Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JimmyJack said:

In reality though, by overlapping you've just shifted the problem right?

 

I think that in reality the problem is exactly what @TonyB said it was in his first reply in this topic:

Quote

All vector edges get anti-aliased so two separate edges will have a faint line between them unless they are aligned exactly on a pixel boundary.

 

Unless I am missing something, that is only possible for the very specific case of rectilinear vector shapes perfectly aligned to the horizontal & vertical axes on pixel boundaries -- any vector with a curved or diagonal edge can only be rendered with reasonable accuracy on screen using anti-aliasing. The alternative of not anti-aliasing anything isn't very desirable because of the uncertainty that introduces with where the edge actually is at any time there is not an exact integer match between screen & document pixels.


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TonyB maybe you can weight in here.  I am trying to speak with somebody on the Designer engineering team about the idea of fixing the underlying problem here once and for all, so we don't need to continue using these sorts of workarounds.

 

I am quite sure that the problem can be solved, and I'd be happy to explain to somebody how to do it.

 

Do you know who I might be able to speak to about this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, R C-R said:

 

I think that in reality the problem is exactly what @TonyB said it was in his first reply in this topic:

 

Unless I am missing something, that is only possible for the very specific case of rectilinear vector shapes perfectly aligned to the horizontal & vertical axes on pixel boundaries -- any vector with a curved or diagonal edge can only be rendered with reasonable accuracy on screen using anti-aliasing. The alternative of not anti-aliasing anything isn't very desirable because of the uncertainty that introduces with where the edge actually is at any time there is not an exact integer match between screen & document pixels.

 

Rather than addressing your explanation, why don't we just go head to head.

 

Your file (with a curve added) in all black to really get a good look, saved as a png from AffinityD and from Illustrator.

I'll let you guess which is which.

(the difference is actually much more pronounced out of a browser (mine at least)... such as in AD itself and elsewhere like Preview)

 

5ab5231baca4c_Alignedvsoverlappedblack.png.8d28cdf81ca694550c1f9a9ecdbd542d.png 5ab523318021c_AlignedvsoverlappedAIartboard1.png.88fddf0ff6a2393ebcea9fdd11442eb2.png

 

16 hours ago, Lionel Seidman said:

@TonyB maybe you can weight in here.  I am trying to speak with somebody on the Designer engineering team about the idea of fixing the underlying problem here once and for all, so we don't need to continue using these sorts of workarounds.

 

I am quite sure that the problem can be solved, and I'd be happy to explain to somebody how to do it.

 

Do you know who I might be able to speak to about this?

 

 

The fact that they call this normal is the most distressing thing of all. If it's so normal why are there constantly people trying to come over from Ai saying "HEY what's up with these lines??"

It's like they've resigned themselves to this result. At one point I remember a response from the Devs that included something like.... but we're working on improving this. But I haven't seen that included in a reply for a long time. It would be nice to at least "hear" again.

Or maybe it's just not resolvable with the render engine approach they've chosen?

I'm not saying AI is perfect all the time, but come on right? Night and day.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JimmyJack said:

I'm not saying AI is perfect all the time, but come on right? Night and day.

But which one is more accurate; that is, true to the underlying geometry of the vectors?


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2018 at 7:15 PM, R C-R said:

But which one is more accurate; that is, true to the underlying geometry of the vectors?

 

The geometry isn't really the concern here.  The problem is the seam between one polygon and another.  Ai handles these sorts of seams quite nicely, while Designer does not, so in that sense, Ai is more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lionel Seidman said:

The geometry isn't really the concern here.

If the accuracy of the geometry of vector objects is of no concern to you, why even bother designing with vectors? Why not just rasterize everything?


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R C-R said:

If the accuracy of the geometry of vector objects is of no concern to you, why even bother designing with vectors? Why not just rasterize everything?

 

I didn't mean to say that the geometry is of no concern to me in general, just that the geometry of the shapes looks fine, and that I am not concerned about it misbehaving.

