Jump to content
JayH

Image Tearing, Lag on Roation

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I've noticed some lag and image tearing (if that is the term) when an image is rotated. Blocks of the image are rendered on screen in sections, usually more than one. This happens with small, or large resolution images - larger one's are more obvious. Sizes from 1000 pixels upward.

My PC is no slouch, Windows 10, Core i5, 8GB, Nvidia Geforce 750ti 2GB. I don't get this issue with Photoshop, or any other image editing software.

I've included a screen grab to demonstrate. Usually there are more blocks making up the image as it is rotated.

To reproduce. Open an image, deselect the base layers lock and rotate the image manually.

Images are totally smooth in Photoshop, ArtRage, Clip Paint Studio, Rebelle when rotated etc.

Thanks, Jay.

Capture-lag-tear.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually after having more of a play around, I've noticed that lag/screen update is an issue for most things. Even picking up some smaller object and moving them around quickly causes tearing and lag. But, I hate the term, on other software I use things are "buttery smooth".

Jay.

Capture-tearing again.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey JayH,

 

This is just how our renderer works. It renders all the tiles and draws them to the screen. 

Doing it this way allows quick and accurate rendering of the document. In some other apps, you might not see this but instead the entire image might take a second to render itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

I'm not sure you really understand the issue fully. Sadly the screen refresh isn't updated quickly, it is slow, not "quick" - otherwise, these artifacts wouldn't display. I don't know what you mean about "accurate" - whether slow or fast you'd expect things to be accurate in all software. Other editors I use don't jerk or lag around, they update smoothly, there's no flicker and the images don't break up on screen like Affinity Photo, as my screen-grabs show.

I could understand this if I was moving images that were A4 at 300 dpi perhaps to some extent, but regular desktop resolutions at 72 dpi this is strange and not typical.

Possibly there is some missing optimisation with your rendering engine if this is the case?

If it's not a bug, and this method you use does things differently to other software, can you explain the benefit please? Because even next to quite basic Open Source software the lag is quite obvious.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jay,

 

Are you able to take a screen recording? It definitely shouldn't appear slow. Make sure you aren't using WARP from the Performance section in Preferences. 

To compare, I just opened a 40 mp image in Affinity Photo and PS and changed the DPI to 300. Rotating the image in Affinity displays the square rendering tiles but the rotation is quick and smooth. Doing the same in PS, the image was lagging considerably, it also took much longer to open in PS.

I don't think we care if the image is big or small, the rendering tiles will generally always display this behaviour. You will find  numerous posts on the forum with replies from developers who will tell you this is by design. However, it isn't by design if you're getting considerable lag and inaccuracies whilst trying to place an object or image, this is why I requested the screen recording. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is Chris is that, yes AP is able to move things around quickly, but when you do, the whole image or object breaks up. I'd prefer a slight lag and keep things intact personally - it looks better. I don't have any accuracy issues on any software - I still don't get that last point, sorry.

I'm using a freshly installed SSD drive for my OS, so things should be quick with opening Affinity vs Photoshop, but sadly this as I've reported in other posts isn't the case for me. Loading times of Affinity Photo has been a contentious issue for me on multiple PCs and setups since its release. CS6 has always blown Affinity out of the water. I tried CC 2018 this last week, and CC is a lot slower, but still quicker than AP. This seems to be affecting many users, but nobody seems to be taking note of this.

I would expect that screen recording software would slow down the rendering, so it probably wouldn't give an accurate result at all.

I'm not using "WARP" in he preferences, I'm using my Nvidia Graphics Card (Nvidia Geforce 750ti 2GB).

If the method used to render is by design, then maybe the developers should try an alternative method, because clearly this isn't very good at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, JayH said:

I'd prefer a slight lag and keep things intact personally - it looks better. I don't have any accuracy issues on any software - I still don't get that last point, sorry.

I guess this will very much come down to personal preference. Some users would prefer speed and accuracy of placing objects over getting a slight lag. What I'm trying to say is, if you've got a large image and you're getting lag, it will be harder to place the image where you want it.

 

10 minutes ago, JayH said:

I'm using a freshly installed SSD drive for my OS, so things should be quick with opening Affinity vs Photoshop, but sadly this as I've reported in other posts isn't the case for me. Loading times of Affinity Photo has been a contentious issue for me on multiple PCs and setups since its release.

Is this general opening of standard images or raw images? Photoshop will open raw images quicker, because it opens a preview of the image in Camera Raw. We actually open the raw image itself. Standard images should be just as quick, if not quicker to open—but this can be a mixed bag.

There is a known issue at the moment wherein trying to open multiple images at once will either take a long time or won't open at all but this has been fixed in the current beta.

 

11 minutes ago, JayH said:

I would expect that screen recording software would slow down the rendering, so it probably wouldn't give an accurate result at all.

You are probably right but I just wanted to get an idea of general performance. As you mentioned above, it's quick but you can't get on with the rendering tiles.
 

12 minutes ago, JayH said:

If the method used to render is by design, then maybe the developers should try an alternative method, because clearly this isn't very good at the moment.

Again, I think this comes down to personal preference or opinion. I personally much prefer how we do it compared to how I've seen it in other apps. I appreciate it doesn't look the best but it's quick and doesn't affect the overall outcome of what you are producing. I also appreciate your opinion too.

Please don't feel like I'm trying to argue with you or be defensive as this certainly isn't how I mean to come across. We take everyone's opinions on board and care a great deal about the feedback. I'm just trying to explain what has been said in the past, by the development team and the people who support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

I don't expect one humble user is going to be able to change the way things work in AP, especially the core of a rendering engine. I know it's not a democracy, users can only suggest things or point out things they consider bugs if they find it odd, especially when compared to other software. Considering most users compare AP as an aspiring Photoshop type pro image editor - you have to use that as a benchmark. But I'm also including other software too here when it comes to refresh rate when moving things around.

I've heard the usual vibe, Photoshop has been around forever and should be better. But I've also heard the view that AP is new code and is optimised from the ground up. So I don't know which way think.

I have Photoshop CS6 opened and can move an entire 10MB 5000+ pixel 72dpi file around in a circular motion. There is no tearing, the image stays intact and for all intent purposes there is no obvious lag. I don't have any issues with placing the image, or accuracy - perfect.

I do the same with AP and the image falls apart as I move it around into blocks messily. I don't see any difference in speed. Only that it looks a lot worse quality wise. I think if the speed is the same, then most users would prefer to not see the item tear and break up. If you had this happen in a game, gamers would go nuts!

I've been working with Photoshop since 1996 I think - so I'm reasonably clued up on technical issues with software I think. I also don't mean any offense and am merely trying to point out that AP seems slow with it's screen refresh for whatever reason sadly.

 

Opening Times for Affinity Photo vs Adobe Photoshop CS6:

(Newly installed SSD Drive with Windows 10)

Affinity Photo opens in 23 seconds from a fresh re-boot with no image loaded.

Photoshop CS6 opens in 7 seconds from a fresh re-boot with no image loaded.

This was a lot worse with a mechanical hard drive, times for AP were in the region of 30 seconds, whilst PS CS6 was around 15 seconds.

With opening images there is a noticeable difference between the two programs, but no enough to care about, at least for me. AP is always half as slow as Photoshop.

For me it's the loading times that are the most significant. I don't shoot RAW at the moment, so I can't comment on that.

 

Some of the issues I have must be more prominent for users with slower PCs/laptops. But I've seen posts here with other users with much better setups than me and still have similar issues.

 

 

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.