Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Pick a brush size 4 px tap  ]  larger three times the brush is now 6.1 px why not 7? 

Tap  [   smaller three times size now 3.7 px.

WTF?

Why would it not be 4 px where it started?

How is this controlled? Can it be controlled?

Mac MacBook Pro 15 in.  OS X 10.9.5, Mid 2012 456.77 GB Affinity Design and Photo.

Posted

I thought I was the only one that this annoyed.   :)

 

Even going to Edit > Preferences > User Interface > 'Decimal Places for Unit Types', and setting it to 0 decimal places for pixels, the bracket keys still don't change brush size by 1 px every key press, therefore I have been unable to find a work-a-round so far.

 

So I too would be interested in knowing as well.

Posted
Works correct in 1.5.2.66 (Beta)

But, from 9, adding will increase by more than an integer !!!

Affinity Photo  2.3.1

Laptop MSI Prestige PS42
Windows 11 Home 23H2 (Build 22631.3007) - Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8565U CPU @ 1.80GHz   2.00 GHz - RAM 16,0 GB

 

 
Posted

 

Works correct in 1.5.2.66 (Beta)
But, from 9, adding will increase by more than an integer !!!

 

 

In Affinity Designer 1.5.3.66 beta on Windows, starting with a 4px brush and going up by four steps and then back down again gives me this sequence of pixel sizes: 4.6, 5.3, 6.1, 7, 5.9, 5, 4.3, 3.6.

Alfred spacer.png
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for Windows • Windows 10 Home/Pro
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for iPad • iPadOS 17.5.1 (iPad 7th gen)

Posted

If you start with a one-pixel brush, it's easy to see the sequence used, harder to figure out the reasoning behind it.

1 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 1.5 - 1.7 - 2  gives you a sequence of adding .1 - .2 - .3 - .4 but then it reverts to .3 to even out at 2 pixels. 

From 2 pixels to 4 changes the pattern a bit.  2 - 2.3 - 2.7 - 3.1 - 3.5 - 4 adds .3 - .4. - .4 - .4 then goes to .5 for an even 4 pixels.

 

Math was never my strong suit so I may be overlooking something obvious.

Posted

Looks like every step is + or - 15%

intel core i5,  16GB 128Gb ssd win10 Pro Huion new 1060plus.

philips 272p 2560x1440px on intel HD2500 onboard graphics

Razer Tartarus Chroma

Posted

Looks like every step is + or - 15%

 

That's what I thought when I saw the sequence 4, 4.6, 5.3, 6.1, 7, which is +15% each time. At first it didn't seem to explain the bigger steps on the way back down, but I can now see that 85% (i.e. 100% -15%) gives me the descending sequence 7, 5.9, 5, 4.3, 3.6 that I observed earlier.

Alfred spacer.png
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for Windows • Windows 10 Home/Pro
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for iPad • iPadOS 17.5.1 (iPad 7th gen)

Posted

on the way down it is also 15%. 

intel core i5,  16GB 128Gb ssd win10 Pro Huion new 1060plus.

philips 272p 2560x1440px on intel HD2500 onboard graphics

Razer Tartarus Chroma

Posted

On the way up, the size is increased by a factor of 115%, or 1.15. On the way down, a factor of 87% (i.e. 0.87, which is the inverse of 1.15) should be applied, but the factor actually applied is only 85%, so the sizes get too small.

Alfred spacer.png
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for Windows • Windows 10 Home/Pro
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for iPad • iPadOS 17.5.1 (iPad 7th gen)

Posted

on the way down, starting at 7, i get 5.95. 7-15%=5.95.  

intel core i5,  16GB 128Gb ssd win10 Pro Huion new 1060plus.

philips 272p 2560x1440px on intel HD2500 onboard graphics

Razer Tartarus Chroma

Posted

on the way down, starting at 7, i get 5.95. 7-15%=5.95.  

 

That's correct, but my point is that -15% is too much. Having gone up from 6.1 to 7 (i.e. +15%) you should come down from 7 to 6.1 (i.e. -13%).

Alfred spacer.png
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for Windows • Windows 10 Home/Pro
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for iPad • iPadOS 17.5.1 (iPad 7th gen)

Posted

That's correct, but my point is that -15% is too much. Having gone up from 6.1 to 7 (i.e. +15%) you should come down from 7 to 6.1 (i.e. -13%).

Good point ☺, guess i misread your other post.

intel core i5,  16GB 128Gb ssd win10 Pro Huion new 1060plus.

philips 272p 2560x1440px on intel HD2500 onboard graphics

Razer Tartarus Chroma

Posted

My calculator says the inverse of 1.15 is approximately 0.8695652174, so depending on the internal precision of the app & the number of steps applied, it is possible stepping up & then down may not ever return the size to exactly its original value.  stirthepot.gif

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.6 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
A
ll 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Posted

Affinity uses 20 decimal places internally (as referenced here. Sorry for the out of context quote MEB, but its seems like a straightforward

fact wherever it's placed).

 

It should be perfect going up and down. They're just using the wrong formula!

 

I love numbers... This reminds me of the very simple investing adage. If you lose 50% value in something what return do you need to get back to where you started? Most people quickly answer "50%!!", when, of course, the answer is 100%. 

Posted

It should be perfect going up and down.

I am not sure there really is any practical reason it should be "perfect" in this way, but if that is what users want, what formula or algorithm do you think would do that?

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.6 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
A
ll 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Posted

I have no idea what algorithm would be needed but the practical use for it being "perfect" would be to accurately return to a line that you wanted to only briefly enlarge.

Posted

I have no idea what algorithm would be needed but the practical use for it being "perfect" would be to accurately return to a line that you wanted to only briefly enlarge.

I thought about that but I am not sure how practical it would be if you have tapped the increment/decrement key more than a few times, have to remember how many times you have done that, & be careful to tap the decrement/increment key exactly that same number of times to go back to the original value.

 

It seems to me it would usually be simpler to just remember the one initial value & reenter it in the field, or use a saved brush to choose among various commonly used brush sizes.

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.6 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
A
ll 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Posted

I agree that it would only be useful for small changes of a few taps.  And I'm not sure that it would be needed that often anyway.  It does seem rather sloppy though that going back down the same number of steps won't return you to your starting place.

Posted

It is pretty much a non-issue for me since I almost always use the keys held down in repeat mode & just gauge the brush's effective size visually, taking into consideration how the hardness & other brush settings will contribute to that. That is inherently a rather sloppy, inexact process but it works for me.

 

When I care about accuracy (which is not that often) I usually set at least the size & hardness values directly in the Context toolbar. That way, I don't have to think about rounding errors like if my "12.7 px" brush is really 12.6777 px or some other value.

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.6 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
A
ll 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Posted

It does seem rather sloppy though that going back down the same number of steps won't return you to your starting place.

 

Yeah, and I see no point having the brush size to a fraction of a pixel either.  It reminds me of FOSS Linux software where they do things like make DPI to two decimal places just because they can.  Not sure why, but it drives me nuts.

Posted

Yeah, and I see no point having the brush size to a fraction of a pixel either.

Not even if you consider hardness or any other brush setting that might cause brush size to work on other than whole pixel boundaries?

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.6 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
A
ll 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Posted

Not even if you consider hardness or any other brush setting that might cause brush size to work on other than whole pixel boundaries?

 

It can do what it wants behind the scenes.  I would just rather select a 5px brush.  Then pressing the bracket key moves it to a 6px brush, then the other bracket key moves it back down to a 5px brush again.  I don't see the use of it showing a 5.3px brush.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | 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.