Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Snap to pixel grid is not perfect

May 18, 2010 12:45 AM

Dear Adobe,

 

Thank you for making things snap to the pixel grid and in return destroying the ability to align things and rendering the pathfinder tools useless

 

Try this:

  • New Document for Web (with Align New Objects to Pixel Grid on)
  • Draw a perfect rectangle
  • Draw a perfect ellipse
  • Using Align to Selection, try aligning the rectangle and the ellipse to their top-left corner
  • Zoom in as far as possible, note that the paths are NOT aligned...

 

Even try manually aligning the two paths by their X and Y co-ordinates, and you will see they snap back 0.5px

Repeat the above steps with  Align New Objects to Pixel Grid off, and see how things use to actually align...

 

While I do understand you have done this to try to create pixel-perfect graphics, there has to be another way..

Back in CS4, I had a work-around for the pixel-perfect problem. It involved applying a graphic style with a transform properties of -0.5, -0.5 to individual paths or groups. The reason this worked was that it did not affect the actual co-ordinates of the path and allowed me to snap my paths to whatever I wanted..

 

Adobe, please fix this..

Screen shot 2010-05-18 at 17.22.04.png

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 18, 2010 11:47 AM   in reply to sally_em

    And your point exactly? You can turn of the grid at any point, can you not?

     

    Mylenium

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 18, 2010 1:29 PM   in reply to sally_em

    What is it that you want Adobe to fix?

    If you don't want this behavior, you can turn it off. In the New Document dialog, go to Advanced and uncheck "Align to Pixel Grid".

    If you are already working on a document, go to the Transform panel and you'll find the same setting available for selected objects. There is also a flyout menu on the Transform panel that determines whether this setting will be on or off for newly created objects.

     

    Your old CS4 method should still work.

     

    btw, the reason you are seeing this behavior is that Align to Pixel Grid only adjusts vertical or horizontal segments of paths. In your example it is adjusting the rectangle but not the ellipse.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 20, 2010 4:05 PM   in reply to sally_em

    Thank you for pointing this problem out. I've had the same problem with alignment and snap. It is a most serious problem. After days and nights trying to solve it with no success, and no sleep, my thoughts and feelings alternated between never using Illustrator again and suicide or both. Deadline for a school project is getting too close, and my time is almost out, due to no warning signs of horrible changes in CS5. When points, lines and shapes never snap in place or align, Illustrator becomes entirely useless and life has no meaning. There should have been warning signs and notifications, printed on the software package, and in the booklet and everywhere, and still this new feature sucks. Why make it default with no warning? Does Adobe want to force its users into suicide? This is more dangerous than one may think. Otherwise Illustrator is so perfect and makes life very meaningful indeed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 11, 2010 6:17 AM   in reply to Śāśwata

    Hi

     

    I have started getting the same problem, it has only recently appeared as it has worked until say 2 weeks ago!

     

    I have switched off the alignment option in Transform panel and set up a new document and switched it off in Advanced options... still does it... it is making Illustrator unusable for most of my use!!

     

    D

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 11, 2010 8:56 AM   in reply to Dek

    You need to switch this off in 3 places:

    1. For new documents in the New Document dialog.

    2. For new artwork in the flyout menu on the Transform panel.

    3. For existing artwork in the checkbox on the transform panel.

     

    Also not that if you copy artwork from one document to another, it may bring the setting with it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2010 1:50 AM   in reply to sally_em

    I too hate this new feature. I can see that it's easy enough to turn off for a new document, but if you're already working on a file, as far as I can tell, every time you draw a new object, you have to uncheck the 'align to pixel grid' box in the transform panel. I find myself going backwards and forwards to the Transform box all the time to keep unchecking it, as there doesn't seem to be any ability to change the default setting in an existing document. If anyone knows a way to change the default setting in an existing document, I would love to know.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2010 9:35 AM   in reply to lizmint

    See Nr. 2 in the post from davidmacy above your post.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2010 10:56 AM   in reply to Monika Gause

    Ahhh, thank you. I missed the bit about the flyout menu on the Transform panel. I've got the hang of it now.

     

    Liz

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2010 1:27 PM   in reply to sally_em

    I just wasted two hours at work with this problem.

    Glad to find the answers in all the replies.

    I like the Snap to Pixel feature. But there are times I need it off.

    And once again Adobe HIDES important stuff in places you'd never think to look.

    Anyway, thanks for answering this guy's problem, helped me out too. But it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 17, 2010 8:13 AM   in reply to sally_em

    I keep it turned off as my default.  But I do want to point out that it's a big help when you're working with text to keep the text as sharp as possible.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 17, 2010 10:05 AM   in reply to Rodieck

    If I'm working on a design destined for web, I leave it on. It's a good, good thing.

    But it's RIDICULOUS that the controls for it are in Preferences and the Transform Panel.

    These controls should be in the View Menu like everything else.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 24, 2010 8:19 AM   in reply to sally_em

    As I understand it is not possible to align the pixel grid with the normal grid? In my document they do not coincide.

     

    Regards,

    F

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 11:08 AM   in reply to sally_em

    It is truly horrible.

     

    The controls to shut this off should be in a very consistent and obvious location. It took nearly a month of being convinced that CS6 was buggy before one of the designers here figured out what the heck was going on. I even called in the aid of a licensed adobe instructor and he was also convinced it was a bug, after looking at the view dropdown and not seeing any snap settings checked.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 11:15 AM   in reply to sally_em

    is there no way to shut this off globally so that it never ever happens?  I don't want to have to worry about shapes that i paste from other documents possibly bringing that setting with them.

