MASKING: A Comprehensive Basic Tutorial (for v3.x to 4.x)
OK. I updated the conclusions file and it's located in the link below until Mike returns!
http://www.fenimorephotovideos.com/Temp ... sions2.pdf
Dale
http://www.fenimorephotovideos.com/Temp ... sions2.pdf
Dale
Dale, it looks better.
One thing I noticed in the previous version which is still in this one is where you note that the amount visible of the masked layer depends on the size of the mask, which is certainly true, but it can possibly confuse beginners initially when they use different sizes for the components inside the mask. A half-inch white circle in the middle of a grayscale mask will automatically reveal a smaller area than if it were a two-inch circle. Add to this the fact that the zooming ability is a hard-wired 500%, and swearing can result. I know lots of good words and will share if anyone's list is too short.
Barbara
One thing I noticed in the previous version which is still in this one is where you note that the amount visible of the masked layer depends on the size of the mask, which is certainly true, but it can possibly confuse beginners initially when they use different sizes for the components inside the mask. A half-inch white circle in the middle of a grayscale mask will automatically reveal a smaller area than if it were a two-inch circle. Add to this the fact that the zooming ability is a hard-wired 500%, and swearing can result. I know lots of good words and will share if anyone's list is too short.
Barbara
Barbara,
Hmmm. I only dealt with the case where the mask is smaller than the object being masked to keep the task more manageable. I didn't deal with a number of other contingencies either. I figured a few simple cases would help get anyone started. I included motion on the masked layer to help the visualization. Also, that's why I moved the masked layer in the Masking Basics tutorial as well ... so the viewer could see the masked layer was actually still there and could still be seen ... if the mask was moved (of course, the masked layer could very well have been moved as well!).
However, for an non-inverted alpha transparency mask, lets say the mask was 10mm and the object being masked is 15mm. Only 10mm of the masked object can be seen at any time...unless the mask changes size. If the masked object changes size and the masking layer does not, only 10mm of the masked object will ever be seen at any time (no matter it's zoom level ... unless the masked object becomes smaller than the mask!).
Also, it's not the amount of visible masked layer -- it's the amount of masked layer available for viewing. Remember, there are two cases (as least) where the viewer will see nothing happening even tho masking is occurring! That's when a grayscale non-inverted black mask is used (not only is the area lying outside the masked region transparent, but the region of the masked layer underneath the mask itself is transparent as well). Using a grayscale inverted black mask makes not only the area outside the mask opaque but the area directly underneath the mask opaque as well. In both cases, while there is still an active mask in operation, the viewer won't notice that fact. In the former case there's nothing to see (everything is transparent), in the latter case you can see the object but nothing that's happening to it (everything is the same level of opaque).
Dale
Hmmm. I only dealt with the case where the mask is smaller than the object being masked to keep the task more manageable. I didn't deal with a number of other contingencies either. I figured a few simple cases would help get anyone started. I included motion on the masked layer to help the visualization. Also, that's why I moved the masked layer in the Masking Basics tutorial as well ... so the viewer could see the masked layer was actually still there and could still be seen ... if the mask was moved (of course, the masked layer could very well have been moved as well!).
However, for an non-inverted alpha transparency mask, lets say the mask was 10mm and the object being masked is 15mm. Only 10mm of the masked object can be seen at any time...unless the mask changes size. If the masked object changes size and the masking layer does not, only 10mm of the masked object will ever be seen at any time (no matter it's zoom level ... unless the masked object becomes smaller than the mask!).
Also, it's not the amount of visible masked layer -- it's the amount of masked layer available for viewing. Remember, there are two cases (as least) where the viewer will see nothing happening even tho masking is occurring! That's when a grayscale non-inverted black mask is used (not only is the area lying outside the masked region transparent, but the region of the masked layer underneath the mask itself is transparent as well). Using a grayscale inverted black mask makes not only the area outside the mask opaque but the area directly underneath the mask opaque as well. In both cases, while there is still an active mask in operation, the viewer won't notice that fact. In the former case there's nothing to see (everything is transparent), in the latter case you can see the object but nothing that's happening to it (everything is the same level of opaque).
Dale
- mahasuresh1
How to download
Hi
I saw a post saying "downloading" this tutorial. How can we download this from the photodex website?
I saw a post saying "downloading" this tutorial. How can we download this from the photodex website?
This post explains how to save the show to your hard drive:
http://www.proshowenthusiasts.com/viewtopic.php?t=6907
http://www.proshowenthusiasts.com/viewtopic.php?t=6907
Dilyla's Designs
Aspire to inspire before you expire.
Aspire to inspire before you expire.
- hardsoftware
- ProShow Hall of Fame
- Posts: 1262
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:53 am
- Location: New Mexico
PSG, & Producer 3,4 and 5. Photo Editing: PS Elements 2.0 & 5.0, Premier Elements 3.0,
PHOTODEX GALLERY: http://www.photodex.com/share/hardsoftware
UnEmployed, and getting pretty good at it!
Facebook look for Ben R. Baca.
PHOTODEX GALLERY: http://www.photodex.com/share/hardsoftware
UnEmployed, and getting pretty good at it!
