|
Redcap
|
||||||||
| Posted: October 6, 2008 2:11 am | ||||||||
|
Crapadilla
|
--- Crapadilla says: "Damn you, stupid redundant feature requests!" ;) |
|||||||
| Posted: October 6, 2008 4:25 am | ||||||||
|
Carl
|
yep cool
|
|||||||
| Posted: October 6, 2008 5:29 am | ||||||||
|
Kraellin
|
shredded life preserver. i think that's what i had for breakfast this morning.
If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
| Posted: October 6, 2008 9:07 am | ||||||||
|
StevieJ
|
Hey Red, looking good!!!
How is it going with the 'Adobe' stuff??? Steve
"Buzzards gotta eat...same as worms..." - Clint :) |
|||||||
| Posted: October 6, 2008 1:08 pm | ||||||||
|
Redcap
|
Fine. It is a long process but I have documentation galore. For example I have an email from the website I purchase the product saying "It is not OEM." and then I have a created case with Adobe saying "The serial code you gave us is indeed OEM." So whether selling unbundled OEM products is legal or not (which according to most sources is illegal) I have them on false advertising and should be fine with that front.
It is annoying, but that is it. |
|||||||
| Posted: October 6, 2008 7:35 pm | ||||||||
|
StevieJ
|
Sorry to hear that you have to go through that crap.....sounds like a pain in the arse.....
If you don't mind me asking.....what's your next recourse to get it??? Steve
"Buzzards gotta eat...same as worms..." - Clint :) |
|||||||
| Posted: October 7, 2008 1:12 pm | ||||||||
|
Redcap
|
Adobe allows educational software to be used commercially, so it is CS4 educational version all the way! W00t!
|
|||||||
| Posted: October 7, 2008 6:36 pm | ||||||||
|
StevieJ
|
Excellent!!!
I just recently read about the enhancements to CS4.....nice!!! ![]() Steve
"Buzzards gotta eat...same as worms..." - Clint :) |
|||||||
| Posted: October 7, 2008 10:36 pm | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
that looks awesome!
i really, really wish FF could render effects like these as transparent PNGs that could be use as overlays. how great would that be? |
|||||||
| Posted: October 8, 2008 6:26 am | ||||||||
| jffe |
----Couldn't you render it as a .png with transparency, then blend it however you wanted in PS ? I'm no PS expert though, so perhaps that isn't possible for whatever reason. jffe Filter Forger |
|||||||
| Posted: October 8, 2008 11:43 am | ||||||||
|
StevieJ
|
That's what I do.....but still would be nice to have with FF.....but they probably don't because they figure that you can easily do it when using FF as a PS plugin as opposed to stand-alone..... Steve
"Buzzards gotta eat...same as worms..." - Clint :) |
|||||||
| Posted: October 8, 2008 12:17 pm | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
yes, to an extent. but rendering many filters with transparent images, or altering them to use transparent colors, usually changes the output of the filter. i've tried hard with several filters, but have had no luck. really i want transparent PNG overlay graphics to use when making skins for an app called CD Art Display. filters like this, or like Vlad's Peeing Paint, would look pretty cool, but you can't exactly render them on-the-fly, you need a transparent overlay image to do the work. |
|||||||
| Posted: October 8, 2008 11:48 pm | ||||||||
| jffe |
----Offhand, that doesn't make much sense to me. But again, I am barely a beginner in the more advanced PS stuff like layering and all. Perhaps you could determine what is 'wrong' in the FF filters you like, or in the transparency settings you are using with them, alter those, then cut & paste it into whichever filter you wish to use as an overlay, and solve the problem ? Or maybe even post some examples here (not that I myself can help you necessarily) so people can see what exactly it is doing now that you don't like, and what you would like it to do. Several FF regs take 'challenges' like that pretty seriously and might be of great help to you. jffe Filter Forger |
|||||||
| Posted: October 9, 2008 12:01 am | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
i think i figured it out. if i run a plain white image through a filter, then in photoshop use an inverted grayscale copy of the image as a transparency mask, i should be able to produce a PNG with alpha transparency that will work fine as an overlay graphic. i've not tried this because i'm at work and there's no photoshop here, but the theory is sound
it should also work with certain surface filters like Squeaky Clean, even preserving the rainbow swirl! i'm excited to try this out tonight! |
|||||||
| Posted: October 9, 2008 3:17 am | ||||||||
|
Kraellin
|
why dont you just save as a .tiff with transparency?
