Artboard Position cause Export Issues

[Juniperf]

If the position of an artboard is not on a whole number, "Export Via Screens" and other export options will increase the resolutuion of the export by 1-2 pixels. 

This is a long-understood issue by the community, but I see no listing of it as a bug or "known issue" by Adobe. I recieved little support from my previous post on the matter.

To recreate the issue, duplicate an Artboard and move it. Export the artboard. The resolution will not match. 

There is no circumstance where this should be an expected output from the software. It's a bug and should be treated as such by Adobe. 

[Monika Gause]

It's how artboards work.

If you think it's a bug, you can report it via https://illustrator.uservoice.com

[Juniperf]

Glad to know someone out there has a use for artboards randomly changing resolution!

I will have to disagree. As stated, it's clearly a bug.

The thought behind an Artboard is that is an editable, digital representation of the image you intend to display. The Artboard and its specifities should never take priority , or "work", over the user's expectations. 

While I appreciate Illustrator offers so much freedom with Artboards - that they can be positioned within fractions of a pixel between each other - the issue I'm describing is still an unexpected, undesirable outcome (a bug). Either some rounding or snapping needs to occuer in the export process to correct the issue.

[Ton Frederiks]

Because Illustrator is designed to create resolution independent artwork, it is has no size limits, unlike image editors like Photoshop that are limited to pixels. When you export artwork as an image, Illustrator has to define a pixel size, it uses 1/72 of an inch (same size as a Point). When artwork cannot be exactly reproduced (fractional pixels don't exist) pixels have to be created or deleted. 

In some cases, moving an artboard including its artwork to the pixelgrid would be a solution, but what to do when changing the resolution to something other than a multiple of 72 ppi? 300 ppi can cause additional pixels even if the artboard is aligned to the pixelgrid and the artboard size does not contain fractions. Do you want pixels to be removed or added. This can cause visible problems when pattern tiles are exported.

There is no easy solution and this problem has been mentioned many times on this forum.

If you want, you can add your vote and give comments on this UserVoice topic:

https://illustrator.uservoice.com/forums/601447-illustrator-desktop-bugs/suggestions/37694659-extra-...

[Juniperf]

I understand my words have overly simplified the problem and possible solutions. I understand the nature of Illustrator as software for vector artwork.

To your question on whether or not pixels should be "removed or added" - Illustrator should remove the pixels they add. There is no issue with Artboards creating smaller exports, it consistently creates larger ones. When using Illustrator to export to an image format with resolution, such as with the "Export for Screens" function (which I image is a common use case) the resolution should always match the artboard size.

It surprises me there has to be this much discussion on the matter via community. I would rather the engineers be discussing the math and methods that should be used to correct this issue. I can imagine most options compromise something - but none would be more irritating than constantly reorganizing artboards to whole numbers.

[Larry G. Schneider]

If you recognize this as a problem, then you can work around it by making your artboards on whole numbers to begin with and not rearrange later.

[Juniperf]

I'm very familiar with this solution! I'm interested in going beyond treating symptoms, interested in optimizing workflows, and interested in what people think of the issue.

That being said, while this is a (slow) approach for newly created files, this is not a viable solution when working with older /legacy files that may or may not belong to you.

[Monika Gause]

this is not a viable solution when working with older /legacy files that may or may not belong to you.

By @Juniperf

Older files should have been created the same way: artboards on whole pixels. Illustrator has always worked that way.

As for others handing you files that have been set up the wrong way, there's a solution to that: education.

The trouble with Illustrator repositioning and resampling artwork is that professional screendesigners set up their art in very specific ways in order to get certain results from the resampling process. A "better" resampling would ruin all these efforts.

[Juniperf]

I have this concern too. When exporting, if Illustrator would round / snap to account for non-integer placement of artboards, how would it decide what "makes the cut"? It would be a fundamentally different process.

Still, I would love to hear from these other "professional screendesigners," who always have their artboards on integers, what use case they have for artboards having the option to be a non-integer. And in these cases, I'm curious why they would be satisfied with Illustrator adding a pixel or two to their export.

