Interpolation modes for layers

[rui_mac]

Each pixel layer should have an individual interpolation parameter so that each layer could be set to Nearest Neighbour, Bilinear or Bicubic (and, if possible, more advanced methods).

This way, different interpolation modes could be defined for each layer, as its size changes, or is deformed.
Sometimes, "softer" modes are required. And, sometimes, a more "pixelated" version is required.

This should be a parameter for all pixel objects, in Designer, Photo and Publish.

[Steps]

Not sure if my problem relates to that, but if so I'm in.

 

[rui_mac]

Although my suggestion is not for that specific problem, I do think that it could help, somehow.
Having more control in how each layer is displayed/rasterized/deformed is always good.

[Pšenda]

2 hours ago, rui_mac said:

more control in how each layer is displayed/rasterized/deformed

And what to set DPI for each layer? :-)

[Steps]

2 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

And what to set DPI for each layer? :-)

You are crazy suggesting that. 

No, no, no... i did not read that.

[Medical Officer Bones]

If this is implemented, those layer properties must also include an anti-aliasing on/off option. I've worked with many image editors, and the only one I am aware of that offers this level of control on a per-layer basis is PhotoLine. Would be nice to have in Affinity as well.

@Steps Psenda's suggestion is not as crazy as it sounds. Pure black and white (monochrome) images, for example, should be printed at 800~1200dpi, so a document could consist of layers with varying resolutions. Unfortunately none of the Affinity products support monochrome bitmaps at this point. Another reason why a layer setting for PPI would be handy is when a lower resolution image is imported at (for example) 72ppi (based on its PPI parameter) and by quickly changing the PPI layer setting to 300ppi its size is automatically set to the exact resolution required for 300dpi print.

Some layout and image editing applications actually have this an an option for objects to simplify the workflow.

[Steps]

I do not quite understand.

My images have 300 DPI set in metadata and my documents usually 301 DPI per printers request.

I can read from the "placed DPI" information everything I need.

Mixing different document DPI in one file sounds like a mess. So I took it as a joke.

[Steps]

From the discussion with @Medical Officer Bones on the linked thread I strongly believe we need this as we have currently no control over the rasterisation process.

[Medical Officer Bones]

1 hour ago, Steps said:

I do not quite understand.

My images have 300 DPI set in metadata and my documents usually 301 DPI per printers request.

I can read from the "placed DPI" information everything I need.

Mixing different document DPI in one file sounds like a mess. So I took it as a joke.

It depends on the print job. Not all print jobs rely on only 300ppi images: for example, I print comics, and the line art is imported as a monochrome bitmap (tiff) at 1200ppi, and then overprinted on top of 300ppi colour work.

You'd expect the black and white art to be printed at an image setters native resolution (double that 1200ppi, just about), but paper of course sucks up that ink, and it will not hold that sharpness. So with this type of printing comic publishers tend to stick to 800~1200ppi for line work.