Facebook look for Ben R. Baca.
Dale, I'd swear you're talking about apples while I'm deep into oranges! You're talking about a mask that's all black or all white, and I'm talking about one that has some of both. To make the portion that's white expand to reveal the entire masked layer, you'd darned well better make sure it's over some yet-to-be-determined size or else portions of the masked layer will still be hidden.
You've a knack for turning a one-penny thought into a twenty-dollar idea.
Barbara
You've a knack for turning a one-penny thought into a twenty-dollar idea.
Barbara
Barbara,
Ah! Well, WRT that heart coloring request that someone was wanting ... the original mask file was a white background with the black heart. To do what I wanted I had to mask out all of the white in a bitmap editing program and save it as a PNG! I'm trying to think of other ideas for masking concepts (for tutorials...perhaps). Maybe dealing with a masking layer composed of both white and black would be an idea to pursue ... esp since many masks come default black and white (vs black or white w/o background). Hmmmm! Time to do more experimentation!
Hey! Like I said before, there were contigencies I didn't consider due to size/time constraints on the length of the tutorial! So, this would be one of those topics for which another tutorial would be good!
Dale
Ah! Well, WRT that heart coloring request that someone was wanting ... the original mask file was a white background with the black heart. To do what I wanted I had to mask out all of the white in a bitmap editing program and save it as a PNG! I'm trying to think of other ideas for masking concepts (for tutorials...perhaps). Maybe dealing with a masking layer composed of both white and black would be an idea to pursue ... esp since many masks come default black and white (vs black or white w/o background). Hmmmm! Time to do more experimentation!
Hey! Like I said before, there were contigencies I didn't consider due to size/time constraints on the length of the tutorial! So, this would be one of those topics for which another tutorial would be good!
Dale
im42n8 wrote:Thanx Barbara!
With Alpha masks, they're either on or off, there is nothing in between. So, you can use them to cover something up or to reveal. The last slide of the conclusions has an outline that I created with masks. The outline is nothing more than a box with most of the center cut out of it, leaving the outside edges. This mask can make frames. All you have to have is the layer you want to use as a mask (color is irrelevant) and a layer that will be masked. I think once you can see what it does then what will follow are uses you can find for the application of the mask.
I like it for cutting out parts of the other image (whatever I use in the masked layer).
Thanx!
Dale
That is 50% true. If you are using a Grayscale image and tell the Mask it's Alpha then it's all or nothing. If you are using a true transparent file, like a .PNG or .PSD, then the mask will use the levels of opacity found in the file. My Vol. 3 tutorial illustrates this.
Rick Insane Diego...
Rick,
A PNG, PSD, or TIFF image with transparency uses an alpha channel to achieve that transparency. Is that what you're calling a "true" transparent file?! Hmm. "interesting." Yes, if such an image has existing levels of opacity prior to being used as an alpha channel mask in PSP, those opacity levels will be inherited ... and any change in opacity using PSP opacity controls will use the existing level of transparency in that alpha channel as a starting point for reducing its opacity. However, that negates nothing I've said to date.
What you say is not necessarily true, however. If, in Producer, you set the opacity of the alpha channel masking layer to 50%, then the masked layer will have a 50% transparency. You can do that with ANY alpha channel layer ... not just with an image file that has an embedded alpha channel. You can set ANY alpha channel mask (single or multiple color) to any level of opacity you want in PSP (either in the slide options editing tab or motion tab)... and the masked layer that you witness will indeed have the transparency you've selected for your masking layer.
This is probably something I could have clarified as an additional caveat concerning alpha channel masks with starting opacities other than 100% opaque.
Dale
A PNG, PSD, or TIFF image with transparency uses an alpha channel to achieve that transparency. Is that what you're calling a "true" transparent file?! Hmm. "interesting." Yes, if such an image has existing levels of opacity prior to being used as an alpha channel mask in PSP, those opacity levels will be inherited ... and any change in opacity using PSP opacity controls will use the existing level of transparency in that alpha channel as a starting point for reducing its opacity. However, that negates nothing I've said to date.
What you say is not necessarily true, however. If, in Producer, you set the opacity of the alpha channel masking layer to 50%, then the masked layer will have a 50% transparency. You can do that with ANY alpha channel layer ... not just with an image file that has an embedded alpha channel. You can set ANY alpha channel mask (single or multiple color) to any level of opacity you want in PSP (either in the slide options editing tab or motion tab)... and the masked layer that you witness will indeed have the transparency you've selected for your masking layer.
This is probably something I could have clarified as an additional caveat concerning alpha channel masks with starting opacities other than 100% opaque.
Dale
That is 50% true. If you are using a Grayscale image and tell the Mask it's Alpha then it's all or nothing. If you are using a true transparent file, like a .PNG or .PSD, then the mask will use the levels of opacity found in the file. My Vol. 3 tutorial illustrates this.
im42n8 wrote:Rick,
A PNG, PSD, or TIFF image with transparency uses an alpha channel to achieve that transparency. Is that what you're calling a "true" transparent file?! Hmm. "interesting." Yes, if such an image has existing levels of opacity prior to being used as an alpha channel mask in PSP, those opacity levels will be inherited ... and any change in opacity using PSP opacity controls will use the existing level of transparency in that alpha channel as a starting point for reducing its opacity. However, that negates nothing I've said to date.
