Hi,
does anybody know if it is possible to cut out a portion of a picture along its sillhouette and then superimpose it onto another picture or video in MEP? And if it is possible to place that cut out picture wherever you like onto the other picture or video?
Thanks :-)
kate
I guess i could just cut out my picture in gimp first. So a little question remains: Is it possible to place a picture inside a background picture in any place you lik to? In MEP i have the effect "picture in picture basic", which only offers certain designated places to put the picture.
@kate-m Hi there's a few ways to add a picture to a picture in MEP, they prob all mean one image on a track above the other image on another track
The section tool in MEP is a bit grumpy, make your selection on the lower track to select the area you want, rectangle only i believe, ,
you could as you say cut the area out in GIMP, right click the thumbnail, ADD Alpha channel & export as .png will keep that area transparent, it'll have the grey chequered background
then place you image below & use 3D distortion to place the image that's in the track above
Another way is you could create a B/W mask in GIMP,
add that between your images in MEP & add Chroma Key - Alpha,
Hi Kate.
If you want to edit in Gimp or any photo editing package that allows the background to be transparent and save as a PNG file then yes. That file can then be placed into the timeline and moved around and resized using the file size \ position \ rotation tool. I use it a lot along with the key editor in a lot of my videos.
The program will also accept PSD files. There is one PNG example 20 seconds in on the left hand side of frame.
Here is another one using PSD files.
Ray.
@CubeAce 😂 Never heard of PSD files, ya learn something new every day 😊👍
Exported that image from GIMP with the cut out just like the PNG was, & this is it reimported back into gimp showing the grey chequed alpha.
PSD on the lower track with 3D distortion to place the image that's in the track above 👍
@CubeAce @kate-m just been playing after a Google search -
GIF and PNG are your best options for transparency. You need a layered, editable image. JPEGs are a flat image format meaning that all edits are saved into one image layer and cannot be undone. Consider a PSD (Photoshop) file for a fully editable image.
I knew GIF would give transparency 👍
but
The PNG cannot store multiple images in one file, whereas the PSD allows layered images. This allows for editing of multiple images in a single file. Also, for experienced Photoshop users, a good understanding of the different editing tools make working with a PSD image much easier.
I exported a two layered project from GIMP as .PSD, then reimported it & it still held the files, bit like saving the project,
This was the reimported .PSD file,
I sort of know .TIF files will hold project info but i've had problems deleting .TIF files created by GIMP, so this could be useful, although i do just save it as a GIMP project, 😂 nice to know tho, thanks Ray 👍
@Former user
Hi GID.
Using PNG files still needs to be used with a Chroma key plugin whereas PSD files don't.
If you don't have a clear background in a PNG file but say use a green background or black you will see a difference at the edge of the frame if shrunk down as a contrast change at the edge of the image frame.
Ray.
@CubeAce Not quite sure i get you, does the chroma key just have to be present,
This image is PNG, no chroma key added & i've never had to when i cut something out & it has an alpha channel? (Alpha channel normally auto added in GIMP as that's the only photo editor i use, & Add alpha channel to imported images automatically is ticked in the preferences)
I do have PNG's that are just images tho that are just like .JPG's, so if lets say i want to remove the white from an image i do have to add Chroma key - white,
@CubeAce We're writing at the same time 😂 yep i've seen that edge of the frame thing,
@Former user
Hi Gid.
There is only ever one reason I very occasionally use a tiff file.
All three of my DSLR cameras shoot tiff as a native format and the image files are a direct readout from the camera sensors and therefore are 16 bit colour depth. That can give and incredible colour image accuracy over say any jpg or raw file but the tiff format has many disadvantages in that instance.
Because it is a file that give the complete raw data from the sensor you only get each photo sites light absorption recorded. On the plus side at 16 bits you gain more headroom before a photo-site gets full so a better dynamic range and a more accurate colour readout is possible.
I do not get any other information recorded or embedded into the file so there can be no calculated and applied noise reduction when using higher ISO values. No sharpening or colour temperature alterations are applied.
So the resulting images are often more grainy and a lot softer then a processed jpeg would be and there is no base settings of what the camera would have been set to that you would get if I shot 14 bit uncompressed raw.
An uncompressed raw file from my camera may only be as many megabytes large as the sensor size that captured it so a 20MP camera would on average produce a 20MB file whereas a tiff file from the same camera would be at least three times larger.
If anyone can't produce a better picture from a raw file than the cameras ability using its own built it processing unit when it produces a high resolution jpg then in my opinion they should not even attempt to produce or process a tiff image. Effectively reducing sensor noise or sharpening or getting a good colour temperature balance without producing unwanted artifacts into a processed tiff is in my opinion one of the most demanding post processing challenges anyone can take on.
Heck, if the processing engine in a camera is high end enough it is difficult enough to produce a better looking jpg image from the cameras raw file data.than the camera can do for itself.
The last challenge is shooting the image itself. although in theory you start with the advantage of having a 16 bit file to play with dynamic range wise it is very easy still to under or over expose a shot. Longer exposure times makes sharpening more difficult to control. Shorter exposure times often means having to shoot at a higher ISO and the amplification needed for the sensor increases the noise generated which is more difficult to remove from a tiff image than its raw counterpart.
If you can mange good post production results though the benefits and rewards are, much more accurate skin tones and if well focused, much better detail from cameras with lower photo cell counts than from an image taken using raw or jpeg in camera processing from a camera with a megapixel advantage.
From within an editing program I see little advantage of using tiff to produce an image recorded another way as the bit depth and tonal \ contrast range would not have been there in the first place. The resulting files are often much larger than using PNG and you can't add detail that wasn't in the original image.
At present, a tiff file can only ever be an intermediate file used for processing as it is almost universally not adopted as an electronic distribution method and most gains are normally negated when published in a viewable format except when printing a fine art print for display or a poster. Converted to a jpg will result in a more detailed image for online viewing as less compression can occur during conversion but there is little gain over using a 14 bit uncompressed raw file instead in my experience.
Ray.