I don't fully understand clip canvas/unclip canvas

[zackw]

I sometimes want to crop my canvas down to the size I need, but Affinity keeps/remembers the original size of things like photos.

I don't have an option to destroy the photo or basically force the crop to remove "outside" content it seems. 

If I try to use clip canvas OR unclip canvas, it does the same thing. It just grows the canvas up to the size of whatever object/layer/image has content outside the visible canvas area.

What I want to do is the opposite, I want it to destroy all the content outside of the visible canvas. For whatever reason, I don't need the extra content, I don't want it taking up space in my file size, etc. When I go to crop my canvas, I want all the data outside that crop to be gone. One use-case for this is copying just a part of an image, such as a texture. Say I download a texture and it's 1024x1024 pixels. I will resize this and then crop it to the part I need. Everything "looks" good on the canvas, so I ctrl-c the layer and ctrl-v into the other doc. However, I don't get the part I need, I get the entire image again, rather than the cropped out part, because Affinity saved the off-canvas data. So the only way I can properly copy the part I need is to do a selection first. But this is extra work. I just want to copy the layer and paste somewhere else, without getting all the extra data that I thought was cropped out.

I was thinking clipping the canvas or unclipping it would somehow do this. But it doesn't, both those options do the same thing.

Anyway, the question is, what's the easiest way to do a crop and not maintain any content whatsoever outside the crop area if I don't want it?

And what exactly are the clip and unclip canvas options, since they both seem to do the same thing?

Thanks!

[walt.farrell]

22 minutes ago, zackw said:

I don't have an option to destroy the photo or basically force the crop to remove "outside" content it seems. 

Yes, you do. Layer > Rasterize & Trim... from the menu, or right-click the layer in the Layers panel and choose Rasterize & Trim... from the Context Menu.

23 minutes ago, zackw said:

And what exactly are the clip and unclip canvas options, since they both seem to do the same thing?

That's an excellent question, and one that I can't help with, because every time I think I understand it I find myself wrong.

I think that Clip Canvas is supposed to make the canvas just large enough (often that means shrinking it, but not always) to hold all the current pixel data. But, as you say, Clip and Unclip often seem to do the same thing, and I don't know what case would demonstrate them doing something different.

[Pšenda]

2 hours ago, zackw said:

what exactly are the clip and unclip canvas

 

 

[zackw]

On 10/9/2019 at 12:23 PM, walt.farrell said:

Yes, you do. Layer > Rasterize & Trim... from the menu, or right-click the layer in the Layers panel and choose Rasterize & Trim... from the Context Menu.

Brilliant, I kind of assumed the ability existed somewhere, not sure how I missed it.

 

The only issue with this, for me, would be that I have to do it layer-by-layer over and over. If I have an image composed of lots of images, I would still want an option to basically crop my canvas and destroy all the off-canvas data at once, rather than go through every layer one by one.

[zackw]

As for the clip and unclip canvas tools, I understand how they work now, but they still end up doing the same thing.

Clip canvas removes unused canvas down to object boundaries.

Unclip canvas grows canvas to object boundaries.

The problem is this, when you use clip canvas, and there are objects outside the canvas bounds, it grows the canvas just like unclip would.
But if you use unclip canvas, it won't shrink the canvas like clip does, no matter what.

This half-overlapping behavior is confusing and probably shouldn't be the case. Here is what I would expect from these tools:

1) Clip canvas will only ever shrink a canvas, because that's what it does, never the reverse.

2) Unclip canvas will only ever grow a canvas, because that's what it does, never the reverse.

#2 is actually true, but not #1. The behavior overlaps with unclip and often create unintended consequences. The point of using clip canvas is to shrink the canvas if it needs it, but if your canvas randomly grows instead, that may be entirely what you don't want and weren't expecting.

[Alfred]

31 minutes ago, zackw said:

The problem is this, when you use clip canvas, and there are objects outside the canvas bounds, it grows the canvas just like unclip would.
But if you use unclip canvas, it won't shrink the canvas like clip does, no matter what.

 

[carl123]

@zackw

If you stop using the word "shrink"  it may make more sense

Clip Canvas's primary function is to resize the canvas to the smallest possible size to hold all your objects

If you have objects that are outside the current canvas then Clip Canvas will still take them into account whilst performing its primary function

[zackw]

9 minutes ago, carl123 said:

If you stop using the word "shrink"  it may make more sense

Clip Canvas's primary function is to resize the canvas to the smallest possible size to hold all your objects

If you have objects that are outside the current canvas then Clip Canvas will still take them into account whilst performing its primary function

That's all fine and dandy, but creates confusing between the two tools.

The very word "clip" assumes something is being cut off or reduced or hidden. By using the word "clip" but then making a feature that is effectively "resize", the language is incorrect.

In every graphics tool I've ever used, to "clip" something is to reduce its size or hide parts of it.

Obviously this is splitting hairs, but I don't think clip canvas should be increasing the size of the canvas, that's the purpose of the unclip tool.

Or, just change the language to make more sense. This isn't clipping the canvas, it's resizing the canvas to the max object bounds. Perhaps "Auto-resize Canvas" is a better wording, or some such.

