The Third Image

[Barry Beckham]

The Third image is the term used in film days to describe the image we saw when one photo faded into another. For a brief moment, midway between the two, we saw a third image. This is visually appealing and easier to create these days with Photoshop.

 

[tom95521]

Hi Barry,

Nice demo of blend modes.

Years ago I submitted a suggestion for layer blend modes in PTE (overlay, multiply, ...) . Then you would not have to use Photoshop for the third image and could create custom transitions.

Thanks,
Tom

[Barry Beckham]

The only problem with that is where does PTE’s move towards an image editor end. We don’t want it to become a Jack of all Trades, but master of none. 

[tom95521]

My mother used to say "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride". Not sure how hard it would be to implement layer blending. If it is something the GPU could accomplish maybe it would not slow down the PTE engine.

Tom

[Barry Beckham]

But, then we want text styles like stroke and bevel, plus textures available for backgrounds and images. At what point does presentation software become an image editor and would that extra complexity drive away the majority of users who just want something simple?  If that line exists and where it might be is a tough call.
 

 

[tom95521]

Real text outline is a good idea.

Adobe Premiere has layer blend modes. It's an option, not a requirement.

Maybe possible, maybe impossible. I hope PTE never stops evolving.

Tom

[wideangle]

I think that the number of user requests for features will eventually dictate which way PT AV goes. Giving what buyers want will dictate the volume of sales.

I’m not sure that it’s the right thing to do to try to distinguish between an image editor and a presentation package in terms of going forward. Why do you need to?

I reckon all the above suggestions would be welcome and well used in PT AV by many. These are common tools and would avoid the frustration of having to switch out to another package to use them.

I agree that lots of bells and whistles can make a package overly bloated, and are to be avoided, but some extra simple tools would be useful.

Regards

wideangle

[Barry Beckham]

1 hour ago, wideangle said:

I’m not sure that it’s the right thing to do to try to distinguish between an image editor and a presentation package in terms of going forward. Why do you need to?

You don’t, but it’s also not an irrational question to wonder about. 

 

 

[wideangle]

OK. But why does a package have to be one or the other? I just don't get that.

I do agree that PT AV should never become swamped with a wide set of tools that the majority of people wouldn't use.

Take Photoshop as an example - an image editor that then expanded into the realms of video etc. It has tons of tools that many people just don't have a need for.
Probably that's why many have ceased to upgrade, and have stayed with older versions, like CS6 and earlier.

Having said that, there is always that group of people who feel that they have to upgrade at all costs, whenever something new is added. It's like a drug to some.

But heyho, that's life. Each to his (or her) own I suppose.

Regards

wideangle

[davegee]

WRT PTE: Surely that is why we have Essentials and Pro Versions - if all of the Bells and Whistles are not necessary or don't appeal you choose Essentials. If you WANT the full package you choose the PRO Version. Is there a case for being able to turn off or hide functions that you do not want (in the PRO Version) and leave on those that you DO want in order to simplify the interface?

WRT to Photoshop: Yes, all of the functions that a photographer needs are available in CS6, but some have been refined and/or improved beyond recognition in the CC 2020 version. 

"But hey-ho, that's life. Each to his (or her) own I suppose".

I agree,

DG

[jt49]

On 3/31/2020 at 9:09 PM, tom95521 said:

... Years ago I submitted a suggestion for layer blend modes in PTE (overlay, multiply, ...) ...

You are not the only one has asked for this feature 

A (little) disadvantage of modern AV programs is that they implement the dissolve using alpha-blending (which is a weighted arithmetic mean value). So without using masks you cannot achieve effects that we had when blending photographic slides, where we had two projectors and an additive mix on the screen. The blending mode "Screen" gives us an effect that is (to some extent) similar to classical blending. Sometimes, I would like to have in PTE

[Barry Beckham]

6 hours ago, jt49 said:

So without using masks you cannot achieve effects that we had when blending photographic slides,

What photographic effects are you referring to and how are they significantly better than what we have digitally? I’m not following you here

[JudyKay]

Blending modes are fundamental to layering images or videos.  I see it as necessary to PTE moving forward.

[jt49]

17 hours ago, Barry Beckham said:

What photographic effects are you referring to and how are they significantly better than what we have digitally? I’m not following you here

1. We may look at an example. There are 2 images that are (to some extent) complementary in brightness (first row).

2. The second row shows 2 mixes. On the left: a mix using the blending mode "Screen". This mode is regarded as the digital analogue of blending photographic slides (additive mix on a screen). On the right: Mix of the images with normal "Alpha-Blending" (both images contribute 50%). The version using "Screen" looks significantly better!

3. In the third row we see a mix using Alpha-Blending while the transparency of second image is controlled using a mask (shown on the left).

 

 

2 Images

 

2 Mixes: Blending Mode "Screen"  and  "Alpha-Blending. The Screen-Version (left hand side) looks better.

 

Mix: Alpha-Blending with Mask

[tom95521]

I can also see Barry's point about feature creep. After layer blending there are many other things that would be nice to have like custom LUTs, bezier curves, ..., kitchen sink.

I have complete faith that Igor and team will continue to improve PTE without sacrificing viewing quality and performance. Since I can only guess how difficult it is to implement additional features it's easy for me to make something sound simple when it's actually hard.

Tom

[Barry Beckham]

It.

I’m still not following what point your trying to make. What we can do now in the digital world, leaves the third image creations we had with film and twin projectors far behind. We can now use any blend mode we want that takes us as close as we can get to what we’re looking for. If the image is too dark or light, then edit one part of the two merged images to make adjustments, or merge the two images into the physical third and adjust that.

Do this starting wit Raw images and smart objects and you have more control and options than you shake a stick at, no comparison to the midway fade we had with twin projectors

[jt49]

On 4/4/2020 at 10:59 PM, Barry Beckham said:

... I’m still not following what point your trying to make. What we can do now in the digital world ...

Thanks for your lesson on digital images, but there is no need for that. By the way, I like the way you create montages in Photoshop. The question one may ask is: How many PTE users will apply your techniques?

You have called this topic "The Third Image". I don't see much correlation between your externally created montages and the so called "Third Image". In my opinion, this kind of image automatically appears when blending together images, and such a (virtual) image can look good, or perhaps not so good. In my example, Alpa-Blending does a rather bad job. In this situation, if there were "Screen" at hand in PTE, I could create a nice Third Image on the screen/monitor, on the fly, without doing any unnecessary work in an external image editor.  

As I said above, I like your montages, and I know a lot of fine AV productions that use similar techniques. But there is a disadvantage, as well. The montages are static. Wouldn't it be fine to have blending options in PTE which could be applied to animated images?

[JudyKay]

5 hours ago, jt49 said:

Wouldn't it be fine to have blending options in PTE which could be applied to animated images?

I think it is inevitable. 

[Barry Beckham]

Thanks for your lesson on digital images, but there is no need for that. By the way, I like the way you create montages in Photoshop.

My apologies, I was not trying to lecture you on digital techniques, but I didn’t understand what point you were trying to make and even now I’m not sure I do, unless it’s the one below. Who will go to this trouble?

The question one may ask is: How many PTE users will apply your techniques?

Who cares and how long is a piece of string? They are not my techniques, just standard Photoshop/Elements options that can be applied to AV and I think they are far better than what could be achieved with twin projectors. Is your point that the old method is better or just different. 

You have called this topic "The Third Image". I don't see much correlation between your externally created montages and the so called "Third Image".

 If you really can’t see how we can combine two images to create a third and how that fits in with the old style AV  third image? I’m not sure how to respond  to that. It almost seems like you’re being a little argumentative, but I know you would never do that.

 In my opinion, this kind of image automatically appears when blending together images, and such a (virtual) image can look good, or perhaps not so good. In my example, Alpha-Blending does a rather bad job. In this situation, if there were "Screen" at hand in PTE, I could create a nice Third Image on the screen/monitor, on the fly, without doing any unnecessary work in an external image editor. 

Perhaps you have just hit the nail on its head here. Do you really consider work done outside of PTE unnecessary. You seem to be indicating it’s all too much trouble and no-one will go to to those lengths anyway and you could be right. Is it politically incorrect to say that PTE AV Studio is terrific software, but when we use it in conjunction with an image editor our creative possibilities become much greater.  

As I said above, I like your montages, and I know a lot of fine AV productions that use similar techniques. But there is disadvantage, as well. The montages are static. Wouldn't it be fine to have blending options in PTE which could be applied to animated images?

What’s the point of considering blend modes and animation in PTE.  You’ve already suggested in your first paragraph that few will go to this trouble, so who would go even further and animate blended images in PTE. Just because we animate something, doesn’t make it better. Perhaps my bad English led you to believe I would not welcome any creative tools Igor and his team could put in the software. On the contrary, but I don’t think it a wild exaggeration to say, many PS users don’t even use blend modes, so logic would suggest that would be far fewer would use them in PTE.

Surely we have bigger fish to fry than blend modes and my original thought of how much image editing capability is practical in presentation software is not an unreasonable comment, is it? 

 

 

[jt49]

Remark from an old mathematician: The discussion has reached a state where logic is left behind. Posts will become longer and longer without adding anything substantial. Sometimes I like this kind of discussion, but not in a foreign language (too tedious). We could open a topic in the German section of this forum ...

By the way: Photopia and DaVinci Resolve seem to offer blending modes. But perhaps the designers may all be idiots ...