| Author |
Pixelnook's VectorPaint Script ?
|
|
|
| Does anyone who is good a reading or writing scripts think it would be
possible to turn the VectorPaint Script into one that would use the Eraser
tool instead?
I looked at the scripting but that stuff is still so greek to me..sorry!
But if anyone is bored and wanted to play...this would be a very cool thing
for scrappers... :)
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2007-02-27, 6:23 pm |
| Haley wrote:
>
> Does anyone who is good a reading or writing scripts think it would be
> possible to turn the VectorPaint Script into one that would use the Eraser
> tool instead?
In principle it is as simple replacing references to Paintbrush
with references to Eraser. The tricky bit is that the script uses
vector data to drive the creation of raster painting data. To
allow this to happen it creates a new raster layer to accept the
Paintbrush strokes (or uses one created by a previous application
of the script). A script which uses the Eraser would have to know
somehow which layer of (potentially) very many you would want
erased and it could do nothing at all if the image only contained
a vector layer. Those complications don't apply to painting.
| |
| Haley 2007-02-27, 10:20 pm |
| aahhh that is true and I hadn't thought of that aspect...Thank you!
"Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
news:45E49236.BA44D23D@agabatur.xednaps...
> Haley wrote:
>
> In principle it is as simple replacing references to Paintbrush
> with references to Eraser. The tricky bit is that the script uses
> vector data to drive the creation of raster painting data. To
> allow this to happen it creates a new raster layer to accept the
> Paintbrush strokes (or uses one created by a previous application
> of the script). A script which uses the Eraser would have to know
> somehow which layer of (potentially) very many you would want
> erased and it could do nothing at all if the image only contained
> a vector layer. Those complications don't apply to painting.
>
| |
| Lori Davis 2007-02-27, 10:20 pm |
| Haley wrote:
> aahhh that is true and I hadn't thought of that aspect...Thank you!
>
But you could always use VectorPaint to create an image that you then
use as a mask (rather than using the Eraser). Would that do what you want?
Lori
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2007-02-28, 6:19 am |
| Lori Davis wrote:
>
> Haley wrote:
>
> But you could always use VectorPaint to create an image that you then
> use as a mask (rather than using the Eraser). Would that do what you want?
That's a good idea though it would have to be somewhat indirect.
It seems to me you'd paint in black following the vector shape
on a new layer created by the script. Then you would merge this
new layer against a white layer using Merge Down or Merge Visible.
After a Select All, you would copy the merged layer, create a mask
layer and, with the mask layer active, do a Paste Into Selection.
Finally, you would deselect and hide or delete the merged layer,
making sure the original image and the mask have been placed in
the same layer group.
Perhaps I'm making this too complicated. Can you think of a simpler
set of steps?
| |
| Lori Davis 2007-02-28, 6:18 pm |
| Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
> Lori Davis wrote:
>
>
>
> That's a good idea though it would have to be somewhat indirect.
> It seems to me you'd paint in black following the vector shape
> on a new layer created by the script. Then you would merge this
> new layer against a white layer using Merge Down or Merge Visible.
> After a Select All, you would copy the merged layer, create a mask
> layer and, with the mask layer active, do a Paste Into Selection.
> Finally, you would deselect and hide or delete the merged layer,
> making sure the original image and the mask have been placed in
> the same layer group.
>
> Perhaps I'm making this too complicated. Can you think of a simpler
> set of steps?
Yep, simpler: For adding the mask to the original image, once you've
created the image for the mask, just go to the relevant layer in the
original image and use Layers | New Mask | From Image, selecting the
newly created image as the mask source and choosing Source Luminance.
And you could even simplify the mask creation part by not merging down
and then using Source Opacity instead of Source Luminance when you add
the new mask layer to the original image. (For this to work, you'd of
course need to create the mask source image with a transparent background.)
Lori
| |
|
|
"Lori Davis" <loriweb@pair.com> wrote in message news:45e42237_1@cnews...
> Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
>
> Yep, simpler: For adding the mask to the original image, once you've
> created the image for the mask, just go to the relevant layer in the
> original image and use Layers | New Mask | From Image, selecting the newly
> created image as the mask source and choosing Source Luminance.
>
> And you could even simplify the mask creation part by not merging down and
> then using Source Opacity instead of Source Luminance when you add the new
> mask layer to the original image. (For this to work, you'd of course need
> to create the mask source image with a transparent background.)
>
> Lori
Part of this sounds like Tracy Pori's Frayed fabric script which if I invert
transparency of the mask the script then creates an image with the center
area frayed instead of the outside edges.
I did figure out how to get what I want by using the VectorPaint script by
adjusting my brush tip to draw around the outside edges of the vector shape.
Now if I can figure out how Gary makes the script understand to stroke the
path with the brush tool, I could make a mask layer of that stroked image. I
didn't think that PSP could do a stroked path like PS can...?
Tracey
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2007-02-28, 6:18 pm |
| Lori Davis wrote:
> Yep, simpler: For adding the mask to the original image, once you've
> created the image for the mask, just go to the relevant layer in the
> original image and use Layers | New Mask | From Image, selecting the
> newly created image as the mask source and choosing Source Luminance.
Silly me. Yes, of course.
> And you could even simplify the mask creation part by not merging down
> and then using Source Opacity instead of Source Luminance when you add
> the new mask layer to the original image. (For this to work, you'd of
> course need to create the mask source image with a transparent background.)
That too.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copyright 2003 - 2009 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |