One more quick one!
26 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by im42n8 » Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:33 pm
Cherub,
These are some tutorials (below) that may help you answer some of your questions about masks... even if you have a working knowledge of them. The PDF file is a single page of results from the introduction tutorial. A good basic understanding of masking goes a very long way! So, mastering the basics is essential.
Introduction to Masks
http://www.photodex.com/sharing/viewsho ... alb=135843
Working With Masks
http://www.photodex.com/sharing/viewsho ... alb=135843
Conclusions from "Intro to..."
http://www.fenimorephotovideos.com/Temp ... evised.pdf
It's not just a case of remembering a mantra. It's also about knowing to what that mantra refers ... in this case, the layer below the mask and the mask IS NOT inverted: black conceals the portion of the layer below the mask and white reveals it.
A mask can be just about anything ... and may also include transparency. Typically, tho, masks are white or black with some transparency or black and white. (that's primarily because in the graphics world, the color is translated to a grayscale equivalent ... the alpha channel is for transparency in which 256 shades of gray are possible to achieve an opacity between transparent to opaque.).
In Producer, a white mask effectively works the same whether it is defined as an alpha (transparency) or a greyscale mask.
In Producer, an alpha (transparency) mask is either on or off ... it's transparent or opaque, nothing in between (unless your alpha mask also contains a portion that has opacity ... in which case that opacity is reflected in the masked layer). A grayscale mask deals with varying shades of opacity, from completely transparent (mask is black) to completely opaque (mask is white) and everything in between (mask is a shade of gray).
Jennifer mentioned how she dealt with the black and white heart provided by Photodex in which she reversed the colors. And then she used the transparent background. I took the latter route ... just masked out the heart and saved the file with a transparent background and an image I could play with easier. (I use Photopaing. In Photopaint, you mask the region you want to protect and then save the file as a PNG or TIFF. As a PNG I then tell the program to save it with the mask protecting the image or reverse the image. It saves the TIFF directly and uses any alpha channel in the file as a region to protect. In Photoshop you remove the surrounding area using your masking tools and turn off -- or remove -- the background and then save it.)
Enjoy!
Dale
These are some tutorials (below) that may help you answer some of your questions about masks... even if you have a working knowledge of them. The PDF file is a single page of results from the introduction tutorial. A good basic understanding of masking goes a very long way! So, mastering the basics is essential.
Introduction to Masks
http://www.photodex.com/sharing/viewsho ... alb=135843
Working With Masks
http://www.photodex.com/sharing/viewsho ... alb=135843
Conclusions from "Intro to..."
http://www.fenimorephotovideos.com/Temp ... evised.pdf
It's not just a case of remembering a mantra. It's also about knowing to what that mantra refers ... in this case, the layer below the mask and the mask IS NOT inverted: black conceals the portion of the layer below the mask and white reveals it.
A mask can be just about anything ... and may also include transparency. Typically, tho, masks are white or black with some transparency or black and white. (that's primarily because in the graphics world, the color is translated to a grayscale equivalent ... the alpha channel is for transparency in which 256 shades of gray are possible to achieve an opacity between transparent to opaque.).
In Producer, a white mask effectively works the same whether it is defined as an alpha (transparency) or a greyscale mask.
In Producer, an alpha (transparency) mask is either on or off ... it's transparent or opaque, nothing in between (unless your alpha mask also contains a portion that has opacity ... in which case that opacity is reflected in the masked layer). A grayscale mask deals with varying shades of opacity, from completely transparent (mask is black) to completely opaque (mask is white) and everything in between (mask is a shade of gray).
Jennifer mentioned how she dealt with the black and white heart provided by Photodex in which she reversed the colors. And then she used the transparent background. I took the latter route ... just masked out the heart and saved the file with a transparent background and an image I could play with easier. (I use Photopaing. In Photopaint, you mask the region you want to protect and then save the file as a PNG or TIFF. As a PNG I then tell the program to save it with the mask protecting the image or reverse the image. It saves the TIFF directly and uses any alpha channel in the file as a region to protect. In Photoshop you remove the surrounding area using your masking tools and turn off -- or remove -- the background and then save it.)
Enjoy!
Dale
by cherub » Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:15 pm
Dale,
Believe me, I have read and watched those tutorials many times, and have commented on your original posts as well. It was me who first asked you to make a pdf out of the conclusions, if you remember.
I had 2 problems that prompted me into writing this post:
1. My complete ignorance of how to use my graphic editor to make a mask - which resulted in my inability to use any kind of masks with irregular forms in Producer.
2. The fact that my version of Producer - 3.0.1992 - does not behave according to your tutorials. That is, in my version, something is inversed, in my opinion.
I think that Rick, in his tutorials, had the same problem, but I'm not sure.
