Understanding complex styles

[bonalymac Profile Private message]

Thought I’d share a timesaving idea.

I’ve just been playing with a style with lots of layers, some of which were repeated in different sizes, and I wanted a way to see if I could ease my understanding of the style if I wanted to add any changes, change timing, or simply choose which order to place my slides in so that the images I wanted appeared in the right place at the right time in the style.

Its also essential when styles zoom and crop images to try to watch that you are not hiding/removing important parts of the image. Sometimes you need to quickly identify which slide you've just cut the mother-in-law's head off!!!

I decided to create 25 different images. Nothing significant in the number, but most styles have fewer layers than this. Each with a different wording – “Layer 1”, “Layer 2”, “Layer 3”, “Layer 4” etc. The text was cantered on each slide. I then placed each layer in order on a single slide, making sure “Layer 25” was at the bottom. Finally I saved the show.

Then I apply a style to the slide and in playback (slow it down hugely make it 60 secs or longer if you really want to see what is happening). As long as the style has less than 25 layers, then any extra on your slide are just ignored when applying the new style. It is however best to delete them either before or after applying the style, or turn them off in case they do appear on playback at some stage.

Now I can see at a glance when and how each layer in the style works, whether it needs rotating or moving to suit my images. I can also discover that it is say layer 12 that zooms out at a certain point in time and I can then ensure that the image I want to see then is set up as layer 12.

I tried making it a style or a template, but it doesn’t seem to work properly when a subsequent style is then applied – seems replaceable layers may be part of the issue. I did try changing this, but I need to play with it a bit more to see if I can make it work. In the meantime tho, the show file works as I want it.


How it works with Slot Machine template from StylePack 2

http://www.photodex.com/share/ColinMcDonald/6cxm8mg4

[cherub Profile Private messageWebsite]

Hi Colin,
I tried to apply your method in my mind, trying to visualize your "template of a style".
I think that you are onto something here
What I could not see in my mind though, is what you do with several copies of the same image.
Most styles have so many layers not because they make use of many pictures, but because most layers get duplicated in order to create specific effects. So, if you use different pictures instead of the same one, it's not giving you the right direction. Maybe cutting someone's head in one layer doesn't really matter, because that specific layer is all black, because it is a shadow.
So, you don't really need 25 different pictures in your model, but rather a maximum of 10 (maybe).
Do I understand your model correctly?

[bonalymac Profile Private message]

Hi Mona

It will never work in all cases.

The idea I started with originated when using the Video Wall style from Peter. This one uses copies of layers, but significantly, at different times. Because of their small size. it is almost essential to resize and possibly rotate your own images to fit. This style is not really using layers in the same way as you envisaged.

In this case I did need twenty one layers, but I created 25 png files so that it was hopefully a on-off exercise. I did keep the psd file as well so I can create more if needed. I knew that many styles will use a lot less.

Putting the 21 numbered layers in first, and then applying the style, let me see how each layer was used , what size and what angle, so I could easily adjust the actual images in the live show.

When heavy masking is used, then you are right, the layer usage is different, and it might not help much. But I think it will still provide some help in narrowing down the choices to make if editing a style . I often find I want to slow down/speed up one part of a style, and if using a batch of similar images, it is sometimes tricky to see which images is in use. As all my file names contain dates, the descriptors and finally at the end a unique muber, I do not usually see the important bit of the file name. So the layers can help to explain the workings of a style.

Not sure if this helps or not!!!!!!

[cherub Profile Private messageWebsite]

I just thought of another example that can better explain why using different pictures for each layer will not help.

Suppose you have an effect of one picture that is being cut into 3 parts, and then each part moves in a different direction, at different times.

Obviously, for making such an effect, we don't cut the picture at all (not even in a graphic editor ), and we don't even crop it in Producer. We use masks to hide/reveal a different part each time, and the layers contain the very same picture 3 times. As I mentioned before, you may also want to use the same picture for making shadows, and now you end up with 6 layers of the same picture

You do need to see the same picture in your model, because you need to see if the parts are aligned correctly, and if the movement effect is realistic or not.
If you use a different picture in each layer, how would you know what goes with what?

[bonalymac Profile Private message]

You still start with the same number of layers, whether using live images, or my numbered layers

If before you apply your style you have say 10 layers - each different images. In my case, I have 10 numbered layers.
Lets say layer 7 is then split into 3 slices using masks. In your case, the image in layer 7 will be split, in my case the slide saying "Layer" 7 will be split. Exactly the same thing has happened to each.

Now, by only putting text in the centre, it may not be clear that say the top 1/3rd is of layer 7, as there will be no text visible, but the layer name will be still 07, and I could put a lighter repeating pattern saying "Layer 7" behind the main text. I deliberatley wanted that centered. for positioning issues.

But even without that, I still think it is breaking the style down into manageable chunks that help to explain just what is happening.

In the example above, I now can see that layer 7 is the one that is split in three. I can then choose the most suitable of my images for splitting in thirds. It might be a vertical, a horizontal or a non-equal split. I can hopefully see easily which of my images will be most suitable for this particular layer.

The example I was looking at is

http://www.photodex.com/share/ColinMcDonald/7cxm8mg4

Here, only 1 image is shown full screen, and I can see it is layer 10. But I can also see that just after that layers 13 & 17 appear as the two largest images in the centre, so I can choose which ones are most suitable etc.

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

Well, I can't figure out this one out. I get that you're trying to figure out how to understand what layers are doing in a complex style but for the life of me I can't figure out why you're doing it the way you're doing it or even how you're doing it. I don't see it (whatever "it" is).

In the application of a style, if the style needs duplicate copies of an image you can end up with many copies of it. Replacing that image with an image of your choosing often results in all iterations of that image getting replaced as well. So that kinda eliminates differently labeled (in the image) images as a marker (and the file names are all still the same unless the style also renamed the layers).

Sometimes, if modifiers are used to follow pan, zoom, opacity, rotation, etc, turning off layers won't necessarily work because the dependent layers will quit working when the master layer is turned off.

So, there's something here I'm not getting (might be one of those "can't see the darned forest because of all those darned trees" scenarios). To me it almost seems like you're putting the cart before the horse.

There's a variety of techniques I use because a number of the styles are so different in how they operate (depending on what they do). In these cases a completely different approach may be called for.

It could be that I'm just dense today (having spent way too many hours on the computer). And so, I need a bit more help to figure out how you're trying to do what you're trying to do and why.

Dale

[bonalymac Profile Private message]

Replacing that image with an image of your choosing often results in all iterations of that image getting replaced as well.

That’s the whole point! When you play it back you can now see clearly which layer in your ORIGINAL group of layers is doing what at what time in the style-ised slide. If multiples exist after the style has been applied, it still doesn't help you identify which of the (potentially) many layers is being viewed at a particular time, but you have narrowed the issue down, and it helps if you want to add some time to a zoom or a still etc

You can then select the images to suit

The video wall http://www.photodex.com/share/ColinMcDonald/7cxm8mg4 is a good example, where you can clearly see that almost each different image has been set up with its centre point in a different location, and is zoomed uniquely.

How do you get your images which may or may not have a focal point in the centre to match the positioning and zooming set up by the style? I suggest its easier using this route than putting in the 21 images you plan to use.

Anyway enough of this, the file helps me work. I'm happy.

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

Colin,

As long as it works for you then that's all that matters. For me, it looks and sounds like a lot of busy work . . . (because I can't figure out what you're doing, I think).

I figure out what's going on by turning on/off various layers and by inspection of the motion and attributes tabs of the layers. Sometimes I'll even change some values in an attempt to discern what I can't figure out directly. This works regardless of how many layers a slide has or how many copies of the same image there are.

As you've apparently found, some of these styles are pretty darned complex and intricate. Discerning what the author did can be tricky. That's because it may not be immediately obvious what a layer is for or even how a certain effect was achieved despite everything being right in front of you! You wouldn't think it'd be that way. But there are those styles that look so simple when they play, until you start trying to take them apart and figuring out how that effect was achieved. Not so simple.

Have fun!

Dale

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

I rather like the idea, Colin, though I'd apply it differently since I'm more likely to want to use it as a prototype for what I'm ultimately planning as opposed to figuring out what someone else's style is doing. I've used a simple version of this--just variously colored layers--so I can quickly identify where I've gone wrong. Those colored layers are actual files as opposed to Solids because I might just want to replace the colored image with a real one. Now, however, you've given me the notion of using patterns instead of plain colors because they'll give me a bit more precision.

Barbara