![]() That can be determined the correct version into the version just using R1 instead of R2i + R1 shown in the image below. So how far off are the two images from a ratio standpoint e.g. Is a closer to the correct answer and may suffice for darker backgrounds yet it depends on the accuracy you want. Here is using Pixel = White with the R1 for Mask Result So now lets check darker backgrounds applied So first just using R1 as Opacity does not get a good result with lighter backgrounds applied So right off the bat if I use a Pixel Layer of all white and Opacity or R1 in combination of a pure white background: If I only use R1 then the equations become In the discussion below I will use R2i to mean the inverse of R2 Keep in mind, we are trying to derive both the Opacity Layer as well as the Pixel Layer for the original image as both are an unknown if we have just R1 and R2. You may want a different question answered yet if what you want to know is "what is the difference if we only used R1 as the opacity" then that is what I will answer below. The equations should work to create the original opacity and pixels (PNG equivalent) for any transparent image for which you only have R1 and R2. I had only derived the exact equations from the Layer math with transparency with arbitrary backgrounds. Was a fun challenge for me thougtĬlick to expand.Hi is a good question. The hard part for me was deriving the equations that create the result and I am not including that here as that is even dryer than above. Inverting an image was simply using CMD + I. The above results were achieved using Layer Blending with Linear Dodge for addition and Blend mode Divide for division in the equations. The equation for the pixel portion of the PNG is:įollowing is the image for the Pixels values with Transparency removed from these equations:Īnd here is an image of the Layer Mask from the equations: Opacity = 1 - R2 + R1 which is the same as Opacity = Inverse or R2 + R1 The equation for the Opacity which is Layer Mask (or Transparency in a PNG) is: Now without going through a longer derivation of the equations: Now for those interested in the derivation of this PNG file, it was done using the output image from the original file with a black background I will call this R1 for Result 1 (same as an image above above) and also the output image using the original file with a white background which I will call R2 for Result 2 (same as an image above). Hope that solves your problem for your project If you have more questions just ask. Here is a quick example of applying the tapes over an avatar: Here is the PNG file with a black background:Īnd here is screenshot with the PNG file and a White background Here is a screenshot of the PNG file with a 50% gray background: Here is a screen shot of how the PNG file will appear in Photoshop: Since I used those other files as a starting point, I am providing the required attribution link in each of the files images provided.Īn more detailed explanation is provided at the end of this post yet here are the results:įirst here is the PNG file (it won't look transparent yet just save this file for the PNG version: The PNG file I created was derived from two output cases when using two different backgrounds with the more complex files to create the single PNG with transparency file. Neither the vector file nor the PSD file could be directly converted and saved as a PNG to use on its own. I started from a free vector file online that parallels exactly the PSD file you have (many hundreds of Layers including a multitude of blend modes used) Hi took a bit of work yet I created an equivalent PNG file for this set of clear tapes. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |