Skip navigation
A Body
Currently Being Moderated

I found a snap to pixel grid bug and it is super annoying.

Jul 2, 2012 3:37 PM

Tags: #vector #grid #snap #photoshop_cs6

Hi everyone,

 

I just upgraded from Creative Suite 5.5 to 6 (on Mac) and I've found a bug.

 

When pasting a text smart object from Illustrator to Photoshop, pixel grid snapping stays on no matter what and it is impossible to nudge the object effectively.

 

My "Snap Vector Tools and Transforms to Pixel Grid" and "Align Edges" preferences are both off.

 

Here is a file demonstrating the problem.

 

http://www.sendspace.com/file/8bdxcf

 

One of the objects in this file is an outline from Illustrator and the other is text from Illustrator.

 

You'll notice that only the outline object can be moved, say, 0.3 pixels to the left.

 

If you try to move the text object, it will just throw certain letters 1 pixel over.

 

I hope Adobe can fix this because sub-pixel precision is darned important with on-screen text.

 

Thanks.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 3, 2012 12:27 AM   in reply to A Body

    You'll notice that only the outline object can be moved, say, 0.3 pixels to the left.

    Well, I don’t notice that.

     

    And how is this supposed to be a bug?

    The way I see it Paths can be moved less than one pixel, pixel content can’t.

    Placed Smart Objects are pixel content even if they contain Vector data.

    Edit: That refers to moving with the Move Tool, Transformations are different.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 3, 2012 12:03 AM   in reply to A Body

    Also this is a user to user Forum, bug reports are supposed to go over on

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 3, 2012 1:00 AM   in reply to A Body

    Ah, I see what you mean now, when Transforming the SO in one or two direction less than a half pixel the type’s resulting rendering does not change even though the SO’s coordinates are now different.

    And furthermore if the SO contains non-text vector content that will reflect those transformations while the text seems unaffected.

    (You using the term »move« instead of referring to a ransformation lead to my misunderstanding.)

    typeRasterizationInSmartObject.jpg

     

    I guess that the PDF rasterization team’s choice on this might qualify as unexpected bahviour indeed.

    Edit: Though as far as I understand it might also be a property of pdf that they have no influence over …

     

    Another edit:

    One work-around might be applying Effect > Path > Outline Object in Illustrator – the text stays editable but the SO will reflect Transformation with sub-pixel offsets.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 3, 2012 2:03 AM   in reply to A Body

    My guess: text is on purpose synchronized with pixel grids,

    in order to guarantee good visual appearance.

     

    In PostScript, vectors can be stroke-adjusted as well

    (true/false setstrokeadjust) which is very helpful for thin grids

    - vertical and horizontal lines have everywhere the same width.

     

    Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

     

    An interesting interview with John Warnock, Adobe Co-founder:

    (bold by me)

     

    http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2418

     

    "The second [technological development] was the font problem.

     

    The highest resolution printers at that time were 300 spots to the inch. If you represented characters as outlines the obvious [way], the fonts looked terrible. The sampling artifacts [the side effects of digitization] were horrendous. We knew that no publication or office environment would live with that.

     

    We had to solve the font problem. [Stanford University computer scientist] Don Knuth worked on it for years and years and years, trying to get good looking fonts for TeX [digital typesetting software] and he never succeeded.

     

    I had a sort of backward idea of how to do it. If you put down the outline of the character [on a low resolution device] the rasters [the lines the device is able to render] don't line up -- you will get some staffs that are 2-pixels wide and some that are 3. It makes the fonts look horrible.

     

    The very simple idea is: Rather than figuring out what dots to turn on, you stretch the characters so that they line up with the rasters. So if you had the left side of the [letter] 'n' and the right side of the 'n' -- all you have to do is make sure that they are in phase with the frequency of the rasters and then cache that character. That guarantees that all the staffs are uniform thickness and all the x-heights hit at the right place. It turned awful looking fonts into incredible looking fonts."

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 3, 2012 3:41 AM   in reply to A Body

    Well, it seems peculiar; A Body, have you posted over at http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/ yet?

    Maybe one of the Adobe employees can elaborate on the reasoning behind it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,455 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 3, 2012 5:06 AM   in reply to c.pfaffenbichler

    c.pfaffenbichler wrote:

     

    have you posted over at http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/

     

    We get mixed signals from Adobe...  Chris Cox has said that if bugs are reported here they'll get seen.  Feature requests, however, seem to need popular support before they'll even be considered, which is what all the voting stuff is about over on photoshop.com.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 3, 2012 10:54 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Bug reports don't need to be repeated.

     

    The feedback site was intended for feature requests (but serves many purposes).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 3, 2012 11:17 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    OK, sorry for confusing the issue.

     

    Edit: Unlike for other Adobe applications it seems one cannot file a bug report for Photoshop on

    https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

    but is instead directed to

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 1:06 AM   in reply to A Body

    Yes, we do read both forums...

    (plus a few dozen others when time permits)

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points