Features that Expression has that Xara should have

This is essentially just another wish list for discussion (arguably bad timing owing to the imminent release of Pro)…

Features that Expression has that Xara should have (in no order)
(videos: http://www.microsoft.com/products/ex...spx?v=gd_fluid)

1. Smart select: selects same colour region in a bitmap and that selection region can easily be adjusted (video: minutes 4 – 7 of third video). It would be great if this worked on vectors too, and also allowed you to create a vector shape from a selection of a bitmap image.
2. Skeletal stroking (video: 16:30 onwards of second video)
3. Variations feature (video: 2:50 – 6:30 of fourth video)
4. Warping feature (but more generally, an enhanced mould tool as mentioned here (video: 13:00 -16:30 of second video)
5. Advanced photo stitching (video: first 4 minutes of third video)
6. Irregular/arbitrarily shaped text boxes (work in progress already I believe) (video: 1:00 – 2:50 of fourth video).

Xara also has a number of their features (done better), such as live effects and bevels/feathering/shadows etc. Expression's effect lines feature is something that can be achieved in Xara with brushes (albeit with a bit more work).

I also don’t believe there is a need for the concept of pixel layers. Everything, including any pixel based operations, can be applied directly onto vector shapes/canvases – like Xeus did/live effects do.

"should have" that's going a bit further than I'd be willing to go. However, there are several features that expression has that I think would be an great addition to Xara. Expression has always had a very unique approach to vectors, with features that if put to use in a bit more logical way could be extremely powerful. Unfortunately I have tried using expression many times and the interface and disconnected work flow continually trips up the user. Expression is the program I wish I could love.

As for the features you mention...

1. Smart select:

I've never been much of a fan of extensive bitmap features inside Xara, so I'll have to disagree on this one. I would like to see the name gallery feature further enhanced to allow for easier selecting of objects based on color/fill/shape etc which would get us rather far down the "smart select" idea for vectors. However bitmap programs are always going to do a better job with bitmaps than Xara will and I'd just as soon keep the heavy pixel lifting in Photoshop or other bitmap program.

2. Stroking:

Couldn't agree more. Xara's stroke shape/profiles don't do it. They flirt with some powerful ideas but then don't deliver. The whole stroking concept within Expression is extremely powerful and unlike many of it's features fairly intuitive. I can only hope this is somewhere on the Xara future feature list.

3. Variations

Again, a great feature. Not as high on the list for me as stroking but this would really assist in creating complex backgrounds. I had this feature in mind when there was all the bickering going on with the alignment tool. I thought the discussion was centered on the wrong thing, simple button placement and not on expanding the features and capabilities ... with something like variations.

4. Warping:

Agreed. They do a better job with image warping than Xara does with the mould.

5. Advanced photo stitching:

Feh... can't agree here. Big pixel feature that wold be better implemented in a pixel pusher program.

6. Irregular/arbitrarily shaped text boxes:

I'm not sure that there is anyone who doesn't think this is an expected feature. Couldn't come too soon.

------------

Expression is a great set of features, but it's interface and workflow get in the way on a regular basis. This has kept it from ever becoming a great program. I would love for Xara to be influenced by some of these great features, without loosing the intuitiveness of the core program. I haven't always agreed with Xara's direction but they do seem to hold usability as one of their most important offerings. I'm sure they'll keep that in mind no matter what the future offerings are.

J

The wish list above is just supposed to be a selection of features Expression has that I feel would be particularly nice to see in Xara someday. And "should be in Xara" was meant to be read as "might be nice to see in Xara".

Additionally, while Xara's focus is vector capabilities, I don’t feel there’s a significant difference between image creation using pixels or vectors. A vector approach appears to be the way to proceed owing to editability advantages (including things such as local undos/history per object). The effects that pixel editors produce can conceivably be applied to any part of a vector object. Expression’s method of combining pixel effects is to rasterise a whole vector object by converting it to a pixel layer (object). This loses the vector editability. They offer semi-ways around this, as does Xara, by offering live effects which are applied to a whole object. These also produce a rasterised output of the whole vector object, but the advantage there is that the effect remains editable, and the pixilation resolution can be increased.

I could draw a similar wish list of features of Illustrator and even Photoshop that would make nice additions to Xara. Fore example, Photoshop’s vanishing point and healing feature being used to remove unwanted objects from photos (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/overview.html) is interesting.

I'm sure given infinite resources, Xara Xtreme could become something that caters for all vector, DTP and pixel editing requirements. However, with resources being finite, that’s not likely to happen in the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Skeesick

2. Stroking:

Couldn't agree more. Xara's stroke shape/profiles don't do it. They flirt with some powerful ideas but then don't deliver. The whole stroking concept within Expression is extremely powerful and unlike many of it's features fairly intuitive. I can only hope this is somewhere on the Xara future feature list.

J

---

Hi Joe - I'm going to have to disagree here. Xaras stroke profiles are fantastically useful once you get the hang of them. The big plus for me is that you can easily change the lines to fills and therefore export them to flash (or Ai). The way they work gives you perfect lines every time.
I have Expression and hardly ever use it. Their lines and strokes are fun to play with but not as versatile as those in Xara. In fact with my work I'd have to say that if Xara dropped the way it did stroke profiles I'd be very stuck indeed.

I was looking at lines to fills in Expression.

Xara does convert lines to shapes. In Expression, lines are lines, however, if you apply a vector stroke and unstructure, the result is very much the same. There is a similar method to add shapes and break shapes as well.

Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeaky

Their lines and strokes are fun to play with but not as versatile as those in Xara.

---

Xara is a far better product, but it does not support strokes as Expression does. Skeletal stroking in expression is to map a bitmap or vector group to a line.

Xaras brush engine is pretty good (more in depth tutorials are definately needed to get the most out of this). The option to apply the settings of this between brush strokes, instead of only within them, would make it almost the equivalent of expressions variations palette.

This feature (of Expression) is actually very useful for texturing, putting down layers of things like grass, fur, foliage in general and of course graphic elements, not to mention emulating real-world media, like water-colour, oils, pastels etc.

I use Expressions warp mesh a lot for applying patterns and textures to a surface to emulate depth and curvature.

As for the smart-select, this is similar to (but sometimes more accurate) than the magic wand. I'd love a magic wand in Xara or even a one click method of making all the spaces into objects, this would save a lot of repeated work, like going over lines again to get control over the enclosed spaces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkMyWords

Xaras brush engine is pretty good (more in depth tutorials are definately needed to get the most out of this).

---

This was written by me for this very purpose. Xara's brush tool is very versatile. Of course there's always room for improvement with anything, but for a first version, it's very rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkMyWords

The option to apply the settings of this between brush strokes, instead of only within them, would make it almost the equivalent of expressions variations palette.

---

True, but only for brushes. Expression's variations palette works for much more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkMyWords

As for the smart-select, this is similar to (but sometimes more accurate) than the magic wand.

---

The magic wand and smart select are similar but distinct. A magic wand selects all colours in an image within some tolerance, whereas the smart select tightens to a single region of similar colour. If an extension of this could be applied to vector objects as well, then a quick method of selecting (or producing a new shape from) objects within the boundary can be made. I can see a lot of time saving uses for such a feature.

LOL!

I wasn't criticising your post Xhris, just 'adding' my agreement and expanding on that.

Almost anything can be a brush, so the brush palette 'extra' option could cover most things that would benefit from variations, but as you say not all, smartshapes, fills, etc.

Nice brush tutorials. Thanks, I'll read them avidly.

I agree the magic wand and the smart selector aren't the same (as I pointed out), but close enough that including both would seem a little 'bloatish' to some. Either would be fine by me.

All of these come a long way behind Actions for me.

Many of the tools I want can be emulated with work-a-rounds (maybe not all those mentioned here) and with actions those can be made into one-click operations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeaky

Hi Joe - I'm going to have to disagree here. Xaras stroke profiles are fantastically useful once you get the hang of them. The big plus for me is that you can easily change the lines to fills and therefore export them to flash (or Ai). The way they work gives you perfect lines every time.
I have Expression and hardly ever use it. Their lines and strokes are fun to play with but not as versatile as those in Xara. In fact with my work I'd have to say that if Xara dropped the way it did stroke profiles I'd be very stuck indeed.

---

Ah, but that's not an issue of how Xara deals with strokes as much as it is that it has the ability to easily convert them to shapes. That feature I would agree is very important. (I convert from Xara to Flash as well) I would not want to see Xara loose any of it's current ability in gaining a more robust stroking capability.

-------------------

As for Xhris' line of "I don’t feel there’s a significant difference between image creation using pixels or vectors." I don't know how I could disagree more. It doesn't matter if we'd like for there to be no difference. There is a major technical chasm between the two approaches to graphics whether we like it or not.

J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkMyWords

I wasn't criticising your post Xhris, just 'adding' my agreement and expanding on that.

---

I know :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Skeesick

As for Xhris' line of "I don’t feel there’s a significant difference between image creation using pixels or vectors." I don't know how I could disagree more. It doesn't matter if we'd like for there to be no difference. There is a major technical chasm between the two approaches to graphics whether we like it or not.
J

---

I was referring to the implementation in a graphics program rather than the practical approach to creating art. Expression's approach is to make clear distinctions between pixel and vector methods. I'm thinking of new approaches to unifying the two. The Xeus plugin for example got me thinking. A (relatively simple compared to Photoshop) bitmap editor loaded and you drew on a vector object. When you closed, that object acquired the pixel editing. I imagine a situation where any object can become a canvas (that could extend beyond the object itself). Pixel based operations can be performed on that object, and the parts of it which have been pixel-edited are rasterised, whereas the rest of the object retains it's resolution independence. The image below perhaps illustrates my thinking. Live effects share some similarities to this, however the effects are applied to, and therefore pixelate the whole object as far as I've seen.

The effects may not necessarily even need to be pixelated. Take vector feathering for example; blurring the edge of a vector shape independently of resolution. If you wanted to blur only one edge of an object and had a vector blur tool analogous to a pixel based blur tool - why can't that be done? Tools that work on both vectors or bitmaps.

