Controlling opacity of child objects

[Claude34]

Bonjour a tous j'habite en France débutant sur PTE, mais j'en connais la technique!

Une proposition, sur "Objet et animations", il faudrait comme sur Photoshop dans les calques, pouvoir sélectionner un cadre, ou une image et la désélectionner, ou la sélectionner encore et aussi pouvoir effacer un cadre ou une image, un texte tout ce qui se trouve.

Car si on ajoute un cadre et des images à le suite, si on efface le cadre, tout ce qui ce trouve en dessous s'efface aussi.

Ce serai plus créatif d'avoir cette liberté.

merci

Moderator note:

Translation of the above:

"Hello everyone I live in France starting on PTE, but I know the technique!

A proposal on "Objects and Animation" should be like in Photoshop layers, you can select a frame, or an image and deselect or select again and also be able to erase a frame or image, text everything is.

Because if you add a frame and the following images, if you erase the frame, all that lies beneath it fades too.

It will have more creative freedom.

thank you"

Please note:

This forum uses English as its common language. Perhaps you would find one of the French language PTE forums more suited to your needs.

Ce forum utilise l'anglais comme langue commune. Peut-être vous trouverez l'un des PTE forums francophones plus adapté à vos besoins.

regards,

Peter

[uuderzo]

I suppose that Claude is referring to the fact that the opacity of a frame doesn't control the opacity of its children.

I think that this is due to the fact that the opacity in the frame controls the opacity of the fill style so it's difficult to merge both functions in one single option.

I already suggested that it should be possible to use the frame simply as a hierarchy control for children, including not only the transformation matrix but also the opacity. I really never used a frame for its fill capacity, but only for better control of the hierarchy. There is the rectangle if i want to fill an area.

Maybe adding a new "transparent" fill style that acts also as a switch to propagate all reasonable informations to the chilredn (i mean opacity but maybe some other?) will address this issue?

Greetings! Umberto

P.S. But we are off topic, so better continue somewhere else.

[fh1805]

Moderator note:

I have split this discussion out into a new topic.

regards,

Peter

[fh1805]

Hi Umberto,

I also think that is what Claude is referring to.

A PTE Frame object is just a PTE Rectangle object with its opacity set to 0%. A PTE Rectangle object is just a PTE Frame object with its opacity set to 100%. The Rectangle and the Frame are the same object. Because the difference is achieved by using the opacity value, opacity cannot be an inherited attribute for child objects.

To have opacity inherited by a group of child objects, you must place all the objects within a Mask Container object. You can then fade in or out all of the objects at the same time by fading in or out the Mask Container object.

regards,

Peter

[uuderzo]

Peter, you're right but i recently faced an issue with mask containers.

They don't allow to specify a drop shadow effect (by their nature i suppose).

So you are forced to do all the "child opacity" work into the mask container, and insert the mask container itself into a frame to get the drop shadow effect (this works only with a rectangular mask of course). But then you need to animate both frame and mask opacity if you want a complete fade:

Example:

Frame (for drop shadow, need to animate opacity)
|
+-Mask container
 |
 +-Picture (zooming out, i want the picture to stay inside the mask boundaries for a picture in picture effect)
 +-Mask (need to animate opacity)

And this doesn't finish here: If i need to animate nested "groups of childrens" opacity the mask trick doesn't work because you cannot nest mask containers.

Greetings! Umberto

[Jean-Claude]

I think the remark of Claude focuses on a behavior simpler than the notion of opacity, but fundamental in the design of objects (probably a confusion in translation "effacer" -> "to fade". In fact here "effacer" is "to delete".

Objects are built on a logic of parent-children (which is not the case in Photoshop) and if you remove the father the whole family disappears too.

This is a very well explained in the user's guide of Jean-Charles Pizolatto (in french) see http://www.wnsoft.com/fr/picturestoexe/help/

Je pense que la remarque de Claude porte sur un comportement plus simple que la notion d'opacité mais fondamental dans la conception des objets (sans doute une confusion dans la traduction "effacer" - "to fade". En fait ici effacer c'est supprimer.

Les objets sont construits sur une logique de parent-enfants (ce qui n'est pas le cas dans Photoshop) et si on supprime le père toute la famille disparait aussi.

C'est une chose très bien expliquée dans le guide utilisateur de Jean-Charles Pizolatto (en français) voir http://www.wnsoft.com/fr/picturestoexe/help/

[fh1805]

Objects are built on a logic of parent-children (which is not the case in Photoshop) and if you remove the father the whole family disappears too.

Jean-Claude,

Thank you for improving the translation from French to English! I regret I am not bilingual and have to rely on translation tools.

Yes, objects can be built as parent-child links but they do not have to be built this way. They can be added as "independent" objects. In this mode they appear exactly as in Photoshop: a simple stack of layers. But it is the parent-child feature that gives PTE its immense flexibility and that allows us users to programme highly complex animations into our sequences.

regards,

Peter