"lock" 2 layers together???

[spotlight Profile Private message]

Does anyone know how to "lock" 2 (or more) layers together so that they move at the same rate?

[VidQueen Profile Private messageWebsite]

The basic idea of "Parenting" doesn't exist in Producer yet (I certainly hope it does in the future!), but you can use a modifier to get a minimal type of parenting. You can move one layers position and add X and Y modifiers to another layer so that it will follow all of the first layers positions in unison. Unfortunately, that's about it (and it's not terribly intuative, either). Scaling, rotation and certainly the new tilt all fall flat when trying to "parent" using modifiers:(

I can post a quick Position Modifier Tutorial for you later this morning:)

Jennifer

[cherub Profile Private messageWebsite]

Does anyone know how to "lock" 2 (or more) layers together so that they move at the same rate?

As explained above, Producer does not offer any kind of locking of layers. Modifiers do give us a partial solution when all we want to do is a sort of "follow me" effect with just panning.

But, perhaps you don't really need locking of layers
What is the effect that you are trying to make? Maybe we can offer an alternative solution.

[VidQueen Profile Private messageWebsite]

Here is the tutorial (I'll contact Mike about adding the Diamond Wall image as a free download on this site).

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

In this (Jennifer's) tutorial, adding the images and modifying them (size, rotation, and position) in the LAYER SETTINGS TAB eliminates the requirement later of copying settings from one keyframe to the next.

Jennifer notes at the end of her tutorial that this thing she calls "Parenting" (something I call Pan Following) only works for position (or Pan). And, she says, that this technique goes horribly wrong with tilt, zoom, and rotation.

That's not entirely correct. You can directly follow the settings of any other layer, except for zoom. Zoom is a somewhat different beast. (Why Photodex introduced zoom like they did simply boggles the mind.)

You CAN follow the zoom of another layer but a few "tweaks" are required first. The only other problem area would be following the hue of another layer. Last I checked, you had to introduce a factor of 100 to the modifier that followed another layer's hue. Photodex said they'd fix that ... but I haven't checked back to see what they've done with it.

So, how do I know this? Because I invented two versions of Zoom Following (one was announced over 3 years ago ... the last one was developed a year ago). Read the tutorials from the links given below. I use modifiers extensively and have done so for some time now. I am one of the first early adopters ... if you have any doubts, see the demo's below for examples of what is possible.

The following are examples that use a variety of different following types: Pan Following, Rotation Following and Zoom Following.

Simple Zoom Following (type 1) (A tutorial)
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=13944

A Simple Modifier-Based Zoom (type 2) (a simple tutorial)
https://fpvp.wordpress.com/modifiers-2/ ... ased-zoom/
https://fpvp.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/m ... ased-zoom/

DEMOS BELOW
Layer Zoom following while rotating and panning. Keeping the same distance while following the zoom of another layer was once considered impossible. This example uses a variation of the 2nd zoom following technique I created. I demonstrate that it's definitely possible. But, I'm using zoom following, pan following, and rotation following here.


Coordinated Rotation Center Point. This uses rotation following about a common rotation center. Using a common rotation center wasn't considered feasible until I discovered how to do it. Multiple layers are using the rotation of a single layer to control their rotation.


Yes, there are improvements that we'd all like to have made to ProShow. Hopefully, they'll hear us and make to nice usability changes.

Dale

[VidQueen Profile Private messageWebsite]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I DID use the Layer Settings tab in my tutorial and rotation wasn't global. No?!

Jennifer

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

I haven't tried this--it just struck me when I heard the comment about how we can't, as yet, copy modifiers. I'm wondering if the process were done just slightly in reverse if it would work. In this case, set up the background and then add the first photo, positioning it and adding the modifiers, and then duplicating the photo layer, replacing it with another photo, arranging it, and then duplicating it, following the same process all the way through until the last of the photos has been placed. In this way, I'm thinking the process might be quicker. Again, I haven't tried it, but in theory, at least, it ought to work. You think?

Barbara

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

Ach! You're right. I stand corrected.

Pan settings get set start and finish. Rotation set ONLY for the 1st keyframe. That sucks. Definitely a problem.

Didn't notice this one ... but I don't use this particular approach to setting the size, position, or rotation of my images very often. Usually the size and rotation of my images are set prior to moving them where they need to go. I use the approach you use to rough position and then I fine tune after they're positioned.

Your tutorial is very good ... but for the "layer locking" (or "following) assertion for other features (as noted above).

Dale

PS Yes, that would work ... but then, you'd still have to change the position, size, and zoom of each copied layer.

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Yes, that would work ... but then, you'd still have to change the position, size, and zoom of each copied layer.

You might have missed it in my endless sentence where I said "arranging it," the "it" being the photo. That's what's being done anyway as each photo is added, but in this case, the necessity of going into the modifier screen would be eliminated. Wish this had dawned on my eons ago. It would have saved both time and sanity. Well, it would have at least saved time.

Barbara

[VidQueen Profile Private messageWebsite]

...another reason I don't post many tutorials anymore...I'm probably telling everyone to do things the long way!

Maybe after the holidays I'll re-record this tutorial with Barbara's suggestion. That sounds like a MUCH easier way than going into the Modifiers Settings everytime

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

And I'll watch the tutorial again because I'll know it contains something I figured out but I won't be able to remember what it is. Sad, right?

Barbara

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

Jennifer,

Except for the assertion that only Pan Following works with modifiers, there's nothing wrong with the tutorial. As you know, there are many ways to get the same result in ProShow. Some methods are more involved than others and some are more "efficient" than others. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to present all of those ways in a tutorial (except in certain circumstances) because it could confuse people. Too, one's workflow often determines which method might work best for them.

Also, some of your tutorials tell people things they wouldn't know about if it weren't for your method of presentation. For example, how many people really know that you can change the size of the presentation screen (to show the region surrounding the slide)? How many know that you can resize, rotate, or tilt the graphic/image in the slide frame without resorting to the settings boxes? (that is, doing so simply by grabbing a control point on the image -- if layer/caption controls are activated)?

These little things probably amaze a large number of people because they didn't realize those options were available to them. It's something we power users take for granted because we use these techniques regularly. It's the showing of these little usability things in a "production" environment that give a little extra (perhaps unintended) "oomph" to the tutorial (supplementary information that's not directly related to the tutorial itself).

Dale

PS The more people that start using modifiers to simplify certain tasks, the more likely it is that Photodex will improve the process of using them. It's an area that is still not documented ... and that's because few are using modifiers for even simple tasks. The lack of documentation implies that only the advanced users can/should use modifiers. The interface for using modifiers and the modifiers themselves really need a facelift to make them more user friendly ... and to ease the requirement for how much you know about ProShow to make real effective use of some of the modifiers.

[skb1951 Profile Private message]

Jennifer, PLEASE don't ever quit making tutorials. We, at least I, depend on you as a learning tool. I have learned so much from you and the others that post here.

Thanks so much for all you do!

Sue Buchanan

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

The lack of documentation implies that only the advanced users can/should use modifiers.

And the truth is that, with some clear explanation of them in the manual, more people would use them. If Photodex is assuming they need not document them because few are using them, they're not seeing themselves as the real culprits.

Sue, I'm sure Jennifer won't stop creating tutorials. She's good at it, and she'll be hounded unmercifully if she stops.

Barbara

[psychogramma Profile Private message]

The saying "Great minds think alike." is not always true and for sure seldom true on this forum that has so many great minds helping out the rest of us. I am often amazed that a question is responded to in many different ways, each of them correct though different from the other. Sometimes what remains a bit foggy after one answer becomes totally clear with another - both stating the same solution with a different wording or approach.

Thank you to all of you great minds who take the time to solve our problems and light our way. You do great work and I for one (and I know I am not alone) appreciate it all.

Enjoy all,
Cathy