Now, that I finally grasped the meaning of what a mask is in a graphic editor, no matter which one, I can revisit your tutorials and learn even more on how to use them in Producer - e.g. how to play with the various degrees of opacity.
Thank you once again for those very valuable tutorials, Dale.
Believe me, I have read and watched those tutorials many times, and have commented on your original posts as well. It was me who first asked you to make a pdf out of the conclusions, if you remember.
I had 2 problems that prompted me into writing this post:
1. My complete ignorance of how to use my graphic editor to make a mask - which resulted in my inability to use any kind of masks with irregular forms in Producer.
2. The fact that my version of Producer - 3.0.1992 - does not behave according to your tutorials. That is, in my version, something is inversed, in my opinion.
I think that Rick, in his tutorials, had the same problem, but I'm not sure.
Now, that I finally grasped the meaning of what a mask is in a graphic editor, no matter which one, I can revisit your tutorials and learn even more on how to use them in Producer - e.g. how to play with the various degrees of opacity.
Thank you once again for those very valuable tutorials, Dale.
by im42n8 » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:10 am
Cherub,
Yes, I remember now ... thanx (forgot). Masks are easy once you figure out what they do. I know that sounds kind of trite ... but a basic understanding of how they work as well as a working knowledge of them will make it much easier to figure out the problems you will encounter with them. Working with a mask until you get the result you want is one way to do it ... but knowing why you're coming up with the result you're getting can reduce the amount of time spent changing things until you get the desired result...sometimes considerably. Masks can take some time to get a real handle on.
I haven't compared the differences between the two versions of PSP ... but, I would be VERY surprised if they were all that different wrt how they deal with masks. Effectively, Proshow utilized the mask approach as graphic editors (in particular, the photoshop model) ... wrt layers.
In the graphic editor, irregular masks can be made with any of a number of tools, including the mask brush, paths, layer masks, quickmask, etc along with the paint brush and even the fill tool! Start small and work big! Small steps lead to the larger ones. In time and with lots of practice, you'll figure out that one. Creating files to use as a mask will likewise take time. The simple files to use as a mask are easy to create. The more complex ones will come as you become more familiar with the graphic editor.
As in the heart mentioned previously, where you have the black heart and the white area outside the heart, what happens in alpha transparency is that white and black make everything transparent under the mask. Color doesn't matter. Any of the masked layer under the heart layer is rendered transparent. Invert it and you get the reverse: anything in the masked layer under the heart layer is rendered opaque (visible).
If you go to grayscale, non-inverted, the white will show the layer being masked while the black will show the layer underneath the masked layer (i.e., concealing the masked layer). Inverting it gives the reverse: the black will act like white and the masked layer will show through those areas; white will act like black and will reveal the layer below the masked layer (i.e., concealing the masked layer).
The image you displayed earlier is a version of the same animal. If your version of PSP works differently that'd be REAL surprising!!
If you open photoshop (elements, paintshop pro, fireworks), open the heart (mask_09.png), create a layer from the background, select the magic wand tool, click on the white area (it should now be selected), hit delete, and then save as a PNG file. NOW, you have a file with transparency that you can use as a mask. That transparency will be used as part of the mask. Now, in alpha transparency mode, the black area will show the masked layer while the transparent area will show the layer below the masked layer. Invert the mask and the reverse should happen. In grayscale mode, the black heart will hide the entire masked layer; inverted it'll reveal the whole masked layer. Now, if the heart was white, the alpha transparency AND grayscale mask versions will work as described above for the alpha transparency. No need to worry about border limitations/effects/concerns...
Now, knowing how the mask image makes its magic lets you know whether you want a mask that is with or without transparency and/or black or white OR all black or all white. (or contains shades of gray)!
Have you done an experiment, step by step, to confirm the "works differently" assertion? If you have, then you might want to report that up the chain. It might reflect a problem that could crop up again and adversely affect our masking efforts!
Good Luck!
Dale
Yes, I remember now ... thanx (forgot). Masks are easy once you figure out what they do. I know that sounds kind of trite ... but a basic understanding of how they work as well as a working knowledge of them will make it much easier to figure out the problems you will encounter with them. Working with a mask until you get the result you want is one way to do it ... but knowing why you're coming up with the result you're getting can reduce the amount of time spent changing things until you get the desired result...sometimes considerably. Masks can take some time to get a real handle on.
I haven't compared the differences between the two versions of PSP ... but, I would be VERY surprised if they were all that different wrt how they deal with masks. Effectively, Proshow utilized the mask approach as graphic editors (in particular, the photoshop model) ... wrt layers.
In the graphic editor, irregular masks can be made with any of a number of tools, including the mask brush, paths, layer masks, quickmask, etc along with the paint brush and even the fill tool! Start small and work big! Small steps lead to the larger ones. In time and with lots of practice, you'll figure out that one. Creating files to use as a mask will likewise take time. The simple files to use as a mask are easy to create. The more complex ones will come as you become more familiar with the graphic editor.
