Jump to content

John Rostron

Members
  • Content count

    1,493
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    John Rostron got a reaction from Pšenda in Location, Location   
    Thanks @Pšenda, I thought that I was probably re-inventing the wheel.
    John
  2. Thanks
    John Rostron reacted to Pšenda in Location, Location   
  3. Thanks
    John Rostron got a reaction from Alfred in Location, Location   
    Yes, I'm pretty sure that the solution posted some time ago was not the one I came up with. I still cannot remember what it was. So I had to re-invent the wheel by myself. I cannot remember for sure, but when I came up with my solution, I was not aware of others having invented it for themselves. This does not imply that there were not any such inventive users.
    John
  4. Like
    John Rostron reacted to Alfred in Location, Location   
    Perhaps I misunderstood your comment, John! If so, please accept my apologies.
    I thought you were saying, in effect, that someone posted ‘your’ solution but you couldn’t find their post, so you had to work out the solution for yourself: I adopted the ‘colon space’ solution as soon as I read about it elsewhere. Are you actually saying that you think there’s a different solution?
  5. Confused
    John Rostron reacted to Alfred in Location, Location   
    I think you’ve found for yourself exactly the same solution as the one to which you refer!
  6. Like
    John Rostron reacted to AffinityJules in Location, Location   
    I always wondered about that.
    When I first joined the forums my location displayed as expected, but I altered the format and it went all awry.
    Thanks for that, I'll try it.
  7. Like
    John Rostron got a reaction from R C-R in Location, Location   
    There has been a persistent bug in the Forum software which results in the member's location being elided with the word 'Location' in a message ID. Someone posted a solution to this a long time ago which I cannot now find. A problem is that if you prepend the location with a space it gets lost.
    I have solved this by simply prepending the two characters ': ' (colon-space) to my location. I entered ': Essex' rather than just 'Essex'. You can see the result in my message information to the left.
    John
  8. Like
    John Rostron got a reaction from R C-R in Location, Location   
    There has been a persistent bug in the Forum software which results in the member's location being elided with the word 'Location' in a message ID. Someone posted a solution to this a long time ago which I cannot now find. A problem is that if you prepend the location with a space it gets lost.
    I have solved this by simply prepending the two characters ': ' (colon-space) to my location. I entered ': Essex' rather than just 'Essex'. You can see the result in my message information to the left.
    John
  9. Like
    John Rostron reacted to heskphotography in An old fixed problem rears it's head again.   
    Thank you, John. I shall check that out when I am back on the programme.
    Roy
  10. Like
    John Rostron reacted to AffinityJules in Do Not Adjust Your Set   
    The basic method is very straight forward and there are several video tutorials out there showing the method.
    Here's a couple. The top video is for the iPad but the techniques are the same.
     
  11. Thanks
    John Rostron reacted to AffinityJules in Do Not Adjust Your Set   
    Hi John,
    This was achieved by using multiple layers.
    The first 2 were the standard dispersion techniques using identical layers, one with a white mask, and the other black. Masking out areas with dispersion brushes. The result was then blurred slightly to help the colour merge.
    On one layer I used the COLUMN MARQUEE tool on the woman then copied that and stretched it out across to the TV set. (1 vertical row of pixels stretched out).
    On one layer I used a ZOOM BLUR on full range and centered it just behind the woman.
    On one layer I used the RIPPLE effect on a low setting (just enough to see the waves). OVERLAY BLEND. GAUSSIAN BLUR.
    On one layer I used MOTION BLUR on a mid setting.
    After that it was a case of adjusting the opacities of all layers until I got the desired result with this picture.
    Made a few colour alterations and used a film grain Nik filter on the master.
    Hope that explains it.
    EDIT: One thing I forgot to mention; All modified layers were adjusted using the perspective tool so that they all lined up!
  12. Like
    John Rostron reacted to AffinityJules in Do Not Adjust Your Set   
    An experiment using dispersion and distortion effects.

  13. Haha
    John Rostron got a reaction from firstdefence in @Affinity: Number of licenses sold/in use?   
    I tried some regression analysis. I made two assumptions:
    The data would fit a logarithmic relationship (log Sales depends on year) The figures are given for a 'year'. I assume this means the end-of-year, so I entered this as Year+11.5/12 From the best-fit line, and seeing when the line would reach 2 (million) gives a date of 10th May 2019. So that's my entry into the sweepstake!
    John
  14. Haha
    John Rostron got a reaction from firstdefence in @Affinity: Number of licenses sold/in use?   
    I tried some regression analysis. I made two assumptions:
    The data would fit a logarithmic relationship (log Sales depends on year) The figures are given for a 'year'. I assume this means the end-of-year, so I entered this as Year+11.5/12 From the best-fit line, and seeing when the line would reach 2 (million) gives a date of 10th May 2019. So that's my entry into the sweepstake!
    John
  15. Haha
    John Rostron reacted to dmstraker in Filters > Distort> Equations Noise()   
    Helpful. Thanks John. Nice presentation of findings, too.
    Further playing:
    Polar, r blank, t=noise(a,b) gives circles using image colours Could be good as a background frame for actual image (use non-zero Extend Mode) Polar, r blank, t=noise(r,r) gives interesting dotty spacey circly thing (umm) Cartesian, x=a*max(x,y), y=b*min(x,y) gives diagonal flip. Oh dear. I see hours of pointless fun ahead...
  16. Like
    John Rostron reacted to v_kyr in how to warp and distort objects   
    Well since the OP asked for objects and not bitmaps, I assume he first of all asks for AD and vector objects here. And such vector based distortions aren't actually supported.
  17. Like
    John Rostron reacted to Alfred in Filters > Distort> Equations Noise()   
    Expressions for field input
    The online Help has yet to be corrected. It currently says
    /2 Divide by a half. when it should explain ‘/2’ as either ‘Divide by two’ or, less obviously, ‘Multiply by a half’.
  18. Like
    John Rostron reacted to Uwe367 in Filters > Distort> Equations Noise()   
    Thanks John and Alfred.
    Yes, i mean this Filter.
  19. Thanks
    John Rostron got a reaction from Uwe367 in Filters > Distort> Equations Noise()   
    I take it you are referring to Filters > Distort > Equations. You need to look in the Help system for ''Field Expressions'. It includes all the standard arithmetic, algebraic  and trigonometric expressions. You can use these in any context where you might input a number, such as Document > Resize, where you could put 50% or *0.5 or even sqrt(w). (w is the width.)
    John
  20. Thanks
    John Rostron got a reaction from Uwe367 in Filters > Distort> Equations Noise()   
    WARNING: for the technically-minded only!
    The Noise functions in the Filters > Distort> Equations facility are supposed to add (unspecified) noise to an image. The only description I can find of this is in the video by James Ritson. He first duplcates the layer and then uses either noise(x*y)*a or noise4(x*y)*a in his equation. This produces a grain-like effect over his image.
    The documentation for equations is limited. There is the Expressions for field input in the Help system which gives, under : Noise(seed/x,y), an explanation:  
    Generate 1D noise either from a seed or based on X/Y input  with similar definitions for noise2, noise3 and noise4.
    James uses both the noise and the noise4 functions. In his video he is using the single seed parameter x*y, with the magnitude controlled by the a parameter. 
    I have been experimenting with these noise functions and present here my findings
    Although the Expressions for field input names the functions Noise ... Noise4, with a capital letter, these will not work. You need to use a lower case n for noise. The function noise2 has no effect. The functions noise, noise3 and noise4 seem to produce identical visible results. The histograms are also identical. Using a single parameter, either a simple number, or an expression such as x*y, has no visible effect unless the Full option is selected in the Extend Mode at the bottom. When using two parameters, they need to be different in the x and y axes to produce any visible result. Multiplying the parameters by a number, such as noise(10x,10y), has no visible effect. I show here the effect of varying these parameters on a simple gradient field:

    Here is the effect of x=noise(x,y) and y=noise(y,x):

    The results for noise3 and noise4 are identical, as are noise(3x,3y) etc as are the histograms.
    If the parameters are the same, say x=noise(x,x) and y=noise(y,y) You get a very different effect: 
    Almost like a tartan effect.
    If the noise functions are the same in both x and y such as x=noise(x,y) and y=noise(x,y), it works OK, but if you use x=noise(y,x) and y=noise(y,x) there is no visible effect unless you select Full:

    The difference between using Zero and Full in the Extend Mode at the bottom is subtle. Using Full seems to convert the image into a monochrome effect with the background invisible. However, the noise is based on the luminance of the background.
    Just for comparison, I append here the effect of the effect of the Add Noise filter (Filter > Noise > Add Noise...):