If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
| Posted: October 9, 2008 8:57 am | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
what, from FF? well the point is that many filters don't have alpha transparency. and if i induce it artificially, like changing white to fully transparent, many filters stop working. so i need to render then as images that have no transparency, then induce it later. it's not working like i hoped though. i started with Vlad's peeling paint filter. i got a good PNG overlay graphic, and my phothoshop mockup of the skin was beautiful, but once i built it and started flipping through albums, it didn't look so good. but that's not necessarily the fault of the technique i'm using, it worked as expected... i also tried with a grunge filter with no luck. the results are just too subtle. i think i need to manually tweak the transparency mask so the midtones don't get washed out... or i could just give up. i'm good at that |
|||||||
| Posted: October 9, 2008 10:39 am | ||||||||
|
Kraellin
|
ok, you could do this filter with a transparency, where the life preserver goes away and you just have the effect. that is do-able. and you could save it WITH the transparent alpha channel by using the .tiff save as. that would work. you would end up with exactly what you see in the filter.
however, this filter in this thread is an effect filter. texture filters wont do this. in fact, they cant do it and remain texture filters. so, any effect filter could be made to do what you want. it just takes a few components on the end of the filter routine and then saving in .tiff with alpha channel. If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
| Posted: October 9, 2008 12:35 pm | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
but effect filters require pixels as input. if you send all transparent pixels to the majority of effect filters, you get nothing.
this one may work, but most won't. right now i'm trying with Rain Ripples with no luck |
|||||||
| Posted: October 9, 2008 12:47 pm | ||||||||
|
Kraellin
|
yep.
ok, that's where you lose me. why would you ever send all transparent pixels to a results?
here's the deal, if you look at any effect filter, you'll see the life preserver in some form. it may be faint or nearly invisible, but it's there. all i'm saying is, you can eliminate the life preserver from the final image (leaving a transparency in its place) and leave the effect, i would think, in every effect filter out there. but maybe you're saying something else that i'm not understanding. If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
| Posted: October 9, 2008 12:59 pm | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
yes that's what i want, just the effect, as a PNG, with transparency where the life preserver used to be. so... how?
|
|||||||
| Posted: October 9, 2008 1:03 pm | ||||||||
| jffe |
----I would think you just put a blend with the filter output (ie = all of the filter you want to use up to the final *result* component) going in part and set the other part for transparent, and use a slider to determine how much transparency you want. Or do basically the same with a Threshold if you want more of a transparent outline or background effect. jffe Filter Forger |
|||||||
| Posted: October 9, 2008 1:29 pm | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
threshold was my first attempt a few months ago the first time i was messing with this idea, but i had no luck with it at all
|
|||||||
| Posted: October 9, 2008 1:54 pm | ||||||||
|
Kraellin
|
garbanzo, take a look at the end of this filter, right near the results component: http://www.filterforge.com/filters/6251.html .
If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
| Posted: October 9, 2008 10:34 pm | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
thanks for the tip, but that filter is very much an exception. you created an effect independently of the image, then dumped it on top. when that's the case, sending a fully transparent image through the filter is all it takes.
i guess i'm not explaining myself very well because nobody is quite understanding what i want, so i'm going to slip quietly away and figure this one out. i'll come back if and when i do |
|||||||
| Posted: October 10, 2008 12:11 am | ||||||||
| jffe |
----You have to post example pics. I'm sure someone here can help you, but I think you're right, we do not understand your goal exactly. Try to post what happens that you don't like done with just FF, and *fake* it somehow in Photoshop with the same filter, to show close to what exactly you do want it to do in one-pass in FF. jffe Filter Forger |
|||||||
| Posted: October 10, 2008 1:10 am | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
i'm at work now so i can't, but i'll have another go at explaining.
take vlad's peeling paint filter as an example. i want to figure out a way to make a PNG overlay graphic with transparency that, if put over the top of an image, makes that image look as if it went through the filter. i tried to render the filter with a white image, then used photoshop to transform it to a transparent PNG. it worked, but the problem was that since i used the image as the alpha channel, where white is transparent and black is opaque, all mid tones became partially transparent, so the effect was washed out. so i need to induce transparency, but still keep the details. i don't think this is possible with post-processing unless i manually edit the mask, since photoshop can't know what areas should be opaque, preserving detail, and what areas should be partially transparent, giving shadows etc. so then, how to do it in filter forge? if you drop a threshold in at the end and replace the life preserver with transparency, the filter no longer works, since it's a surface filter. so it can't be done in filter forge either. i would have to render it normally, then somehow use a modified version of the bump map to create an alpha mask. ugh. ok, so how about a simple filter. well, anything with distortion is out, since that can't be put into a PNG overlay. in fact, anything that changes the pixel colour or position of the original image won't work. that's most filters. the remaining ones are frames, which present no problem, or things like that waterfall filter, also easy. the other filters i was interested in were ones like bullet holes or plaster. i know those would have to be rendered then processed in photoshop to make a texture overlay. so i'm back to that. i think in the end i have to carefully craft my own transparency mask in photoshop, based on an inverse grayscale version of the image, but tweaked to work how i want it to. that's more work than i want to put into this, which is why i'm going to stop trying |
|||||||
| Posted: October 10, 2008 2:13 am | ||||||||
| jffe |
----Why not maybe just an inverted threshold area in FF then ? Cut out the middle man so to speak. jffe Filter Forger |
|||||||
| Posted: October 10, 2008 2:30 am | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
yes that would accomplish the same thing, but would also present the same problems with variable transparency in the wrong places.
|
|||||||
| Posted: October 10, 2008 2:42 am | ||||||||
|
Kraellin
|
ok, i think i see what you're after now. surface filters present a problem, as you've already seen. since you're bumpmapping as your last stage to the effect, there is no way to pull the trick you can pull with transparencies in simple filters, at least not simply.
i looked at the peeling paint filter and there may be a way to do what you want but i'm still not sure you need to do it. why cant you simply use FF as a plugin in PS and simply apply the filter each time you need your transparency layer? i mean, FF is going to substitute the life preserver for anything you have in PS on a given layer, so why not just use it that way? hehe, so, i've gotten more of what you're after now, but not why you're after it. i know that's not really important to me, in your eyes, perhaps, but if i know the purpose, then perhaps i can help more with achieving what you're after. i did look at the idea of solutions on all this, and a couple things come to mind in achieving what you're after. first, there is no set alpha in peeling paint. seems like if you're goign to save an alpha you'd want an alpha there to save. second, have you looked at any of the other FF render maps to get what you want, like maybe a normal map or diffuse? gotta go to work right now, but i'll check back on this later. If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
| Posted: October 10, 2008 9:15 am | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
haha you make it sound like i'm being all secretive. actually i mentioned it earlier in this thread - i'm just making some skins for an app called CD Art Display. it's basically a remote control for your media player, but its main goal i life is to show the cover art for the track that is currently playing.
an optional component of a skin is a overlay.png graphic that is placed over the cover art when the skin is drawn. normally, people use this to add a nice glossy finish to the image, or to make it look like it's actually a jewel case. i thought that with FF behind me, i could make some pretty cool effects. but it's proving more difficult than i thought it would be |
|||||||
| Posted: October 10, 2008 9:41 am | ||||||||
|
Kraellin
|
ok, so what i'm asking is, why dont you simply put the cover art in PS and then call up FF as a plugin and do your thing on the cover art?
see, the deal with surface filters is that you arent going to get the effect without the height mapping at the end and currently, that just cant be bypassed. we're trying to talk vladimir into adding a height component so that we can do height mapping earlier (or anywhere) in the filter. but so far, that hasnt happened. there's actually no real need for surface filters as a separate category. everything in the results filter could be made into a component for use anywhere in the filter, but again, that isnt the current way. so, if you want a transparency of a surface filter, you're going to have to almost turn it into a simple filter to do what you want. now, there might be a work-around; some things in the filter suggest this might be so. but, so far, i dont have anything very good. If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
| Posted: October 10, 2008 12:48 pm | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
thanks for the input. as for just processing the covers in photoshop, well that kind of defeats the purpose of having a skin that anyone can use
yesterday i messed with some post-processing of a render of peeled paint against a white background and i got about 80% to where i wanted to be. i just need to do some manual tweaking of the transparency map and i think i can get the rest of the way. i'm convinced now that FF can't help, so i need to turn to photoshop |
|||||||
| Posted: October 10, 2008 1:49 pm | ||||||||
| jffe |
What if you took a picture or used a scanner, and scanned in an empty jewel case cover as the starting image, then ran it through the FF filter effects you wanted. Then it would have the cd case cover (the clear plastic square) to work with, and it might seem more 'natural' or realistic in the end. That's not too much different from just using a white background as you said works 80% or so above, but it might provide a few extra details/artifacts/high lights to just make it more convincing or something.