Xhris's original posting sums up my feelings succinctly.
I also wonder whether as a part way solution if it would be possible to add a position profile to the shape/pressure profile...
Tony

I, for one, agree that the ideal app would handle both vector and bitmap operations seamlessly. Charles Moir seems to agree: "We do have an integrated bitmap / photo editor, because in principle I don't believe you can or should separate the two worlds. Real users want to mix photos and vector artwork, and so it's simply more convenient to be able to do this directly from within your vector editor..."

Also, Microsoft seems to agree in that they have modified Expressions to handle both.

See this thread here for more: http://www.talkgraphics.com/showpost...39&postcount=6

I think vector graphics must be the way forward, but the 'big breakthrough' won't come until someone produces a vector program that makes it easy for bitmap artists to transfer their (hard-won) skills from bitmap to vector.

There is no doubting the quality and versatility (especially regarding resolution independence) of vector art. Xara have done an outstanding job in making vector tools easy and intuitive to use.

However the vast majority of illustrators and graphic artists (who work digitally) use bitmap software and until you give them a familiar set of tools and working environment, vector software will continue to be the poor relation.

The first program to really crack this problem will lead the way, maybe even take Photoshops crown.

Go ahead and do it by yourself and you will be a millionaire.

LOL!

I'm only farty artist and have no idea how software works, why should I need too?

Just making an observation Remi.

Expression's STROKE features that strike me the most are its ability to control the starting/ending/grouping/spacing variables. It is there that their strokes reproduce (almost) believable art media. Most Xara brushes are not very usable. My need for a string of butterflies is infrequent.

On the broader issue, Vector and Pixel based apps each have features that complement the other. Before long, a 'side-by-side' integrated approach will be developed, I am sure (rather like Xeus or Deep Paint as Plugins); vector and bitmap 'co-apps' that can exhange material. Xara's de-rasterizing (bitmap tracing) of complex full color material is poor except for special effect (see below).

I fully expect further cooperation between the open source GIMP and INKSCAPE teams. If POTRACE can be tweaked to include gradients and the two teams can produce software that runs as sleek and fast as XARA (still its overwhelming advantage, I think) and begin integrating now, the graphics world WILL be revolutionized.

Compare the images below: One is an original photo, one an INKSCAPE/POTRACE of that photo (20 passes) and one is a Xara trace, also 20 passes (not necessarily in the order given... i will leave you to guess). The manner in which Potrace returns it's image(s) is significant too. Xara produces its output in bits. Potrace in as many layers of individually colored, same sized layers. This makes manipulating them LOTS easier. All that needs to be done is to return OBJECTS as they were sent (as XP does, sorta) and integration would be complete (aside from such small matters as memory allocation, speed and such).

the day is coming... rejoice and be ye all of good cheer.

geo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoBen

Xara's de-rasterizing (bitmap tracing) of complex full color material is poor except for special effect (see below).

---

Hi Geo,

This is alas a common misconception based on unawareness. I offer the following tutorial which is also available on Xara Xone and the image below to prove that Xara's ten-year-old tracer is very good, and also comparable (and in some circumstances superior) to the recent attempt by Adobe in Illustrator CS2. The results of the tracer are better for larger bitmaps which provide more data to analyse.

oh my...

it would seem that I have once again trodden the toes of the true believer.

your argument (that Xara Trace can produce high quality representational traces) is, if impolitely expressed, certainly well taken. But, i believe you may have misapprehended my intent. My posting of the Xara trace was intended to show its use as an 'effects' processor' (for which, I have found many and varied uses), not to demonstrate its inferiority to AI or any other.

I had hoped to make the point that what was needed was a 'de-rasterizer' that will produce output USABLE in a vector drawing program to facilitate the exchange of data (images) between bitmap and vector based imaging apps. If I may quote myself,... "Xara's de-rasterizing (bitmap tracing) of complex full color material is poor except for special effect (see below).". Now why would a good, loyal Xara patriot make such an scurrilous charge? Well, sir, in my defense, I will point out that my own 'high resolution trace' of that lovely victorian hotel produced well over 26,000 individual objects, many smaller than the proverbial grain of sand. The scan took seconds; it took almost a full minute to ungroup. Whether or not that is more 'editable' than the pixel based version is arguable, but not very. I would consider such a conglomeration of bits useless. The Potrace version consists of, get ready, 20 objects, each of the same size stacked on on the other, making the layering of them rather easy which makes the manipulation of them rather easty. Ideal? no. Better? Maybe, maybe not. I use 3 different tracers (Corel trace includes an inlne facility that i find very useful). But, yes, for the purpose of manipulating complex images, it is better.

Honest, i LOVE Xara. but, there are products that do some things that Xara doesn't or doesn't do as well. mea culpa.

yours in the ongoing battle 'gainst ign'rnce,

geo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoBen

what was needed was a 'de-rasterizer' that will produce output USABLE in a vector drawing program to facilitate the exchange of data (images) between bitmap and vector based imaging apps.

---

I've been thinking of this very feature for years now. But I would be surprised if it would happen anytime soon.

It's arguable that the Xara tracer could do with a revamp, but I suspect that isn't high on the list of priorities.