     

    I basically want to be able to disable this once and never have to think about it again. Can i do this?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 12:24 PM   in reply to SeventhSwami

    Edit the new document profiles so they don't contain that setting.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 9:26 AM   in reply to davidmacy

    Your comment that it adjusts only vertical and horizontal path segments so helps me understand why my logo's jagged edges aren't smoothed by this tool.  Any suggestion on how to accomplish that? My logo is all diagonal curves.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 9:32 AM   in reply to Babington.co

    Show us that problem. You cannot expect the curves in a 72 ppi web logo to be smooth - but show us.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 9:42 AM   in reply to Monika Gause

    Thanks Monika! The first is png 24 after Save to Web. Guess I can't attach an Ai file.

     

    B-Logo-Purples-SFW.010212.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 9:56 AM   in reply to Babington.co

    You can upload the AI file to dropbox.com and provide a link if necessary.

     

    Your screen shot is at such a small size it isn't really able to show what you are seeing. Also, because of the lighbox software that loads your PNG file uses a black background, the blue is difficult to see anyway. Try a JPG or otherwise not a transparent PNG.

     

    Mike

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 10:27 AM   in reply to Babington.co

    If you export in that size this is about what you can expect.

     

    You could try a different anti-aliasing setting (type optimized vs. art optimized).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 10:28 AM   in reply to MW Design

    Sorry for the delay and thanks Mike and Monika. Here's the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o9ergi4c47qyng5/Babington%20Logo%20B%26W.ai

    This version is the B&W Ai file and a bit bigger then the other. I made the other so tiny in order to fit the Twitter profile pic dimensions, so that none of the image is cropped out of view.

     

    One more note: This issue of course doesn't just apply to web use of my logo but of lots of assets drawn in Ai to use in Muse. So I need to understand this. Thanks!!!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 10:34 AM   in reply to Monika Gause

    Thanks Monika - but just tried your suggestion and it doesn't make a difference.

    As for size, the one I uploaded to DropBox for you to see is 2" x 3.5" .  I also don't understand the size issue. I would think smaller = less pixelated. But I just continue to demonstrate that I'm still a digital dufus.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 10:44 AM   in reply to Babington.co

    What do you use in Muse? PNG or SVG?

     

    When your image is drawn on screen it needs to be rasterized at some stage in the process. When creating PNG you rasterize. When working with SVG, the system rasterizes them when displaying on the monitor.

     

    But in any case you cannot expect them to be smooth in the size. Your monitor will always display them as pixels.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 10:58 AM   in reply to Monika Gause

    I understand that monitors always display in pixels.

     

    Simply, what I'm wanting to understand is best practice to make web graphics, png or jpg at this point, minimally pixelated. Learned above that Align to Pixel grid only works for H & V; want to understand how best to handle curves and diagonals.

     

    As for your comment, "But in any case you cannot expect them to be smooth in the size.", what do you mean by "the size"? If you meant at my small size, what size will make them smoothest?

     

    Am I to conclude there's nothing I can do to avoid the horrible pixelation I see when I turn on View as Pixels?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 11:02 AM   in reply to Babington.co

    Because of the thin seperation in the vertical portions, I think you will not get a good anti-aliasing effect straight from AI. So in these instances, I use both AI and an image editor.

     

    I exported the attached at 300 dpi. Loaded it into the image editor and changed the dimensions to 180 pixels because that is what your image is. I don't resample nor alter the DPI value because DPI means nothing on the web, only pixel dimensions matter on the web.

     

    It is as crispy as it needs to be I think for the purpose.

     

    Take care, Mike

    Babington Logo B&W.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 11:10 AM   in reply to MW Design

    Thanks so much Mike. I knew on a back burner of my mind that I had read in something like this in another forum - about tweaking in Ps. So that sounds like the practice I should adopt for web graphics created in Ai. Still don't understand the size issue but at least have a practice to work with as I create a bunch of assets for Muse, as well as post logos etc in Social Media. Thanks again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 11:14 AM   in reply to MW Design

    About your export solution: When exporting PNG, should I use Art Optimized? Should I use Interlaced?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 11:21 AM   in reply to Babington.co

    I use Art Optimized most of the time. But when in doubt, export out a few different ways to see the effect on a aprticular piece of art.

     

    Take care, Mike

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 11:22 AM   in reply to MW Design

    Sorry for these further questions about your solution, but here's a 3rd: When I change dimensions to 180 pixels in Ps, I can't turn off Resample without losing the changed dimension. So it seems I must resample with Bicubic Sharper algorithim. How'd you avoid resampling? 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 11:37 AM   in reply to Babington.co

    No worries. I misspoke. I haven't used PS since version 6...

     

    Use Bicubic. In scaling downward it is what I would use in PS. Just tried it in my old PS6 with the same result.

     

    Mike

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 11:41 AM   in reply to MW Design

    What image editor do you use?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 12:09 PM   in reply to Babington.co

    The image editor I use simply redefines the resampling to a different term...but it still is there. Which is why I said I mispoke. It is PhotoLine. A very dated interface.

     

    The two brothers involved have been around a very long time and actively update and enhance it. There is a Mac version and for Windows both 32-bit and 64-bit get installed (mainly the 32-bit to maintain the use of 8bf filters). Cost-effective and does everything I need and more.

     

    As regards image editing proper, PS is and probably always will be tops. Especially when it comes to scripting and the add-ons one can purchase.

     

    Mike

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 9, 2013 12:14 PM   in reply to MW Design

    Cool. Take care Mike!

     
    |
    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