As in the heart mentioned previously, where you have the black heart and the white area outside the heart, what happens in alpha transparency is that white and black make everything transparent under the mask. Color doesn't matter. Any of the masked layer under the heart layer is rendered transparent. Invert it and you get the reverse: anything in the masked layer under the heart layer is rendered opaque (visible).
If you go to grayscale, non-inverted, the white will show the layer being masked while the black will show the layer underneath the masked layer (i.e., concealing the masked layer). Inverting it gives the reverse: the black will act like white and the masked layer will show through those areas; white will act like black and will reveal the layer below the masked layer (i.e., concealing the masked layer).
The image you displayed earlier is a version of the same animal. If your version of PSP works differently that'd be REAL surprising!!
If you open photoshop (elements, paintshop pro, fireworks), open the heart (mask_09.png), create a layer from the background, select the magic wand tool, click on the white area (it should now be selected), hit delete, and then save as a PNG file. NOW, you have a file with transparency that you can use as a mask. That transparency will be used as part of the mask. Now, in alpha transparency mode, the black area will show the masked layer while the transparent area will show the layer below the masked layer. Invert the mask and the reverse should happen. In grayscale mode, the black heart will hide the entire masked layer; inverted it'll reveal the whole masked layer. Now, if the heart was white, the alpha transparency AND grayscale mask versions will work as described above for the alpha transparency. No need to worry about border limitations/effects/concerns...
Now, knowing how the mask image makes its magic lets you know whether you want a mask that is with or without transparency and/or black or white OR all black or all white. (or contains shades of gray)!
Have you done an experiment, step by step, to confirm the "works differently" assertion? If you have, then you might want to report that up the chain. It might reflect a problem that could crop up again and adversely affect our masking efforts!
Good Luck!
Dale
by cherub » Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:33 am
Hi Dale,
I'm attaching here my "experiment", done in version 3.0.1992
Press here: http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/9390/testlv7.png
Layer 1 - Mask - The heart
Layer 2 - Flowers
Background : Blue
I'm showing the following:
How the masks looks by itself in various possibilities and how it works in
Grayscale
Grayscale inverted
Alpha (transparency)
Alpha (transparency) Inverted
I would be extremely grateful Dale, if you could tell me if what happens in my version is at it should be, and whether in the new version 3.2 it is the same.
The image you displayed earlier is a version of the same animal. If your version of PSP works differently that'd be REAL surprising!!
I'm attaching here my "experiment", done in version 3.0.1992
Press here: http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/9390/testlv7.png
Layer 1 - Mask - The heart
Layer 2 - Flowers
Background : Blue
I'm showing the following:
How the masks looks by itself in various possibilities and how it works in
Grayscale
Grayscale inverted
Alpha (transparency)
Alpha (transparency) Inverted
I would be extremely grateful Dale, if you could tell me if what happens in my version is at it should be, and whether in the new version 3.2 it is the same.
by im42n8 » Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:56 pm
Cherub,
I'll look at this when I get home (am at work) ... and will try it in v1992 if it's still installed (or if I even installed it).
A prelim look at your graphic indicates that rows 3 & 4 are as expected. Rows 1 and 2 , cols 2 and 3 are as expected. Row 2, cols 4 and 5 look like grayscale rather than alpha. (it shouldn't matter if you're using JPG, BMP, Tiff or PNG! ... so I'm really mystified here...). The heart in Col 1 of Rows 1 and 2 should give exactly the same results across the board ... they do not -- odd.
-- it appears that the mask layer was not a full screen graphic for rows 1 and 2 but is in rows 3 and 4. Is this correct?
So now I have something else to work on. WRT Row 4, is the graphic a white heart with transparent background?
Dale
I'll look at this when I get home (am at work) ... and will try it in v1992 if it's still installed (or if I even installed it).
A prelim look at your graphic indicates that rows 3 & 4 are as expected. Rows 1 and 2 , cols 2 and 3 are as expected. Row 2, cols 4 and 5 look like grayscale rather than alpha. (it shouldn't matter if you're using JPG, BMP, Tiff or PNG! ... so I'm really mystified here...). The heart in Col 1 of Rows 1 and 2 should give exactly the same results across the board ... they do not -- odd.
-- it appears that the mask layer was not a full screen graphic for rows 1 and 2 but is in rows 3 and 4. Is this correct?
So now I have something else to work on. WRT Row 4, is the graphic a white heart with transparent background?
Dale
Last edited by im42n8 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
by cherub » Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:39 pm
Dale,
All the graphics are identical in dimensions. It is the same Producer file, and I only replaced the heart file each time.
The last png file is indeed a white heart on a transparent background.
The color blue is the background in Producer.
