Ordering a child and parent...

[trailertrash]

If I make an object [ a video ] a child of an image, it appears above it in the order of things. I want it underneath [or behind it ] Is there a way to get a child behind or under the parent.

Hope I explained that correctly.

Andrew

[davegee]

Would it be easier to make both the Image and Video "children" of a frame?

That way you can order (and size) whichever way that you want. Use the frame to control any animation.

DG

[fh1805]

Andrew,

Dave's suggestion is the way to go. It gives great flexibility. You can order the video and still in either manner (Video over Still, Still over Video). You can apply animation to them both by animating on the Frame. And yet, if you really want to, you can apply different animations to the individual objects. All options are open to you. I would further recommend that, if you want to have, say, some zoom animation and some 3D transform, that you nest one Frame inside another, with the video and still objects as children of the lowest frame in the nest. In this way you ensure that the parameters for each kind of animation are separate from those of any other kind of animation. In practice, you can think about one kind of animation at a time, without worrying about the impact on the others.

regaards,

Peter

[davegee]

Let's patent that phrase Peter - "Nested Frames"!

DG

[trailertrash]

Thank you guys. I'll try those out today.

Andrew

[stonemason]

Peter

Using the nested frame technique that you outline. Is there any way of making say a picture in the lowest order frame go to zero opacity by applying properties to that frame or must it be applied to the picture itself? I'm thinking of a picture in picture effect where the smaller image rotates to reveal a second image and then fades away. I have to say that in my opinion for someone just trying the software for the first time the whole area of 3d animation would be quite daunting and is not documented well enough (especially parent child relationships)to give them a basic understanding of how these work.

Geoff

[davegee]

Geoff,

Using my Picture Frame as an example:

It is possible to "stack" images in the aperture of the picture frame that I made and control their opacity in keyframes. It's a rather complicated procedure but possible!

The Aperture in the Picture Frame is a "nested frame" - it is the child of the Master Frame for the Object.

The more usual way of using the Picture Frame is to "stack" two images back to back and the rotation of the frame itself gives the necessary change of image. Image one would be "Show Front" (Show Back unticked) and Image two would be "Show Back" (Show Front unticked).

Each slide would present two images.

To use a STATIC frame and change the image I would put two images into the aperture in each slide. The second image in each case would overlap into the next slide.

Re:Opacity - it would be performed on the IMAGE and not the frame.

Hope that helps?

DG

[stonemason]

Thanks Dave, appreciate the information. I have already used both the techniques that you describe, and like you say the keyframing can get quite complex. I just wish that there was better documentation of this area to give new users a better start with what is undoubtedly the most creative aspect of the whole programme.

Geoff

[fh1805]

Geoff,

Sorry I've not replied sooner. Been out all day. Opacity is the one keyframe-controllable property that cannot be inherited via the parent-child relationship. And the reason is that the frame is not really a frame, it's a zero opacity rectangle. Check it out for yourself. Make a rectangle at zero opacity and note its icon in the object list. Make a frame at 100% opacity and note its icon in the opacity list. When the v5.0 animation came out I campaigned unsuccessfully for opacity to be inheritable in a selectable manner. I realise the immense benefits of being able to fade in/out the individual objects. But think how much simpler it would have been for me in the Rubik's cube show if I could have faded out the entire cube with just one pair of keyframes on the master frame -instead of 54 pairs of keyframes on the individual facets of the cube. All I was asking for was the ability to nominate that, for this parent, its opacity setting is to be forced onto its children, and their children, and their children, etc.

I still think it would add immensely to the ease of coding complex animations. But I seem to be a voice crying in the wilderness.

regards,

Peter

[davegee]

Where's the petition?

I'll sign it!

DG

[stonemason]

Me too

[fh1805]

Where's the petition?

I'll sign it!

DG

Me too

I've opened a new topic in the "Ideas and suggestions" section.

Peter