Keeping curve the same when attaching layers together in Mokey.

Homepage Forums Legacy Software mokey Keeping curve the same when attaching layers together in Mokey.

This topic contains 15 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  VMax 6 years, 5 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #14479

    MaryP
    Keymaster

    Mocha remove works layer by layer, you do not need to attach layers to one another to hold out a shape or object.
    Arrange layers from back (bottom of the layer list) to front (top of the layer list) in your Mocha file and the shape layers below the topmost shape layers will exclude themselves from the data.
    Alternatively, you can add an x spline to the layer itself to hold out the shape you need to hold out.
    Hope that helps, let me know if you run into any more problems.
    Cheers,
    Mary

  • #23255

    MaryP
    Keymaster

    Hi Mike,

    Sorry about the mocha/mokey mis-reading, I’ve got mocha on the brain. But, the layers system should work similarly regardless of my mild short-circuit. :)

    Modify range seems like it should work for your issue but it isn’t. Which might be a bug. I would have to check the file, it doesn’t sound like that is working as intended.

    I’m not sure what your footage looks like or the details, but, if I understand your issue correctly… As a work around, can you over-remove by expanding the shape to get rid of the pixel line on the edge and basically just have that edge somewhere else in the plate, and then use the shapes you have in a compositing program to cover that pixel line up? It’s an inelegant solution, but it might work (it’s worked for me in the past with edge lines in a remove). However, you also might run into the same problems you’re having where you can’t use “modify range” to its full effectiveness to scale the shapes out.

    If you think you’re encountering a bug, you can email the file and preferably (but not required) a frame of the footage at maryp@imagineersystems.com and I will take a look and see what I can find out for you.

    Also, I do want to take a moment to tell you, as I have had to make my fair share of cleanplates, I prefer the new mocha pro interface and tools for removes. As a start, it’s just faster (40% faster!), and since I am more of a mocha user I like the interface. Also, it sounds like uberkeys would solve this problem.

    Cheers,
    Mary

  • #26768

    VMax
    Participant

    Hi,
    I want to attach two layers together. The first has been carefully roto’ed to the exact shape of the object to be removed. I wish to attach another layer to one edge to prevent Mokey from using the pixels in that area to do the replacement with. However, when I do this, the blue “weight” points move on the first layer to give maximum sharpness instead of the carefully designed curve I had made. Worse, it does this for every keyframe. Even if I try to use modify range when re-adjusting the weight control, it doesn’t affect the point at any other keyframe. So every single weight control has to be redone at every keyframe. If I try locking the first layer so the weight controls can’t move, I can’t attach the two layers.
    Is there a way of attaching two layers so the first one’s weight (curve) controls don’t move and change curve?
    Thanks – Mike.

  • #26769

    VMax
    Participant

    Martin,
    Sorry, I didn’t read your middle comment close enough. That’s exactly what I’ve done and it works great. Thanks for the tip.
    Cheers – Mike.

  • #26770

    VMax
    Participant

    Hi,

    I want to attach two layers together. The first has been carefully roto’ed to the exact shape of the object to be removed. I wish to attach another layer to one edge to prevent Mokey from using the pixels in that area to do the replacement with. However, when I do this, the blue “weight” points move on the first layer to give maximum sharpness instead of the carefully designed curve I had made. Worse, it does this for every keyframe. Even if I try to use modify range when re-adjusting the weight control, it doesn’t affect the point at any other keyframe. So every single weight control has to be redone at every keyframe. If I try locking the first layer so the weight controls can’t move, I can’t attach the two layers.

    Is there a way of attaching two layers so the first one’s weight (curve) controls don’t move and change curve?

    Thanks – Mike.

  • #23279

    MaryP
    Keymaster

    Mocha remove works layer by layer, you do not need to attach layers to one another to hold out a shape or object.

    Arrange layers from back (bottom of the layer list) to front (top of the layer list) in your Mocha file and the shape layers below the topmost shape layers will exclude themselves from the data.

    Alternatively, you can add an x spline to the layer itself to hold out the shape you need to hold out.

    Hope that helps, let me know if you run into any more problems.

    Cheers,
    Mary

  • #26771

    VMax
    Participant

    Hi Mary,
    Thanks for the reply. I think either we’re at cross purposes, or I misunderstand you. First, I am talking Mokey here, not Mocha. The reason I want to attach the hold-out layer to the roto shape is that it means I can remove right up to the attach edge and not use any of the hold-out pixels in the removed area. I already tested that aspect and it works really well. If I simply overlap layers, the area that is overlapped is used as the background. For a more normal remove, this is not a problem. But when I use Mokey to remove right up to an edge, it leaves pixels from the hold-out layer from the overlapping area.
    The problem is, I started by doing the entire roto shape before attempting to attach the hold out layer to make rotoing more manageable. Unfortunately, that’s when I discovered the issue that attaching the other layer resets to curve controls to maximum sharpness. I really don’t understand why you would want to change them when attaching one layer to another. That’s why I wondered if there was some control that I wasn’t aware of that would stop this from happening.
    If you know of a better way to do the remove, that would be useful too. Otherwise, it means I have to go into Mokey and re-adjust every single curve (weight) control on every point on each keyframe. That’s hundreds of adjustments just to put them back where the attach layers process moved them from. There’s also the risk that doing this manually on so many points might make the remove “boil”.
    Any ideas of a work around?
    Thanks,
    Mike.

  • #26772

    VMax
    Participant

    Hi Mary,

    Thanks for the reply. I think either we’re at cross purposes, or I misunderstand you. First, I am talking Mokey here, not Mocha. The reason I want to attach the hold-out layer to the roto shape is that it means I can remove right up to the attach edge and not use any of the hold-out pixels in the removed area. I already tested that aspect and it works really well. If I simply overlap layers, the area that is overlapped is used as the background. For a more normal remove, this is not a problem. But when I use Mokey to remove right up to an edge, it leaves pixels from the hold-out layer from the overlapping area.

    The problem is, I started by doing the entire roto shape before attempting to attach the hold out layer to make rotoing more manageable. Unfortunately, that’s when I discovered the issue that attaching the other layer resets to curve controls to maximum sharpness. I really don’t understand why you would want to change them when attaching one layer to another. That’s why I wondered if there was some control that I wasn’t aware of that would stop this from happening.

    If you know of a better way to do the remove, that would be useful too. Otherwise, it means I have to go into Mokey and re-adjust every single curve (weight) control on every point on each keyframe. That’s hundreds of adjustments just to put them back where the attach layers process moved them from. There’s also the risk that doing this manually on so many points might make the remove “boil”.

    Any ideas of a work around?

    Thanks,

    Mike.

  • #23280

    MaryP
    Keymaster

    Hi Mike,
    Sorry about the mocha/mokey mis-reading, I’ve got mocha on the brain. But, the layers system should work similarly regardless of my mild short-circuit. :)
    Modify range seems like it should work for your issue but it isn’t. Which might be a bug. I would have to check the file, it doesn’t sound like that is working as intended.
    I’m not sure what your footage looks like or the details, but, if I understand your issue correctly… As a work around, can you over-remove by expanding the shape to get rid of the pixel line on the edge and basically just have that edge somewhere else in the plate, and then use the shapes you have in a compositing program to cover that pixel line up? It’s an inelegant solution, but it might work (it’s worked for me in the past with edge lines in a remove). However, you also might run into the same problems you’re having where you can’t use “modify range” to its full effectiveness to scale the shapes out.
    If you think you’re encountering a bug, you can email the file and preferably (but not required) a frame of the footage at maryp@imagineersystems.com and I will take a look and see what I can find out for you.
    Also, I do want to take a moment to tell you, as I have had to make my fair share of cleanplates, I prefer the new mocha pro interface and tools for removes. As a start, it’s just faster (40% faster!), and since I am more of a mocha user I like the interface. Also, it sounds like uberkeys would solve this problem.
    Cheers,
    Mary

  • #26773

    VMax
    Participant

    Hi Mary,
    Thanks again. I think I own just about every Imagineer product except Mocha Pro. I have Mokey ( build 4.1.4 BTW), Monet, Mocha that came with CS5, and an old version of Motor. Are you saying that Mocha Pro can be used like Mokey as a remove tool? Trouble is, even if that’s true, it means owning Mokey is a waste if I have to buy yet another product.
    Anyway, I don’t think it’s necessary to send you a file if I describe what I’m trying to do… Imagine an object like, say, a ball with an intricate pattern on it. I want to remove the lefthand side of this ball and reveal the background behind it. But… the ball is travelling from left to right. If I roto out the lefthand side of the ball, but follow the intricate pattern on the surface of the ball (say to follow a logo) using the weight (curve) controls, if I just leave it at that, the righthand side of the ball will leave a trail of its lefthand edge in the area of the remove as it tracks to the right. So, I need to tell Mokey not to use any of the pixels from the righthand side of the ball. By attaching the two layers, this works really well. If I just overlap them, the righthand side still leaves a trail from the overlap.
    But here’s the problem… while attaching the two layers works the way I want it to, if I attach a newly created righthand layer to mask out the righthand side pixels, it trashes the carefully created curve of the original roto. So I’d really need to do the attach up front. That’s a problem because of the complexity of the roto’d shape. It’s much easier to do the roto first and finesse it before creating the next mask layer. Or so I thought until coming across this issue. I just didn’t suspect it would trash the curve and reset it to maximum sharpness (pointiness). So now I either start again and hope I don’t screw it up, or grin and bear it and readjust each weight control in every keyframe.
    So the problem is easy to reproduce. Just create an object and create a roto through it that has the weight controls adjusted to give it a curvy profile. Then create and attach another layer to the dividing edge and watch the weight controls reset to max sharpness. For this test, you don’t need to worry about the contents of the frames. Maybe there’s a way around this that I haven’t thought of.
    Cheers – Mike.

  • #26774

    VMax
    Participant

    Hi Mary,

    Thanks again. I think I own just about every Imagineer product except Mocha Pro. I have Mokey ( build 4.1.4 BTW), Monet, Mocha that came with CS5, and an old version of Motor. Are you saying that Mocha Pro can be used like Mokey as a remove tool? Trouble is, even if that’s true, it means owning Mokey is a waste if I have to buy yet another product.

    Anyway, I don’t think it’s necessary to send you a file if I describe what I’m trying to do… Imagine an object like, say, a ball with an intricate pattern on it. I want to remove the lefthand side of this ball and reveal the background behind it. But… the ball is travelling from left to right. If I roto out the lefthand side of the ball, but follow the intricate pattern on the surface of the ball (say to follow a logo) using the weight (curve) controls, if I just leave it at that, the righthand side of the ball will leave a trail of its lefthand edge in the area of the remove as it tracks to the right. So, I need to tell Mokey not to use any of the pixels from the righthand side of the ball. By attaching the two layers, this works really well. If I just overlap them, the righthand side still leaves a trail from the overlap.

    But here’s the problem… while attaching the two layers works the way I want it to, if I attach a newly created righthand layer to mask out the righthand side pixels, it trashes the carefully created curve of the original roto. So I’d really need to do the attach up front. That’s a problem because of the complexity of the roto’d shape. It’s much easier to do the roto first and finesse it before creating the next mask layer. Or so I thought until coming across this issue. I just didn’t suspect it would trash the curve and reset it to maximum sharpness (pointiness). So now I either start again and hope I don’t screw it up, or grin and bear it and readjust each weight control in every keyframe.

    So the problem is easy to reproduce. Just create an object and create a roto through it that has the weight controls adjusted to give it a curvy profile. Then create and attach another layer to the dividing edge and watch the weight controls reset to max sharpness. For this test, you don’t need to worry about the contents of the frames. Maybe there’s a way around this that I haven’t thought of.

    Cheers – Mike.

  • #22499

    martinb
    Keymaster

    Hi Mike,
    That sounds like a limitation with the attach tool functionality. Attach’s main design was originally for lining up walls and floors, not complex curvy shapes. It may be possible for us to update this in a later release, but working out the reverse tangents for the curves may be problematic.
    If I understand your problem correctly, you could just duplicate the left hand layer and move the left hand points over to the right. That way you have an exact duplicate edge on top of the original layer which is tracked and keyed already, but a masked area to the right which you can manipulate.
    As Mary said however, it’s far easier if we can see the project to make a better judgement.

  • #22500

    martinb
    Keymaster

    Hi Mike,

    That sounds like a limitation with the attach tool functionality. Attach’s main design was originally for lining up walls and floors, not complex curvy shapes. It may be possible for us to update this in a later release, but working out the reverse tangents for the curves may be problematic.

    If I understand your problem correctly, you could just duplicate the left hand layer and move the left hand points over to the right. That way you have an exact duplicate edge on top of the original layer which is tracked and keyed already, but a masked area to the right which you can manipulate.

    As Mary said however, it’s far easier if we can see the project to make a better judgement.

  • #26775

    VMax
    Participant

    Hi Martin,
    Thanks for the response.
    I figured that when you attach one layer to another, the second layer should be able to take on the exact shape of the first layer at the intersecting edge. That assumption may have been a bit naive. I guess it may not be that easy. It was just that it seemed like a logical way to work. After all, when you create a layer, it does NOT default to maximum sharpness, but is in fact partially curved. For example, if you create a rectangular layer, the corners default to rounded. So I had no reason to suspect that connecting two layers would put the intersection of both at maximum sharpness on every point.
    However, since it sounds like there is no fix for this, I guess I’ll have to try a work around. Like copying the layer then reshaping it so that its righthand edge with all the carefully shaped points becomes the lefthand edge of the new layer. Not sure how yet but I think I’ll figure it out. Then I’ll have to very carefully match positions of the two layers so they are effectively aligned as if they were attached. That may be preferable to redoing all the points on each and every keyframe. But it sounds a bit like a toss-up on that one.
    Anyway, thanks for your prompt feedback. I appreciate the non-sugar coated honesty.
    Regards,
    Mike.

  • #26776

    VMax
    Participant

    Hi Martin,

    Thanks for the response.

    I figured that when you attach one layer to another, the second layer should be able to take on the exact shape of the first layer at the intersecting edge. That assumption may have been a bit naive. I guess it may not be that easy. It was just that it seemed like a logical way to work. After all, when you create a layer, it does NOT default to maximum sharpness, but is in fact partially curved. For example, if you create a rectangular layer, the corners default to rounded. So I had no reason to suspect that connecting two layers would put the intersection of both at maximum sharpness on every point.

    However, since it sounds like there is no fix for this, I guess I’ll have to try a work around. Like copying the layer then reshaping it so that its righthand edge with all the carefully shaped points becomes the lefthand edge of the new layer. Not sure how yet but I think I’ll figure it out. Then I’ll have to very carefully match positions of the two layers so they are effectively aligned as if they were attached. That may be preferable to redoing all the points on each and every keyframe. But it sounds a bit like a toss-up on that one.

    Anyway, thanks for your prompt feedback. I appreciate the non-sugar coated honesty.

    Regards,

    Mike.

  • #26777

    VMax
    Participant

    Martin,

    Sorry, I didn’t read your middle comment close enough. That’s exactly what I’ve done and it works great. Thanks for the tip.

    Cheers – Mike.

The forum ‘mokey’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Newsletter

Need more mocha?
Sign up to receive the latest news, events, contests, and training videos.