[carl123]

13 hours ago, zackw said:

The very word "clip" assumes something is being cut off or reduced or hidden

Not always, you have become singularly focused on the fact that "to clip" something will always end up with a smaller result

But clipping as a verb can have different meanings, most of them will result in something becoming smaller but the act of clipping can in some cases make the end result larger

Such as clipping a bunch of (paper) documents together will make the final bunch bigger - never smaller

Or clipping small shapes together will make the final shape bigger - never smaller 

It's the same with Clip Canvas, 95% of the time in normal use it will make the canvas smaller but there will always be anomalous conditions regarding a layed out design that can and will make the canvas larger.

 

[Alfred]

15 hours ago, zackw said:

Obviously this is splitting hairs

 

1 hour ago, carl123 said:

But clipping as a verb can have different meanings

Clipping will give you small pieces of hair, but it will never split them. 

[zackw]

9 hours ago, carl123 said:

Not always, you have become singularly focused on the fact that "to clip" something will always end up with a smaller result

But clipping as a verb can have different meanings, most of them will result in something becoming smaller but the act of clipping can in some cases make the end result larger

Such as clipping a bunch of (paper) documents together will make the final bunch bigger - never smaller

Or clipping small shapes together will make the final shape bigger - never smaller 

It's the same with Clip Canvas, 95% of the time in normal use it will make the canvas smaller but there will always be anomalous conditions regarding a layed out design that can and will make the canvas larger.

 

 

 

I don't agree at all. Clip, as a verb, is to remove things. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/clip

I don't know how or where you found that sample question but it reads completely bizarre just on the face of it. "Clip these together"?? That isn't even normal language. Who talks like that?!

Anyway, it isn't the use of the word 'clip' that is the main issue, it's just that Affinity gives us TWO tools, one to clip the canvas smaller, and one to grow it. Since we have a "make smaller" tool and a "make larger" tool, it doesn't make sense that the "make smaller" tool changes its behavior and becomes the same as the "make larger" tool just because some objects are out of canvas bounds.

A quick CTRL-Z fixes it when it happens, but the point of using the clip canvas tool is to "make the canvas smaller if available to do so". Not "make the canvas smaller if avail.... WHOOPS NO LETS GROW IT INSTEAD YEAHHHH!".

Maybe I'm alone in this 

[firstdefence]

@zackw You are not alone Padawan  I see the understanding of the clip is strong within you. 

[Old Bruce]

4 hours ago, zackw said:

"Clip these together"?? That isn't even normal language. Who talks like that?!

I do, when I have a paper clip handy.

Don't get me started on cleave though. Or Flammable vs Inflammable.

Having said that I do think that Photo's ability to use Document > Clip Canvas / Document > Unclip Canvas is a rather like a solution in search of a problem. I don't know what it does so I leave it alone.

[zackw]

1 hour ago, Old Bruce said:

Having said that I do think that Photo's ability to use Document > Clip Canvas / Document > Unclip Canvas is a rather like a solution in search of a problem. I don't know what it does so I leave it alone.

 

They are very handy, and make a lot more sense to me now.

But what we need now is a "clip to crop" command that destroys everything off-canvas at once. At least, everything rasterized at the least. I can understand parts of vectors or shapes go off canvas if those parts have to remain intact.

[R C-R]

16 hours ago, zackw said:

I don't agree at all. Clip, as a verb, is to remove things. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/clip

See instead https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip or https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/clip or https://www.thefreedictionary.com/clip.

Or consider derivative noun terms like paper clip, tie clip, trouser (bicycle) clip, hair clip, cartridge clip, or clipboard; & the adjective clip-on.

[zackw]

6 hours ago, R C-R said:

See instead https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip or https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/clip or https://www.thefreedictionary.com/clip.

It would seem the overwhelming majority of definitions are that clipping as a verb is to remove or make smaller. I rest my case. Affinity, pay attention!

[R C-R]

4 hours ago, zackw said:

It would seem the overwhelming majority of definitions are that clipping as a verb is to remove or make smaller.

I have no idea why you think a majority of definitions somehow invalidates the others.

[zackw]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

I have no idea why you think a majority of definitions somehow invalidates the others.

I didn't say invalid, I'm saying use a majority, or more "common" way of speaking. After all, Affinity made up the word "unclip" exactly to refer to "growing" in contrast to "clip" which clearly is meant for "shrinking". But if "clip" means "eh, maybe grow, maybe shrink", then what is "unclip"? "Maybe not grow, maybe not shrink?" No, it only "maybe grows", but not the reverse.

I'm saying, keep the language clear. Rather than have a tool called "clip" which does either/or, it should be renamed "Fix Canvas" or something which more generically means it might grow or it might shrink.

When I have a document with lots of layers and objects and things, I don't always know offhand if any objects might happen to be out of bounds, but when I use clip canvas, I darn well ONLY mean, "let's shrink this canvas if it needs it."

Imagine having the words "right" and "left", but then someone says "right can also mean left, but left only means left". That's how I view this.

[R C-R]

12 minutes ago, zackw said:

After all, Affinity made up the word "unclip" ...

Nope. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unclip. First known use of unclip was in 1874.