 

The only thing I am concerned about is the seams between pieces of geometry.  If two pieces of geometry are exactly adjacent to each other, and when we rasterize the geometry we are able to see remnants of the background color showing through the seams, then I would say the program is misbehaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lionel Seidman said:

If two pieces of geometry are exactly adjacent to each other, and when we rasterize the geometry we are able to see remnants of the background color showing through the seams, then I would say the program is misbehaving.

What we are seeing is anti-aliasing, a consequence of rasterizing vector geometry. That converts it to pixels, each of which can have only one color. It has nothing directly to do with the background color, only with the difference in the colors along the seams.


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, R C-R said:

What we are seeing is anti-aliasing, a consequence of rasterizing vector geometry. That converts it to pixels, each of which can have only one color. It has nothing directly to do with the background color, only with the difference in the colors along the seams.

 

I understand that anti-aliasing is being applied as we convert vector data into raster data, but what I am saying is that the way in which the anti-aliasing is being applied is creating faulty output in which the background color is improperly bleeding through.

 

Let's suppose we have a pixel that is exactly on the seam between two objects.  One way to render that pixel would be to draw object number one using anti-aliasing (giving us a 50/50 mix of the object color and the background color) and then to draw object number two using anti-aliasing, giving us a 50/25/25 mix of objects 2, 1, and the background color.  This appears to be the way Designer is doing things right now, and as you can see this gives us the wrong result!  The final color for this pixel should be a 50/50 mix of the color in objects 1 and 2, with no weight given to the background color.

 

It is definitely possible to achieve correct looking output in this situation, and we know that other programs are already doing so, such as Ai.

 

What I am looking for is someone within the Designer team to address this concern to.  If this is the wrong channel for that, I'd appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lionel Seidman said:

 

I understand that anti-aliasing is being applied as we convert vector data into raster data, but what I am saying is that the way in which the anti-aliasing is being applied is creating faulty output in which the background color is improperly bleeding through.

 

Let's suppose we have a pixel that is exactly on the seam between two objects.  One way to render that pixel would be to draw object number one using anti-aliasing (giving us a 50/50 mix of the object color and the background color) and then to draw object number two using anti-aliasing, giving us a 50/25/25 mix of objects 2, 1, and the background color.  This appears to be the way Designer is doing things right now, and as you can see this gives us the wrong result!  The final color for this pixel should be a 50/50 mix of the color in objects 1 and 2, with no weight given to the background color.

 

It is definitely possible to achieve correct looking output in this situation, and we know that other programs are already doing so, such as Ai.

 

What I am looking for is someone within the Designer team to address this concern to.  If this is the wrong channel for that, I'd appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction.

 

All vector applications including Ai have traditionally produced raster data in the same way. It does look like Ai now does edge anti-aliasing differently. I'm not sure how recent the change in Ai was but I also noticed the quality of their anti-aliasing is now not as good. 

 

We can visit this again in the future but at the moment this is how we and all other vector applications render edges for off pixel boundaries.  We will have to experiment but it does look like we will lose some quality though.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TonyB Thanks for the informative reply.

 

If you do go down the multisampling route, you should be able to get pretty good quality anti-aliasing by using 8x multisampling (i.e. 64 samples per pixel) or higher.  The downside there would be potentially slower performance during image exporting, but if the user wants high-quality exports I think they'll be willing to wait a couple of seconds.  It would be nice to have that option, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly @Lionel Seidman, what concerns us is more the exported result, not how it looks in the editor (it would be good, that it looked nice there too, without transparent seams). Please pick up this issue, and try to come up with a solution.


Branding, Identity Design, UI/UX Design.    |    https://whitex.design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing that in 2019, this issue still happens! Yes, when I export to EPS, it's fine but if I try to copy an element with those lines from AD to PS, they are still visible. This issue forces me to export first to EPS and them import into PS. With AI, this does not happens. It's insane the amount of lines that are visible sometimes. Please FIX IT!

Anotação 2019-10-09 022408.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.