    You can control the intensity of the noise here, which is more than you can in any of the noise functions I have described.
    In conclusion, I would recommend that if you want noise, then use the Filter > Noise > Add Noise... option above until such time as the devs at Serif come up with a more understandable noise function in Equations. Having said that I am not holding my breath on this. Using noise in equations is probably a minority pursuit amongst users and the Add Noise filter is much easier.
    John
     
     
     






  21. Like
    John Rostron reacted to Pariah73 in Filters > Distort> Equations Noise()   
    thank you for this post!
  22. Like
    John Rostron reacted to Uwe367 in Filters > Distort> Equations Noise()   
    That's very interesting. Thank you.
  23. Thanks
    John Rostron got a reaction from Uwe367 in Filters > Distort> Equations Noise()   
    WARNING: for the technically-minded only!
    The Noise functions in the Filters > Distort> Equations facility are supposed to add (unspecified) noise to an image. The only description I can find of this is in the video by James Ritson. He first duplcates the layer and then uses either noise(x*y)*a or noise4(x*y)*a in his equation. This produces a grain-like effect over his image.
    The documentation for equations is limited. There is the Expressions for field input in the Help system which gives, under : Noise(seed/x,y), an explanation:  
    Generate 1D noise either from a seed or based on X/Y input  with similar definitions for noise2, noise3 and noise4.
    James uses both the noise and the noise4 functions. In his video he is using the single seed parameter x*y, with the magnitude controlled by the a parameter. 
    I have been experimenting with these noise functions and present here my findings
    Although the Expressions for field input names the functions Noise ... Noise4, with a capital letter, these will not work. You need to use a lower case n for noise. The function noise2 has no effect. The functions noise, noise3 and noise4 seem to produce identical visible results. The histograms are also identical. Using a single parameter, either a simple number, or an expression such as x*y, has no visible effect unless the Full option is selected in the Extend Mode at the bottom. When using two parameters, they need to be different in the x and y axes to produce any visible result. Multiplying the parameters by a number, such as noise(10x,10y), has no visible effect. I show here the effect of varying these parameters on a simple gradient field:

    Here is the effect of x=noise(x,y) and y=noise(y,x):

    The results for noise3 and noise4 are identical, as are noise(3x,3y) etc as are the histograms.
    If the parameters are the same, say x=noise(x,x) and y=noise(y,y) You get a very different effect: 
    Almost like a tartan effect.
    If the noise functions are the same in both x and y such as x=noise(x,y) and y=noise(x,y), it works OK, but if you use x=noise(y,x) and y=noise(y,x) there is no visible effect unless you select Full:

    The difference between using Zero and Full in the Extend Mode at the bottom is subtle. Using Full seems to convert the image into a monochrome effect with the background invisible. However, the noise is based on the luminance of the background.
    Just for comparison, I append here the effect of the effect of the Add Noise filter (Filter > Noise > Add Noise...):

    You can control the intensity of the noise here, which is more than you can in any of the noise functions I have described.
    In conclusion, I would recommend that if you want noise, then use the Filter > Noise > Add Noise... option above until such time as the devs at Serif come up with a more understandable noise function in Equations. Having said that I am not holding my breath on this. Using noise in equations is probably a minority pursuit amongst users and the Add Noise filter is much easier.
    John
     
     
     






  24. Like
    John Rostron got a reaction from Tranquil Lens in General Fuzziness macro   
    I was prompted to create this macro by a recent posting asking about haziness as result of the output of an aircraft engine. My initial efforts were also trying to emulate the effects of hammered glass.
    Here is a macro that creates a general fuzziness effect which could possibly be used in the contexts mentioned above. Fuzziness is a category containing just one macro: General Fuzziness.
    Fuzziness.afmacros
    General Fuzziness.afmacro
    There are three parameters:
    Wavelength controls the number of cells across the image. Noisiness controls the amount of random noise applied to the cell sizes. Amplitude controls the overall intensity of the effect. Here is an example as applied to an image of a Sea Aster flower:
    .
    With the parameters at half strength:

    and with the parameters at full strength.

    I would envisage that you would use this effect on just part of an image.
    John
  25. Like
    John Rostron got a reaction from Alfred in Text on a Curve   
    If you have a well-defined curve such as part of a circle or a sine wave, then you can do it using Equations (Filters > Distort > Equations).
    I have produced some macros for doing this.  If you can tell me exactly what you want, I can point you to something useful. Try this for starters:
     
    John
×