jffe Filter Forger |
|||||||
| Posted: October 10, 2008 2:08 pm | ||||||||
|
ThreeDee
|
Yeah, I see what you mean -- you can't extract JUST the highlights (transparent white) and shadows (transparent black) without the image itself, so you get light gray shadows by running the filter over a white background. You would have to construct the filter specifically to make your own highlights and shadows -- yes, it would get pretty complicated.
As to the transparency itself, you could do the same thing you're doing in Photoshop in FF but whether it is worth doing it that way depends on how familiar you are with FF versus Photoshop. For instance, you could mod Vlad's Peeling Paint like as in the attached and get your transparency, but it wouldn't handle the light-gray-shadow issue. Peeling Paint Mod.ffxml |
|||||||
| Posted: October 10, 2008 4:52 pm | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
jffe, i don't want the jewel case, that's been done. i just want an old wooden frame with peeling paint, or a tub of suds from my Squeaky Clean filter, and so forth. anyway if i run a scan of a jewel case through FF, i still have to deal with the transparency issue to make it into an overlay graphic, so we're back to square one.
ThreeDee, thanks for the input. i'm definitely more familiar with Photoshop than FF, which is why i've been working more on that end. running a white image through this filter gives me all the info, but the problem is then adding variable transparency. using the image to construct a transparency map works, but since anything between black and white becomes slightly transparent depending on its gray value, all midtones get washed out. |
|||||||
| Posted: October 11, 2008 1:24 am | ||||||||
| jffe |
----Hmm, I'm gonna take a wild stab/guess at it again here. This problem (quoted above) might be why you need to run the pictures through a modded filter. Because then you can crank the *Brightness* control up. http://www.filterforge.com/filters/3320.html - That filter used to make the bubbles all yellowish and even made the white background parts of the life preserver pic yellow/orangish because the *Brightness* wasn't up high enough and the *Saturation* was set too high and was 'coloring' it too much. That's what makes me think you are never really going to get it right using an overlay in Photoshop, or at the very least that there is a much more elegant solution doing it all with FF somehow. jffe Filter Forger |
|||||||
| Posted: October 11, 2008 1:21 pm | ||||||||
|
garbanzo
|
no no no
the render i got from FF was fine. the reason the midtones get washed out is because i'm using a grayscale copy of the image as a transparency map. that means the lighter a pixel is, the more transparent it becomes. look here, this guy is having a similar problem. maybe he explains it better. http://www.davidchess.com/words/pngalpha.html |
|||||||
| Posted: October 11, 2008 1:31 pm | ||||||||
|
ThreeDee
|
In concept, you would want to run the filter over a transparent image so as to be able to overlay it on any image, just as an effect + highlights and shadows. However, very few filters are constructed to be able to do that. The problem with running the filter on a white background is that it will introduce that white background anywhere where you have partial transparency, so will wash out the image by adding white to it. Honest, you may be better off doing the modifications in PS, unless you feel up to modifying filters, in some cases pretty extensively, to get them where they work for this purpose. If you do, I can try and explain what to do with them. But I have to warn you it may really require more than a little modification in case of surface filters in particular, for you can't use the surface-filter-generated shadows and highlights but will have to add them into the filter some other way. |
|||||||
| Posted: October 11, 2008 4:39 pm | ||||||||
Filter Forge has a thriving, vibrant, knowledgeable user community. Feel free to join us and have fun!
33,738 Registered Users
+6 new in 7 days!
153,584 Posts
+6 new in 7 days!
15,355 Topics
+5 new in 30 days!
8 unregistered users.