You can download the Index Card image for free on my website here.
There are 10 types of people who understand binary:
Those who do and those who don't.
Just one thing jumped out at me: the statement that zoom following doesn't work. It can be tricky to the point of phooey in complicated situations, but for simple following such as a ball that's supposed to grow larger in concert with a bat, it's absolutely spot on, though it can't be seen until the slide is played. Am I right in guessing you were speaking of something more complicated?
I do need to point out that I mucked up the information about the Phase. I typed in 2, and paused when it didn't behave like I expected.....because I was supposed to type in .2, not 2! So, to see any real difference in your Phase shift, type in any number between 0 and 1.
Barbara.....Yes, I was probably referring to complicated situations, but I'm not really sure. I have never seen the Zoom modifier work (Variable Amount Using)...ever. But I may be trying to only use it in complicated situations?! I guess I've never tried it when to objects are 100% identical (all settings are equal to begin with), mostly because that almost never happens when someone is working on a show. If I have a frame and a photo and I want to zoom, pan and tilt the frame and have the photo follow, it won't work. If that's too complicated, then I give up. For the record, I just added a Frame and a Picture. Zoomed the frame in and added a zoom modifier (Variable Amount Using) to the picture to match. Did it work? Nope. No amount of adjustments made this work. Now, I could add a Linear Ramp modifier to the zooms and it does work....but, what if I want it to FOLLOW another layer as it goes forward and back? I'm just not willing to say that following another layer is "too complicated" while watching other programs do this for at least a decade or more. Yes, I'm aware that Dale has a zoom modifier work around. But, wouldn't it be nice if a work around wasn't needed? This program, for most people, is complicated enough....to require a workaround for an already complicated feature that doesn't work the way it should is really asking too much of the average user, imo. (*I also have to keep in mind that I am not creating for myself, but for others who will add their own layers of unknown attributes and who shouldn't be expected to go in and tweek complicated settings)
Here's where my frustration lies (which is clearly coming through in my tutorials, and I apologize for that): as an animation designer, I "see" what I want to have happen in my mind first. Then I create it with the tools I have. My current tools will not allow my to create what I want to, so instead of creating what I really want to, I look at my tools and create what I can with what I have.
If my tutorials are becoming too "negative" I may just need to stop altogether. I can't seem to create a tutorial without pointing out something that doesn't work properly. More than that.....I just can't create what I want to
I just set up a frame to follow an image that was being zoomed out, and as long as I matched the frame's zoom to the final zoom of the image, it worked fine. Setting the frame to 100% definitely won't work. In a very real sense, you're correct: It doesn't work as we'd expect it to. We expect the frame to pick up its settings from that of the image, but ProShow works in screen percentages somehow, which is utterly confusing to all of us who think in actual numbers, not fiddly percentages.
Final word: Be cheerfully grumpy!
BarbaraC wrote:I just set up a frame to follow an image that was being zoomed out, and as long as I matched the frame's zoom to the final zoom of the image, it worked fine.
Totally can't replicate this:( I'm trying to be as simple and basic as possible: Frame. Photo. All attributes are equal to begin with (which isn't very realistic, but let's just get this thing to work). Zoom one layer, not the other. Add Zoom modifiers to the other.....ridiculous results. I've messed with this over a dozen times (changing certain attributes to find any combination that will work). I refuse to believe that I am just this stupid, but that alone may be a sign of stupidity
I can get one image to following the other, so that worked....but not the way it should. ie my picture isn't in the frame to start with or end with...so, yeah, that worked What I can't do is get the picture in the frame to start with AND end with. I can get it to look ridiculous consistently, so...you know...yay for that.
I just took both my image and frame into Photoshop, put them in a transparent 1280 x 720 canvas, lined them up beautifully and saved each as a new PNG. That didn't even work. If two identical layers can't follow each other, this is well beyond broken, that's all I'm saying. Yes, I tried it where the layer following was set to the main layers last zoom percentage. Nada.
Two Identical Layers.
Both Fit to Frame.
Frame zooms from 100 - 50.
Picture is set at 50 and 50 with a Variable Amount Using Zoom Modifier.
As you can see, the photo doesn't zoom back in the same percentage that the frame does.
My head hurts.
Barbara speaks of setting the zooms independently, calculating manually each zoom for each layer in each keyframe, and only later placing modifiers for the tilting effects.
Jennifer refers to the zoom of the 2nd layer being calculated by means of modifiers, based on the coordinates of the first layer.
You are right Jennifer, zoom modifiers don't work as they should, and that's a shame
However, I've ended up finding exactly the same thing as you, Jennifer. I set up more of a real-world thing where the top layer was a frame, the second layer a mask, and the third layer an image. My first attempt gave Producer a major heart attack, and my second attempt reaped the same result as yours, Ms. J.
I'm giving up. For simple zooms, it's easier to just set them manually.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests