t see how it could be both!

To be more precise:

• The term AA is used in blend range UI. 
  • it is visible for all layer types, but impacts only vector layers incl. text.
  • for bitmap layers, setting gets ignored
• when dealing with pixel layers, you get edge blurriness by (bilinear) resample which looks very similar to AA, one sometimes AA is used in forum posts, not correct in my view.
• when using (image) pixel brushes, affinity applies some forced AA to brush strokes which cannot be influenced by user. I‘m not sure if this resample or AA.
• A similar thing happens for vector brushes. The brush AA is unrelated to layer AA, both will apply.

[jhdesigns]

10 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

Thanks again, another important detail. What you really need is a solution to avoid unwanted antialiasing. What you requested would help as workaround.

Sorry for intensive questioning, but it really helps to understand the background and actual need for your request.

When you say antialiasing: within Affinity this term is used very specifically, mainly only for vector layers and edge antialiasing which can be controlled by the anti-alias setting and AA pressure profile (but this is buggy since day 1).

As you speak of bitmap layers, I assume you mean unwanted blurriness by resampling within the layers, and not edge smoothening?

Let me summarize:

• using Designer
• using artboard mode
• creating PDF with rasterized content 
• having issues with unwanted antialiasing (or is it resampling blurriness?)

Here’s just one example of when I needed to rasterize and the issue it solves for. There are many more:

I use a photograph of some dancers on a stage with a solid black backdrop in a post card mailer and there is snow falling on a portion of the background. Client wants snow falling on the entire background. While I could stamp it out, it’s more efficient in this case to copy portions of the existing snow, and paste all over the background, rotating, editing and resizing the various layers for some randomness. I also need to extend the image on both sides. The sides of the stage floor in the photo have a very uniform color gradient, so I use a frequent hack where I copy the original image, crop it so I just have a chunk of the stage floor and background on each side, and then scale those horizontally to fill the screen, with a slight Gaussian blur added to hide any stretched pixels. I put some black (same color as background) vector shapes with a flat horizontal line to make it so that where the stage and background meet have a clean line since I applied the blur, and because in the original photo the line is not perfectly straight. 
 

Everything looks great in Designer. I export to PDF and everything also looks great in Apple Preview. My client opens in Acrobat and sees subtle, lighter colored lines around all of the layers that compose this image - the sections of snow I cut out, the border between the cropped sections of stage, the original photo, and the vector shapes. But if I group it all and rasterize it before export, these lines disappear in Acrobat. 
 

Now the client decides they want that image cropped tighter, so I have to keep a duplicate of the original group because if I scale the rasterized image up it loses resolution, whereas if It was rasterized at a configurable multiple, I’d have room to scale without loss, and my file size would be much smaller because the original image I used was super high resolution. 
 

Something else I may have wanted to do had the floor needed touch ups is to stamp parts of the stage in Photo from the original photo to the extended portions, then maybe also use some Inpainting. But I can’t do this detailed work at 2X without resizing the canvas, changing the resolution, or creating a new file or artboard at that size unless I want to be dragging the image around since it’s larger than the viewable area. With rasterization at a multiple, I can do everything in context and with more detail. Then I save on overall file size because the original  photo is 10x bigger than the canvas and now at 2x it’s a fraction the original file size. 
 

There are, of course, alternative workflows that are closer to design best practices but my work requires some shortcuts for efficiency. I have to operate with very thin margins since I contract for ad agencies that also have margins to preserve and I am often rushed. Any and all efficiencies are in play so long as the end result meets expectations. 

[NotMyFault]

45 minutes ago, jhdesigns said:

Everything looks great in Designer. I export to PDF and everything also looks great in Apple Preview. My client opens in Acrobat and sees subtle, lighter colored lines around all of the layers that compose this image - the sections of snow I cut out, the border between the cropped sections of stage, the original photo, and the vector shapes.

That is a well known issue, mostly caused by wrong layer alignment, or simply whenever you have touching edges of vector layers (here AA causes the issue). You can heal this (or avoid) by other means as rasterizing. The main cause is that you don’t inspect the files in pixel view mode, so the thin lines don’t get noticed. Earlier you mentioned you want to see the file as it will get exported. PDF viewers differ in many aspects, and Adobe Reader is the industry standard so all other apps are seen as faulty if they differ. So you can inspect the files with Adobe reader to be on the safe side.

Just to avoid misunderstandings - you can use your workflow, and raise feature requests to get this improved, I only discuss this as it is a public forum and other users could be interested in alternatives.