This is seven photos. With steep adjustments in manual camera settings.
I invented this method of Photoshop blending.
The copies are arranged on a ladder of transparencies. So, 'layers' window is critical.
Each photo is duplicated four copies each. Best to deal with one fade at a time, rather than do all the duplications at once or else your ladder of transparencies will become too tall and too unwieldy. It is best to label the rungs as you go, even as they disappear in the next move. It helps immensely in keeping things sorted. Just pause and label things as you go.
"Layer 2-25%" for example, will ensure you do not become lost.
On this anim, when I opened the timeline window and had it make frames from the layers, I noticed in the horizontal row of frames, but could not notice in the vertical ladder of rungs in the "layers" window, two strips of windows showing the same thing, that one of the frames at 50% did not have its backing. It showed lightly in frames and normally in layers. By being labeled, it was easy for me to find the right layer at 100% and duplicate it, then compress the duplication onto the back for 100% display, for 150% display by the numbers. The timeline window did show a problem and the layers being labeled made it simple to fix before going any further, adding times to the frames, testing how it runs, and saving as GIF and optimizing.
Optimizing is a pain in the beaut-tox.
You have to decide how much worse to make it.
That is the terrible part. Either reduce the colors or reduce the size or reduce the number of frames, or reduce the number of changes. It is a matter of reduction one way or another. It's horrible.
Now there are sites that do it for you. You upload your finished anim and tell the site how bad to make it, light, medium, or heavily worse, and it does a very good job of it. Much better than I can do myself. I never can beat it. So now I use it all the time as another step. I used it for this to bring the file size down from 1.5MB to 489KB. I could have gone even lower, but that result was much worse. And I could not have done so nearly as well in making it worse.
And in this manner we make compromises.
In the 'layers' window, as on a ladder, each rung is is adjusted for opacity, 25%, 50%, 75% and left alone at 100%.
But if the layer is displaying at 25% opacity then what is behind it? What completes it to 100%? The white of the page?
That would be a jolting change between fully dark and most light, and that jolt would occur between all seven photos then cycle back to the first.
So no, the previous photo goes behind it. So that means three more copies of each photo at 100%.
So, starting at the bottom, the combinations on the ladder will go:
[and so on ↑ up the ladder to 7] photo 4 @ 100% photo 3 @ 100% + photo 4 on top @75% photo 3 @ 100% + photo 4 on top @50% photo 3 @ 100% + photo 4 on top @25% photo 3 @ 100% photo 2 @ 100% + photo 3 on top @75% photo 2 @ 100% + photo 3 on top @50% photo 2 @ 100% + photo 3 on top @25% photo 2 @ 100% photo 1 @100% + photo 2 on top @75% photo 1 @100% + photo 2 on top @50% photo 1 @100% + photo 2 on top @25% photo 1 @100%
Photo 1 fade in is backed by photo 7.
Every photo has 4 stages, every photo backs another photo 3 times. It amounts to quite a lot of duplicating, adjusting layer opacity of the rungs on the ladder of transparencies, and a lot of compressing 2 layers into one. Doublicate-adjust-compress, doublicate-adjust-compress, doublicate-adjust-compress, very repeaty.
Actually, the fading in photos display at 125% opacity, 150% opacity, and 175% opacity, since they are added together, but there is only so black you can go. The transparency on top is the thing that shows. You could if you wanted adjust the opacity of the corresponding backing photo, I used to do that, fade in and fade out exactly to 100%, but it doesn't seem to help anything. Maybe it does do something and I am just not noticing. The part I invented is not caring about that. I think I invented not caring about that. There is nobody around here to show me so I must discover these things myself.
"Do you not know? The moon is nothing more than a circumambulating aphrodisiac devinely subsidized to provoke the world into a rising birthrate." --Christopher Fry from The Lady's Not for Burning
That astronomy lecture guy said that the earth and the moon used to be the same thing and that the man in the moon is the result of ancient lava flows.
That ecology lecture guy said that life could not exist on earth without the moon. Something about tidal pools being where amino acids were first formed. Results reproduced by experiment.
When Ronald Reagan made reference to touching the face of God, I doubt he was thinking of the man in the moon.
I doubt he was thinking of anything much at all, actually.
I was sitting in a chair watching tv and noticed the moon beyond the vertical blinds, beyond the glass, beyond the screen loomed incredibly bright and large in the night and I continued watching tv and doing things online.
At length I thought the same thing again. I stared at the moon and admired its excellence. Its closeness to Earth, its steady nature. I looked at it for a very long time and pondered my place here on Earth for this moment.
Later, the same thing all over again and I thought, "Certainly you should have moved by now."
I looked behind me and realized I was admiring the reflection of a ceiling lamp shaped like a globe shining behind me. Buggers.
But not last night. I checked. No reflection there, no Siree, that is the real moon. I opened the door and held the lens steady against it. This lens has vibration control, but not enough to stay open for so long as a second or two. I tried different things.
7 comments:
This is seven photos. With steep adjustments in manual camera settings.
I invented this method of Photoshop blending.
The copies are arranged on a ladder of transparencies. So, 'layers' window is critical.
Each photo is duplicated four copies each. Best to deal with one fade at a time, rather than do all the duplications at once or else your ladder of transparencies will become too tall and too unwieldy. It is best to label the rungs as you go, even as they disappear in the next move. It helps immensely in keeping things sorted. Just pause and label things as you go.
"Layer 2-25%" for example, will ensure you do not become lost.
On this anim, when I opened the timeline window and had it make frames from the layers, I noticed in the horizontal row of frames, but could not notice in the vertical ladder of rungs in the "layers" window, two strips of windows showing the same thing, that one of the frames at 50% did not have its backing. It showed lightly in frames and normally in layers. By being labeled, it was easy for me to find the right layer at 100% and duplicate it, then compress the duplication onto the back for 100% display, for 150% display by the numbers. The timeline window did show a problem and the layers being labeled made it simple to fix before going any further, adding times to the frames, testing how it runs, and saving as GIF and optimizing.
Optimizing is a pain in the beaut-tox.
You have to decide how much worse to make it.
That is the terrible part. Either reduce the colors or reduce the size or reduce the number of frames, or reduce the number of changes. It is a matter of reduction one way or another. It's horrible.
Now there are sites that do it for you. You upload your finished anim and tell the site how bad to make it, light, medium, or heavily worse, and it does a very good job of it. Much better than I can do myself. I never can beat it. So now I use it all the time as another step. I used it for this to bring the file size down from 1.5MB to 489KB. I could have gone even lower, but that result was much worse. And I could not have done so nearly as well in making it worse.
And in this manner we make compromises.
In the 'layers' window, as on a ladder, each rung is is adjusted for opacity, 25%, 50%, 75% and left alone at 100%.
But if the layer is displaying at 25% opacity then what is behind it? What completes it to 100%? The white of the page?
That would be a jolting change between fully dark and most light, and that jolt would occur between all seven photos then cycle back to the first.
So no, the previous photo goes behind it. So that means three more copies of each photo at 100%.
So, starting at the bottom, the combinations on the ladder will go:
[and so on ↑ up the ladder to 7]
photo 4 @ 100%
photo 3 @ 100% + photo 4 on top @75%
photo 3 @ 100% + photo 4 on top @50%
photo 3 @ 100% + photo 4 on top @25%
photo 3 @ 100%
photo 2 @ 100% + photo 3 on top @75%
photo 2 @ 100% + photo 3 on top @50%
photo 2 @ 100% + photo 3 on top @25%
photo 2 @ 100%
photo 1 @100% + photo 2 on top @75%
photo 1 @100% + photo 2 on top @50%
photo 1 @100% + photo 2 on top @25%
photo 1 @100%
Photo 1 fade in is backed by photo 7.
Every photo has 4 stages, every photo backs another photo 3 times. It amounts to quite a lot of duplicating, adjusting layer opacity of the rungs on the ladder of transparencies, and a lot of compressing 2 layers into one. Doublicate-adjust-compress, doublicate-adjust-compress, doublicate-adjust-compress, very repeaty.
Actually, the fading in photos display at 125% opacity, 150% opacity, and 175% opacity, since they are added together, but there is only so black you can go. The transparency on top is the thing that shows. You could if you wanted adjust the opacity of the corresponding backing photo, I used to do that, fade in and fade out exactly to 100%, but it doesn't seem to help anything. Maybe it does do something and I am just not noticing. The part I invented is not caring about that. I think I invented not caring about that. There is nobody around here to show me so I must discover these things myself.
I am not a robot, but domo arigato anyway.
"Do you not know? The moon is nothing more than a circumambulating aphrodisiac devinely subsidized to provoke the world into a rising birthrate." --Christopher Fry from The Lady's Not for Burning
That astronomy lecture guy said that the earth and the moon used to be the same thing and that the man in the moon is the result of ancient lava flows.
That ecology lecture guy said that life could not exist on earth without the moon. Something about tidal pools being where amino acids were first formed. Results reproduced by experiment.
When Ronald Reagan made reference to touching the face of God, I doubt he was thinking of the man in the moon.
I doubt he was thinking of anything much at all, actually.
Moogel
Sometimes it's cloudy,
Sometimes it's clear,
Sometimes it's a gibbous
Bagel with a shmear.
I was sitting in a chair watching tv and noticed the moon beyond the vertical blinds, beyond the glass, beyond the screen loomed incredibly bright and large in the night and I continued watching tv and doing things online.
At length I thought the same thing again. I stared at the moon and admired its excellence. Its closeness to Earth, its steady nature. I looked at it for a very long time and pondered my place here on Earth for this moment.
Later, the same thing all over again and I thought, "Certainly you should have moved by now."
I looked behind me and realized I was admiring the reflection of a ceiling lamp shaped like a globe shining behind me. Buggers.
But not last night. I checked. No reflection there, no Siree, that is the real moon. I opened the door and held the lens steady against it. This lens has vibration control, but not enough to stay open for so long as a second or two. I tried different things.
It is not for entertainment.
It is for worship.
Fall down, non-believers.
PS Thanks for the specs, Chip.
I love how graphics like that can be made.
Post a Comment