Drop shadow issues

[k-ram Profile Private message]

Hello, I am new on this forum, so please forgive me if this topic has been covered before. I am inserting a logo (tiff image w/alpha channel) and add a "drop shadow" effect in Adjustments -> editing tools. Everything looks fine in the preview window, but when I create a video file in the format I usually rely on (MPEG 4 AVC, 1280x720), the effect looks totally different. please see the two images; drop shadow issue_1.jpg is a screengrab of the preview window, drop shadow issue_2.jpg is a screengrab of the video file [/http:/k-ram.smugmug.com/Other/Pro-Show-Producer/29960657_6pcJMx]

I have tested different output formats, but this does not seem to make any difference.

Thank you,

regards,

Knut

[heckydog Profile Private message]

Try using a png file instead of tiff. It should work fine for you in this application. Tiff is an older format and it's not used very much these days. I don't even like to use it in photoshop because it seems you have to jump through a few hoops to get it to work right. Perhaps PSP just doesn't work well with it.

Joe

PS Welcome to the forum.

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

I'd be surprised if you'd find any difference between using a PSD, PNG, GIF, or TIFF. I've personally never seen the difference and I use all four (mostly PNG and some TIFF). But, if nothing else, it's worth a try to change graphic formats as Joe recommended. NOTE: Just because TIFF is an "older"format doesn't mean it's not very useful. PSP handles it, in my experience, just fine.

Your blurring looks different than I'd expect from unlocked zoom values ... you still have a decent blur amount but the placement is off. There's a bug in PSP that has to do with unlocked zoom values ... but that typically results the program not applying the blur correctly.

You might just copy the original layer, change its color to black (if your graphic text is all white, you will probably have to change the white point to -100 AS WELL AS the Contrast before the color change occurs). Then change the layer's opacity, add the desired amount of blur, and move it to a layer below the original layer. Then, offset the position (pan-x and pan-y) slightly from the original position to get the desire shadow location. It's a brute force technique but works quite well and can give you a better feather control over the shadow (to give a desired amount of "depth") than you can get from the PSP shadow.

Dale

[k-ram Profile Private message]

Thank you both; I think I will have to go for the Brute Force option - The only thing that puzzles me is that everything went fine on an earlier version of the same file - and the fact that the preview window shows the effect that I want, and sadly not the rendered video file. This fact would normally imply that this is a bug...? Also; Tiff is a very common file format in the industry I represent (3D rendering). I have previously noted that 16 bit Tiff causes Pro Show to crash (I contacted the developers to inform about this), but 8 bit Tiff normally works just fine.

Best regards (and thank you for welcoming me to the forum)

Knut

[heckydog Profile Private message]

You're probably right about tiff being a common format in your industry which is something that I don't work with very often. After Effects 2.5D and Element 3D is as far as I go with 3D.

It's good to know that some forms of tiff do cause problems in PSP but png is so common and used so much by most of us that issues like that will rarely arise. Thanks for the update.

Joe

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

Knut,

I'm not sure what Producer version you were previously using but, if it was prior to v5 then the difference is in the GPU acceleration. You'll probably find that if you reverted to the old method of rendering, your problem will go away. But, that's also probably going to slow things down, rendering time-wise.

You can turn hardware acceleration off by going to the Edit | Preferences and click on Playback. Then, uncheck the GPU acceleration. Then, try your rendering. There are some differences in how the hardware rendering works in ProShow compared to the software-based rendering. They're still finding out what some of those "quirks" are.

Note that the Software Fallback Resolution will definitely be major factor now because it is what the program will use to determine the maximum resolution used when GPU acceleration is not being used. The program defaults to a ridiculously low resolution of 800x600 (it's a legacy thing...).

Joe, Apparently PNGs are NOT without their problems. You should talk with Barbara about issues with PNGs. She's got one of the most discerning eyes ... and has run into a number of little problems with them. Things I never noticed until she brought them up for attention. Nothing like crashing the program tho. Still, there are quirks with them that pop up when you least expect them (least?! Heck, I never expect them! I figure everything is supposed to work all the time! )

Dale

PS You'll find a wide variety of expertise on the program here. Someone is liable to have a useful answer for you on most any situation you might run up against, usually shortly after you've posted it. Beats beating your head against the wall trying to figure something out ... and getting nowhere fast! There's probably someone here who's already experienced the problem or already figured out how to do what you're trying to do. Welcome to the Forum!

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Joe, Apparently PNGs are NOT without their problems. You should talk with Barbara about issues with PNGs. She's got one of the most discerning eyes ... and has run into a number of little problems with them. Things I never noticed until she brought them up for attention.

The most persistent problem with PNG's is their transparency when previewing them via the folder list. Blockiness and smearing can be so bad as to render the image unrecognizable. However, they work perfectly inside a slide, but who wants to preview images that way?! Given that no such anomalies happen in any other software I've ever used, I can only assume ProShow is coded badly for previews. Also interesting to note is that the smaller PNG version of a Photoshop image takes longer to preview than the larger PS version. It appears to be using the old line-by-line scan.

Barbara

[heckydog Profile Private message]

Joe, Apparently PNGs are NOT without their problems. You should talk with Barbara about issues with PNGs. She's got one of the most discerning eyes ... and has run into a number of little problems with them. Things I never noticed until she brought them up for attention.

The most persistent problem with PNG's is their transparency when previewing them via the folder list. Blockiness and smearing can be so bad as to render the image unrecognizable. However, they work perfectly inside a slide, but who wants to preview images that way?! Given that no such anomalies happen in any other software I've ever used, I can only assume ProShow is coded badly for previews. Also interesting to note is that the smaller PNG version of a Photoshop image takes longer to preview than the larger PS version. It appears to be using the old line-by-line scan.

Barbara

I have seen that blockiness thing in other programs, just can't think of which ones at the moment. So, although uncommon, it's not unique to ProShow. Since it never interfered with how it appears in the final render I just wrote it off as a PITA. I don't think I have a single piece of software that doesn't have some kind of quirk to deal with

Joe

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

I have seen that blockiness thing in other programs...

Same bad code, it would seem.

Barbara

[k-ram Profile Private message]

Dale,

Thank you for the info regarding GPU acceleration; when I turned it off (and set the fallback resolution to 1920x1080), the preview window (and the final rendered video) showed the effect in identical ways. This is very useful. I would suggest that the development team in future releases introduce some features to the drop shadow effect, so this can be adjustable (like in Photoshop etc.).

Thanks a lot,

Regards,

Knut

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

I know there's been a long standing request to make the shadow more adjustable than it currently is. Yes, it would be nice if we could change the amount of feathering, its size, and its direction in addition to its opacity and color. WHEN they provide those options though, is the question. Their current implementation of shadowing is, as you've noticed, very limited.

It took Photodex awhile before they had a handle on the GPU acceleration feature and finally released it to the rest of us. They're still working out a few bugs with it though ... most of them being rather "obscure." However, the more "bugs" that are found, the better and more reliable the feature gets.

We keep hoping for some useful features as well as a bunch of bug fix tweaks in each new release. We are often disappointed by what doesn't get fixed. Stability was an issue for quite awhile ... but that finally got addressed. But, the new features that they do provide are often pretty nice. All we can do is hope they add the features we've been asking for (sometimes for years) in the new releases...

Dale

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

I know there's been a long standing request to make the shadow more adjustable than it currently is.

A less crude drop shadow would be incredibly welcome. As it stands now, they've predetermined the distance of an object from the background and the direction of light. Either we accept their limited vision of drop shadows or we make our own. I gave up long ago and consistently make my own when, by all rights, I shouldn't have to do so. It's one of those disappointments in each new version. Maybe next time?

Barbara

[k-ram Profile Private message]

Let's keep our fingers crossed! Btw; does the development team follow discussions like these (or is there a better way to address wishes for future releases?)

Cheers,

Knut

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Let's keep our fingers crossed! Btw; does the development team follow discussions like these (or is there a better way to address wishes for future releases?)

The best way is to write directly to Photodex. If enough people write to them with the same requests, they're likely to sit up and take notice.

Barbara