What you say is not necessarily true, however. If, in Producer, you set the opacity of the alpha channel masking layer to 50%, then the masked layer will have a 50% transparency. You can do that with ANY alpha channel layer ... not just with an image file that has an embedded alpha channel. You can set ANY alpha channel mask (single or multiple color) to any level of opacity you want in PSP (either in the slide options editing tab or motion tab)... and the masked layer that you witness will indeed have the transparency you've selected for your masking layer.
This is probably something I could have clarified as an additional caveat concerning alpha channel masks with starting opacities other than 100% opaque.
DaleThat is 50% true. If you are using a Grayscale image and tell the Mask it's Alpha then it's all or nothing. If you are using a true transparent file, like a .PNG or .PSD, then the mask will use the levels of opacity found in the file. My Vol. 3 tutorial illustrates this.
Yes, a PNG that has a Transparent background is what I'm calling a "true" transparent file.
You're changing the issue by saying, well if you adjust the PSP opacity etc. then yes you can get differnt levels etc. I'm clarifying your blanket statement to Barbara. that an Alpha Mask is all or nothing. It either hides or reveals. That statement is partially correct. That's true when using a non-transparent image. It's not true when using an image that contains transparency. No additional settings are necessary to acheive varying levels of opacity in the Mask when using an image that contains transparency.
Rick Insane Diego...
Rick,
I don't know what would qualify as a false transparency! Also, transparency is the state of being transparent which effectively means invisible (unless you give a percent transparent value). Therefore, I'm assuming you meant translucent when you talked about an image containing transparency.
If you take a look at my Colored Heart Example in my recent basic masking tutorial, you should note that the hearts used in this example were black images of a heart with a transparent region around them ... a black heart with no background. I used them as alpha masks. This example alone negates the statement you made in the last message. The transparent region of the mask made that area of the masked layer under that region transparent as well. The region of the masking layer that wasn't transparent (that is, was opaque) made the area of the masked layer under that masking area opaque.
So, you should reread the 1st paragraph of my last message. If an image has a translucent region in it prior to being used as a mask, the amount of opacity in that region will be reflected in the masked image. So, if it starts with 40% opacity in the masking layer, the masked layer will have a 40% opacity in the area under that masking layer! It it's 100% then the masked layer is at 100% transparent! And that's before you've changed any opacity levels using PSP controls!
If you have multiple levels of opacity in an image, and then use that image as an alpha mask, those multiple opacities will be reflected in the masked layer at the given opacities wherever that masked layer exists under that masking layer.
I don't get your last sentence. No additional settings are necessary to achieve varying levels of opacity in a mask?! A mask with multiple levels of opacity doesn't have varying levels of opacity (it may have a variety of levels of opacity however...) -- last I checked they would have all been static levels unless you physically varied the opacity of the masking layer during the time the slide of that image was being viewed. Varying implies action. So, I don't understand how you can do nothing and still have varying opacity levels!
I probably should have included the caveat about images that aren't at 100% (translucent or opaque) when used as a mask. But, I figured that was for another, more advanced tutorial topic for a later date.
Dale
{have you watched my tutorial yet?}
I don't know what would qualify as a false transparency! Also, transparency is the state of being transparent which effectively means invisible (unless you give a percent transparent value). Therefore, I'm assuming you meant translucent when you talked about an image containing transparency.
If you take a look at my Colored Heart Example in my recent basic masking tutorial, you should note that the hearts used in this example were black images of a heart with a transparent region around them ... a black heart with no background. I used them as alpha masks. This example alone negates the statement you made in the last message. The transparent region of the mask made that area of the masked layer under that region transparent as well. The region of the masking layer that wasn't transparent (that is, was opaque) made the area of the masked layer under that masking area opaque.
So, you should reread the 1st paragraph of my last message. If an image has a translucent region in it prior to being used as a mask, the amount of opacity in that region will be reflected in the masked image. So, if it starts with 40% opacity in the masking layer, the masked layer will have a 40% opacity in the area under that masking layer! It it's 100% then the masked layer is at 100% transparent! And that's before you've changed any opacity levels using PSP controls!
If you have multiple levels of opacity in an image, and then use that image as an alpha mask, those multiple opacities will be reflected in the masked layer at the given opacities wherever that masked layer exists under that masking layer.
I don't get your last sentence. No additional settings are necessary to achieve varying levels of opacity in a mask?! A mask with multiple levels of opacity doesn't have varying levels of opacity (it may have a variety of levels of opacity however...) -- last I checked they would have all been static levels unless you physically varied the opacity of the masking layer during the time the slide of that image was being viewed. Varying implies action. So, I don't understand how you can do nothing and still have varying opacity levels!
I probably should have included the caveat about images that aren't at 100% (translucent or opaque) when used as a mask. But, I figured that was for another, more advanced tutorial topic for a later date.
Dale
{have you watched my tutorial yet?}
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests