Return-Path: <pete@revisionfx.com>
Received: from outmail146037.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.146.37] verified)
  by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10)
  with ESMTP id 5086661 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Tue, 28 May 2013 17:06:06 +0200
Received: from punt8.authsmtp.com (punt8.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.56])
	by punt12.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id r4SFFXcx054534
	for <AE-List@media-motion.tv>; Tue, 28 May 2013 16:15:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mail-c233.authsmtp.com (mail-c233.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.233])
	by punt8.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id r4SFFX8w011447
	for <AE-List@media-motion.tv>; Tue, 28 May 2013 16:15:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [192.168.1.113] (c-67-169-45-154.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.45.154])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r4SFFQXq050142
	for <AE-List@media-motion.tv>; Tue, 28 May 2013 16:15:29 +0100 (BST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:15:25 -0700
Subject: Re: [AE] why isn't masking treated as an effect?
From: Peter Litwinowicz <pete@revisionfx.com>
To: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Message-ID: <CDCA14AC.B9AA4%pete@revisionfx.com>
Thread-Topic: [AE] why isn't masking treated as an effect?
In-Reply-To: <list-5083366@media-motion.tv>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="B_3452573729_2194022"
X-Server-Quench: 6f3030c0-c7a9-11e2-a49c-0025907707a1
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCdyYwEUBFZNQRgX IjkJEi5bSAIjKA0K ChgGOyJ3ZX4IThh5 N0tWL1MWNVoARFZf HSJNFVZcTyAgEHx3 awtSfQRbaEtLVQZq Hk5OXFNUHRtsBAIA AxoBUBxwchpGNjx0 BjAUPxgaXEF6dEJ/ DE1RE2lIYzFjaGMf A0BFJAQFeR5Lf0pH dwF7XSAQYWUFY3Ng QFBrYDloKw9Semxm ayw4ZU0SUA4KBThz W1gHFC4sHEsKDzkp IhU6J1JUFV1ZO0N6 PFUvVFkEZHde
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633133393137.1021:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system.

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3452573729_2194022
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable



> Sometimes I want to mask or roto an image and then apply an effect AFTER =
the
> mask is applied. Or sometimes I want: 1.) effect 2.) mask 3.) effect. How=
ever
> AE doesn't give any control for the render order for masking. Is there a
> reason for this, or has there simply been no demand for this type of thin=
g?

I've been lobbying for this for years.  If splines (masks) were attached to
specific effects (where "masking" would become an effect on the stack) ther=
e
would be no confusion as to which splines are being used for which purpose=8A=
.
And would eliminate a lot of the ambiguity that results that comes from
having multiple effects (including ones not performing masking, like our
Twixtor or RE:Flex, or AE's stroke effect, etc.) from a list of splines
attached to the layer (where they may also be used for masking) instead of
unique to an effect.

What I propose is indeed how Combustion provided splines and made for a muc=
h
more transparent user interface.  Oh, and allowed you to perform masking
anywhere within the set of effects on the effect stack.

Pete

=20


--B_3452573729_2194022
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: s=
pace; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size:=
 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><br></div><span id=3D"OLK_SRC_=
BODY_SECTION"><div><br></div><blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px; border:no=
ne; padding:0px;">Sometimes I want to mask or roto an image and then apply a=
n effect AFTER the mask is applied. Or sometimes I want: 1.) effect 2.) mask=
 3.) effect. However AE doesn't give any control for the render order for ma=
sking. Is there a reason for this, or has there simply been no demand for th=
is type of thing?</blockquote><br>I've been lobbying for this for years. &nb=
sp;If splines (masks) were attached to specific effects (where "masking" wou=
ld become an effect on the stack) there would be no confusion as to which sp=
lines are being used for which purpose&#8230;. And would eliminate a lot of =
the ambiguity that results that comes from having multiple effects (includin=
g ones not performing masking, like our Twixtor or RE:Flex, or AE's stroke e=
ffect, etc.) from a list of splines attached to the layer (where they may al=
so be used for masking) instead of unique to an effect.</span><div><br></div=
><div>What I propose is indeed how Combustion provided splines and made for =
a much more transparent user interface. &nbsp;Oh, and allowed you to perform=
 masking anywhere within the set of effects on the effect stack.</div><div><=
br></div><div>Pete</div><div><br></div><span id=3D"OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">&nbsp=
;</span></body></html>

--B_3452573729_2194022--