[Juniperf]

In other words, if there are cases where the artists desire the non-integer position of an artboard, they should expect the export resolution to match the artboard. Otherwise, if the non-integer position of artboards is "amateur"-ish / useless, the position of artboards should always be integers so there is no export inconsistency.

[Monika Gause]

In other words, if there are cases where the artists desire the non-integer position of an artboard,

By @Juniperf

Nope.They just draw the path in a way that they get what they want.

But if you introduce an algorithm that "improves" the output, then this will affect any export.

You can see an example at 6:00 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_teW4xl6Y

In order to get the pixels where you need them, the artwork was completely wonky.

[Juniperf]

In other words, if there are cases where the artists desire the non-integer position of an artboard,

By @Juniperf

Nope.They just draw the path in a way that they get what they want.

By @Monika Gause

This is esoteric... "Nope" to what? Are you saying that, if a path is drawn correctly with the pen tool, the art board resolution issue becomes irrelevant?

Edit: Interesting video! I don't speak German so I missed all detail. But I definitely am not saying that non-integers have no place in the software. There would be no point to Illustrator. It would be MS Paint. But I am having a hard time seeing what purpose non-integers serve on artboards (in the current state) for anyone who exports to a raster format. 

[Monika Gause]

I think you are trying to piece together things that I didn't say in order to make a point.

[Juniperf]

We're misunderstanding each other, IMO. 

[Met1]

How do you set up a photoshop file, is it equally as random and you worry about the size of your art to export at the last moment?

[Juniperf]

Thanks for the bad faith approach, very normal and nice of you!

When I use Photoshop, I avoid its artboards feature. When I'm using Illustrator with the intent of having multiple artboards, I create my artboards to my work's specified resolutions, assign its origin to the top left corner, and ensure its position is an integer. In my opinion, the last two steps should not be necessary. When working with hundreds of artboards across many files, time adds up.

[Met1]

In photoshop, new doc, try typing 23.2... then 23.6...

>...using Illustrator ...I create my artboards to my work's specified resolutions

How do you do that with a vector art program that intrinsically does NOT have a resolution setting (until export)?

[Juniperf]

I'm speaking colloquially. By resolution, I mean dimensions. I tend to work in px units for creative meant for Web (see: Google Upload Specifications), so I think in those terms as well. Don't mean to be confusing but this is semantics to me. You should know what I'm talking about if you know enough to be corrective about it.

[Met1]

Ah, semantics...

You should look up colloquially, I'm pretty sure dimensions is more familar to most than resolution... 

Some Witt said: What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.

[Juniperf]

---

@Met1 wrote:

 and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.

---

Not happening 😄 

[Juniperf]

To your edit:

I wrote "... I create my artboards to my work's specified resolutions." Resolution clearly refers to the specifications of the final export, since you missed that. Implied is that I "create" the "artboard" with dimensions to match the final resolution.

So yes, "Semantics." This conversation is about the wording of my responses and not on topic. I find it disrespectful.

[Met1]

As my dear old mother used to say "don't start what you can't finish" - you brought up semantics and colloquialism...

If you want help, be more precise; I gave up mind reading a long time ago...

[Juniperf]

Oh to live in a fantasy utopia where anytime I create an artboard I don't have to delete the decimal points at the end everytime 💔 It's disappointing to see longtime members love the taste of extra steps in their process. Nevertheless I will continue complaining - I'm great at it! 

My final thought: Artboard pixel snapping (being on by default) would be a feature against the spirit of the software, but would correct the issue I'm describing. It would not solve the ultimate paradox of funneling mathematically-infinite artwork into a raster image, but it would save me like 5 minutes every day.

[Ton Frederiks]

Did you already complain and add suggestions at the UserVoice page? That is where the engineers are listening, not here at the userforum:

https://illustrator.uservoice.com/forums/601447-illustrator-desktop-bugs/suggestions/37694659-extra-...

[Juniperf]

I appreciate the link. I post with the understanding that mostly users will see my posts, not Adobe.