Feathering region scale problem

**steve.ledger** · 01 August 2007, 08:47 PM

It appears that feathered regions are not 'up' scalable past a finite value.
For example, when units are set to cm and a drawing of 100cm width is produced, the max feathering region is 1.3cm (as indicated in the slider box) However this feathering does not scale up when the drawing is resized to (eg) 150cm, it remains as a 1.3cm region.
Yet when scaled back down to 100cm, the feathering is reduced by scale to 0.9cm..

Infact, even 'undoing' an upscale so that the drawing is restored to it's pre-scaled size, the feathering is 'reduced' from the original setting rather than being restored to it.

Why aren't feathered regions upscalable past a certain value when the rest of the drawing is??

Old bug?

**Xhris** · 01 August 2007, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by sledger

It appears that feathered regions are not 'up' scalable past a finite value.
For example, when units are set to cm and a drawing of 100cm width is produced, the max feathering region is 1.3cm (as indicated in the slider box) However this feathering does not scale up when the drawing is resized to (eg) 150cm, it remains as a 1.3cm region.
Yet when scaled back down to 100cm, the feathering is reduced by scale to 0.9cm..

Infact, even 'undoing' an upscale so that the drawing is restored to it's pre-scaled size, the feathering is 'reduced' from the original setting rather than being restored to it.

Why aren't feathered regions upscalable past a certain value when the rest of the drawing is??

Old bug?

I knew this was coming...I mentioned it to Xara a long time ago. Apparently there wasn't enough public voice for it to be addressed in a timely manner. This irreversible feathering process combined with the 50 pix feather limit is often in my face. Apparently the 50 pix feather limit is there due to 'performance' reasons, but if you zoom in, you get an effective feather greater than 50 pix anyway (and in fairness, performance is affected).

**steve.ledger** · 02 August 2007, 01:12 AM

I would vote for *Performance reasons* being a decision made by the computer user/owner. The user must decide wether it's worth the lag to complete a process they desire to achieve (if they have an underpowered PC).
If this was common, I know some often mentioned high-end photo/illustration/PDF/Video editing software that should be limited to the startup splash screen! (for performance reasons).

If the feathering is limited by Xara, why then was not the blend tool?
I can apply 200 blends between objects and scale the object back and forth as I please and by todays standards I have a low-end PC!
Admittedly, a (very) low end PC with on-board video would struggle a bit here, but the choice to allow this hasn't been made for us as it appears has for feathering? (Perhaps new options based on available system resources could be configured?)

My workaround to producing finished bitmap at the size I wanted was to create at w10cm x * then export to .bmp choosing scale 1000% producing a 1m wide raster.

**handrawn** · 02 August 2007, 06:31 AM

not to mention performance issues when using bitmap tracer in multi pass photographic mode on a large high res image - time for three course meal and a haircut - but at least as you say, you can choose whether or not to do it.

**MarkMyWords** · 21 August 2007, 07:28 PM

On occasion I need to output files at upto 12000 x 9000 pixels, it is not possible to work on files this size in Xtreme (at least not for me), but you can enlarge a smaller file to this size and export it. So the solution is obvious, work on a smaller size image and only enlarge it when exporting, this is vector graphics, after all.

Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that feathering all but dissappears at this size (this is true for feathered drop shadows too), so now I use transparancy instead for files that are going to be quite big.

Damn shame, feathering is so bloody useful and easy.

Would it be possible to include an option to keep the feathering proportional even when enlarged to such big sizes (maybe only when exporting as a bitmap)? It is already a bit of a wait to export a file this size, but I can do other things with 'free' time (brew tea, toast cheese, etc.).

**jclements** · 21 August 2007, 07:46 PM

Yes it would be nice if there was a solution so the size of the shadow or feathering could be increased without a creating a performance problem (maybe something could be done with the display settings in a future release).

But .... you can set the value in Options for Effects and Bitmaps to the maximum of 300dpi. That would at least help you somewhat if you were to convert the shadow to a editable shape and upscale, wouldn't it?

**AndFarr** · 21 August 2007, 08:16 PM

Try using graduated fills instead.
- AF

**MarkMyWords** · 21 August 2007, 09:02 PM

Well I tend to use a combination of fills and transparency, but nothing is quite as simple to use as feathering.

Thanks for your suggestions.

**Egg Bramhill** · 21 August 2007, 09:24 PM

Yes, it's a real shame. Feathering is one of the best ways of making vectors not so vector looking. XXP has a limit of 50 pixel feathering, a set size. If you increase the size of this object by 500% the feathering remains at 50 pixels. (Also if you undue this action, the feathering becomes 10 pixels.) In other words as you've stated, the feathering doesn't scale with the drawing, above 50 pixels.

As Andy suggest you can try graduated fills or blends, both which do scale.

**raynerj1** · 22 August 2007, 01:05 AM

The highest I could export was 1552DPI. the attached example is a 100X100 pixel square with a 50 pixel feather exported at 576DPI... Came out to a 600X600 square...

didn't what to make a graphic any bigger than that.