Printable View
I would just like to use some text as a mask to allow a background to show though. I have tried converting the text to bitmap and then using that but it does not work. is it that the mask needs to be inverted to white. that make it difficult to use as I can't see where it is going - see told ya, complete graphic idiot and I should not be attempting this.
thanks
Rob
Hi welcome to TG
this the sort of thing? :)
IN STAGE 4 YOU NEED TO HAVE BOTH TEXT AND SHAPE SELECTED
Hi rgranger and welcome to Talk Graphics.
As with many things in Xara, there is more than one way to achieve the effect that you are looking for.
Steve's method works fine. Another way to do the same thing is to bring in your bitmap, and type and place your text over the bitmap where you want it. With the text selected move it to the back (Ctrl+B), with the text still selected (but moved to the back) select the bitmap as well by Ctrl+Clicking it. With both the text and bitmap selected (and the text behind the bitmap) press Q which will apply a clipview. That's it.
I hope that helps.
Eric
nice one Eric - I really must start using clipview more :o
nice thing about the clipview is that you can move the image around within the text boundary to make adjustments - the text is then a 'true' envelope mask - it really is very easy
Q and Alt+Q is in heavy use here, wonderful feature.
One of it's applications is working with bleed, it's easy to make the document size to include bleed, design the background in the same size and then use a "target-size" rectangle behind the background and clipview them. This way the document stays target size+bleed, but you'll see only what remains after cutting.
cheers,
Jon
Welcome to the Xtreme Conference Rob.:)
Gary
Thank you Steve. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by handrawn
Steve,
You don't need to convert the text to an editable shape to subtract it from the background rectangle.
Keith
true enough - its force of habit - I do it nearly always though for other reasons :rolleyes::)
an example of clipview - done to try to remind me to use it :D
That is exactly what I was trying to get at.
thank you all so very much!
rob
and it worked. I think that I will like this tool!
thanks again!
Rob
Thanks for letting us know - glad to help :)
the only drawback with clipview is you can only use it so many times within a complex drawing before one gags xara. Add/Subtract work just as well and you can throw lots more at xara before she gags.:)
As an example try grouping about 500 objects together and then using that to apply a clipview.... Xara will slow up dramatically if not gag.
Now add all 500 objects together and do a subtract. Xara flies through it because it is just 1 object subtracted for another.:)
well yes
same argument goes for most things that are collective - like clipview - as opposed to unitary - like the result of a boolean
agreed [just in case thats not clear:D]
But not so well with Shadows or feathered objects. Because slice/subtract is redimensioning the object, the feathering re adjusts accordingly. Clipview is the best option in these (and a few other) scenarios.Quote:
Originally Posted by raynerj1
Good point sledger. I tend to stay away from clipviews when possible (if for no other reason than I always do them wrong the first time I try them) but there are certain behaviors that just don't work with subtraction.
This discussion reminds me of a post I made lord knows how many years ago about a technique that makes particular use of these differences in clipview.
Below is the image I made to explain it then.
http://skeesick.com/images/cloud.png
Would creating three objects with different colors and different featherings be easier, and achieve the same effect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatch
An item to be aware of with clipviews--in many cases you will want to ensure that the object being used for clipping has a 'no-outline' attribute, otherwise the end result may (in my exerience, *will*) have a thin border the color of the clipview outline, even on exports.
Good point - I'm sure I would never have expected to slice a feathered or shadowed object and have it stay the same - well worth mentioning.
Outlines as well, I still sometimes forget to switch them out in boolean too where necessary :o
David, the problem with that approach and the one I took is that it gives a soft edge shape where as I wanted a hard edge to the shape but a soft edge on the shadow. There is also a different falloff to the color with feather than there is with the external glow. I didn't care for the sort of 'melted shape' that the feather produced compared to the more 'masked airbrush' look of the clipview approach. While your approach would be fine in some cases in mine it just wouldn't give the look I was after.Quote:
Originally Posted by David O'Neil
Below is the image this technique was used on...
http://skeesick.com/images/bilibin.png
You can see how a softer edge on the cloud just would not work correctly in this case.
J
now that is one mighty fine example :)
Thatch, that is a fine picture. It never ceases to amaze me the talents of our membership, I am sure there are many members who could contribute but may be too shy to so. I say have a go and let us see what you can do, you will get plenty of encouragement and help if need be. Your work could be an inspiration to us and others.
You don't have to give the back shape a feathered edge. You can also adjust the falloff of a feather. Here's one of your clouds without any glow or clipview, unless I'm overlooking something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatch
True, the back shape doesn't have to be feathered and your attempt is a close approximation to what I did. However, as I recall now (this image is some 6 years old I think) feathering and glow are pixel effects and are therefore resolution dependent. The size I was working at for this particular peice was such that I did not have enough control with the feather to get the look I was going for. Even without that restriction the feather effect tended to loose the parent shape much faster than the glow did, meaning that the contour of the cloud shape faded away much quicker. A subtlety to be sure but one that I felt made an impact on the piece.
Of course the important part of this discussion is that Xara for all it's apparent simplicity does offer one copius was to skin the artistic cat.
J
I was simply pointing out what may be an easier technique. If I'm not mistaken, the algorithm behind both feathers and glows is exactly the same, meaning that you have the same control with each one. For some reason, though, XPro 3.0 gives you a little more, as it allows 50 pixel feathers, whereas it only allows 40 pixel glows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatch
Given that you can have bigger feathers than glows, something seems wrong with that statement, but maybe I'm wrong. You can modify the falloff of each of them in the exact same manner.Quote:
Even without that restriction the feather effect tended to loose the parent shape much faster than the glow did, meaning that the contour of the cloud shape faded away much quicker.
Regardless, your picture is beautiful. Excellently done!
ps - "feathering and glow are pixel effects and are therefore resolution dependent" means that both of our techniques end up with the same limitation in the end, although I don't believe it is much of a limitation.
I don't have this problem. Tried a completely silly scenario with 6000 objects, in two groups - AND ALL beveled and with drop-shadows. The two clip-views happen almost instantly. There's is a slight lag when dragging them around the screen, but still rather smooth when compared to Corel 11 with more than a couple of hundred plain objects. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by raynerj1
Maybe it's a memory thing? I'm running 3 gigs?
Risto
That could very well be the case Risto. None the less 1 object is handled quicker by xara than 5000 grouped (or clip viewed) objects.
I myself have just gotten in the habit of working more effienciently even if I can't spell it.:)