Isn't blending from A to B and B to C to D etc. easy enough.
Hans' solution didn't seem that difficult to me and was exactly what I expected to see. Profiles work perfectly etc.
Isn't blending from A to B and B to C to D etc. easy enough.
Hans' solution didn't seem that difficult to me and was exactly what I expected to see. Profiles work perfectly etc.
Last edited by ss-kalm; 11 September 2008 at 02:56 PM.
Keith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are 10 types of people in this world .... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
No, it isn't easy enough when you can do it with one blend
And my memory was only part wrong: the "perspective" blend I remember was done in CorelDraw. I just tested in CD and worked as I expected (and I thought it was logical enough to work in Xtreme as well). Make an ellipse, duplicate and flip the copy, create blend.
As I said, I've used the multi-blend workaround, but in this case the CorelDraw way is easier to use if you are making for example perspectival(sp?) images.
Paul the Gnurfmeister!
Home: http://www.gnurf.net/v3/ | My stuff for sale: http://www.zazzle.com/gnurf* | Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/pasoderholm
Don't get me wrong, I agree the single blend method is much better and if the bottom copy is flipped, it's logical to assume that the stages of the blend should also have been flipped. It's much more intuitive and works far better from every point of view. All I was trying to point out, was that in the absence of the "right" way it should be done, that the A-B-C blend was not a difficult workaround.
Keith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are 10 types of people in this world .... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Bookmarks