All the graphics are identical in dimensions. It is the same Producer file, and I only replaced the heart file each time.
The last png file is indeed a white heart on a transparent background.
The color blue is the background in Producer.
by im42n8 » Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:56 pm
Cherub,
mask Image: fit to safe area.
Flowers: fill frame
Blue: fill frame
Frame 1: image used as mask
Frame 2: Grayscale; Frame 3: Inverted Grayscale;
Frame 4: Alpha (transparency); Frame 5: Inverted Alpha (Transparency)
Row 1: mask is Black heart/White background (a PNG file)
Row 1, cols 1 - 5: I get same result as yours
Row 2: mask is Black heart/White background (a JPG file)
Row 2, cols 1 - 5 Same results as for row 1!
Row 3: white heart/black background (PNG file)
Row 3, cols 1 and 2 same; col 3 and 4 same as row 1, cols 3 and 4 (of your graphic)
Row 4: white heart/transparent background
Row 4, cols 1 - 5: Same results as you obtained
I repeated the experiment with v3.1.2015 and obtained exactly the same results as described above. I don't have an earlier version.
So, either there is a problem in the mask handling in the version you're using or there's a problem with your setup, or there's a corruption in your installation. The mask should NOT change its results if the graphic used is tiff, jpg or png. But, according to your graphic that's what happened. This is VERY difficult to understand. Rows 1 and 2 should show the same results.
Well, that's what I've found!
Dale
mask Image: fit to safe area.
Flowers: fill frame
Blue: fill frame
Frame 1: image used as mask
Frame 2: Grayscale; Frame 3: Inverted Grayscale;
Frame 4: Alpha (transparency); Frame 5: Inverted Alpha (Transparency)
Row 1: mask is Black heart/White background (a PNG file)
Row 1, cols 1 - 5: I get same result as yours
Row 2: mask is Black heart/White background (a JPG file)
Row 2, cols 1 - 5 Same results as for row 1!
Row 3: white heart/black background (PNG file)
Row 3, cols 1 and 2 same; col 3 and 4 same as row 1, cols 3 and 4 (of your graphic)
Row 4: white heart/transparent background
Row 4, cols 1 - 5: Same results as you obtained
I repeated the experiment with v3.1.2015 and obtained exactly the same results as described above. I don't have an earlier version.
So, either there is a problem in the mask handling in the version you're using or there's a problem with your setup, or there's a corruption in your installation. The mask should NOT change its results if the graphic used is tiff, jpg or png. But, according to your graphic that's what happened. This is VERY difficult to understand. Rows 1 and 2 should show the same results.
Well, that's what I've found!
Dale
by cherub » Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:56 pm
Dale,
I appreciate your effort very much!
My "educated" guess is that there is a problem in this particular version. I have had it on 2 different computers (one old and one new) and it exhibited the same peculiarities.
I could have updated to 3.1 but I absolutely hated that thing with "add another layer here".
Version 3.2, from what I hear here, hasn't solved the problems of the jumping shadows.... so why upgrade ?
I think I'll live with what I have and wait a bit for another newer version.
I am very grateful for what you did, and for the time you spent in trying to troubleshoot me.
I appreciate your effort very much!
My "educated" guess is that there is a problem in this particular version. I have had it on 2 different computers (one old and one new) and it exhibited the same peculiarities.
I could have updated to 3.1 but I absolutely hated that thing with "add another layer here".
Version 3.2, from what I hear here, hasn't solved the problems of the jumping shadows.... so why upgrade ?
I think I'll live with what I have and wait a bit for another newer version.
I am very grateful for what you did, and for the time you spent in trying to troubleshoot me.
by im42n8 » Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:24 am
Cherub,
De nada. Glad to have tried. The jumping shadows has been a problem for many versions ... but it's a minor problem. It doesn't crop up all that often (so its a minor irritant when it does ... same with the borders problems).
I haven't even heard of 3.2 yet. So, you must have an ear closer to Photodex than I (and I dont' have one!). I've been wondering when the next upgrade will appear. Otherwise, it's back to troubleshooting and bug locating (while assembling a show or two!)!
Dale
De nada. Glad to have tried. The jumping shadows has been a problem for many versions ... but it's a minor problem. It doesn't crop up all that often (so its a minor irritant when it does ... same with the borders problems).
I haven't even heard of 3.2 yet. So, you must have an ear closer to Photodex than I (and I dont' have one!). I've been wondering when the next upgrade will appear. Otherwise, it's back to troubleshooting and bug locating (while assembling a show or two!)!
Dale
by marmart » Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:17 am
Dale - 3.2 was released in Nov 2007. The last update fro 3.1 was in October which was 2018. That is the version I'm using and I notice some are using earlier releases. I've had no "substantive" issues...knock on wood.
Mary
Mary
26 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests