Equal spacing, equal number of anchor points on strokes for smooth blending

[MikeMorton]

Today I had a question about using the blend tool to create a smooth blend. Basically I had a smaller circle within a triangle (stroke only). I found out with the help of this super helpful community that it was because of the number of anchor points within the path. (Triangle had 3 anchors, circle had 4) with help, I was able to create a 3 anchor point circle which blended perfectly with a triangle. Now I'm wondering.. when I create a more complex shape (maybe 10-12 anchor points, and want to blend it with another shape, maybe with 3 anchor points... I'd have to add extra anchor points to help create a nice transition between line strokes. Is there a plug-in or anything out there which will evaluate my two strokes and place extra anchors or add them in the correct places to ensure I will have a nice blend between to lines? This is for more complex "linotype" style illustrstions. Currently I'm stuck creating pretty basic stroke blends. Wondering if there is such a plug-in or method to better create the linotype style illustrations. Thanks!

[Monika Gause]

No, the same number of anchors is not an obligation.

WHat you can do and what most of the times leads to good results is:

Select the same number of corresponding anchor points on each of the paths with direct select. "Corresponding" meaning points that are across from each other.

Then take the blend tool and click on one of those pairs one point after the other.

[Jacob Bugge]

Mike,

One thing that was never mentioned in the other thread, and which may have a great influence on what you can get away with is to pin the blending to specific Anchor Points on the paths involved.

You can read about it here, including second bullet under 2) under Create a blend with the Blend tool (and mayby you can search on, the helpx is also a good search option for other things):

How to blend objects in Illustrator

[Jacob Bugge]

Mike,

As the time stamps show, there can be different parallel answer with a (considerable) time distance, which may be owing to slowness/someone having to leave for a while before finishing a post, sometimes caused by rifts in the time space continuum (which do occur here, sometimes giving discrepancies of hours).

Apart from that, your having corresponding numbers of Anchor Points may less important (or even unimportant) in some cases, it has a fundamental soundness which always gets you there.

In the triangle/circle case of the other thread, you can see the effect of simple pairing (just the top Anchor Points, or other combinations for fun).

[tromboniator]

A) 3-point triangle, 4-point circle

B) 4-point triangle (point added at center of bottom

C) 3 & 3, with the 3-point circle painstakingly constructed

D) 3 & 3, with the 3-point circle made as Dynamic Shape with Astute Graphics VectorScribe plugin.

Peter

[Jacob Bugge]

Peter,

Which was the way in C) (there was a possibly corresponding way suggested in the other thread hitherto unlinked to here)?

Blending an "inner" circle stroke to and "outer" triangle stroke?

[MikeMorton]

Jacob Bugge​, yes, Peter did cover exactly what I had asked in the previous post. I should've linked the posts together. From what I'm understanding from your guys' posts on this thread is that a different number of anchors on each line isn't necessarily bad and shouldn't affect the blend badly.

[Jacob Bugge · Accepted solution]

Mike,

I should've linked the posts together.

By no means, Mike, that would have deprived us of further fine answers, and hopefully we shall know how Peter did the three segment circle for C).

a different number of anchors on each line isn't necessarily bad and shouldn't affect the blend badly.

You may get away with it, but only in some cases, as you can see from the exquisite A) - D) presentation from Peter showing that only C) and D) are full quality with corresponding Anchor Points in corresponding positions.

Maybe you can say that with more woolly shapes you can get away with worse because (small) discrepancies are less obvious than in very clear cut/simple/regular shapes are more demanding.

Anyroad, as with many other important matters, the best way is to try it out: what looks right is right; and the proof of the pudding is the eating.

[Monika Gause]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Jacob+Bugge  schrieb

You may get away with it, but only in some cases, as you can see from the exquisite A) - D) presentation from Peter showing that only C) and D) are full quality with corresponding Anchor Points in corresponding positions.

In my experience you get away with it in most cases. The case of a circle blended into a triangle should rather be the exception than the norm. Until now I never had the necessity to do so.

[tromboniator]

Ask and ye shall receive? Well, this'll be an experiment to see if it's worth the trouble to do videos. I feel certain you'll let me know.

Three-point circle

[Monika Gause]

You could also try the Ovalize script: s.h's page : Scripts for Adobe Illustrator CS

[Jacob Bugge]

It was certainly worth the trouble, Peter, and thank you for sharing.

Very enjoyable, and especially delightful to see drawing work rather than calculations, and also the most conclusive proof that what looks right is right.

Some days ago I posted instructions to create a four point circle with the Pen Tool using an integer percentage (of the Width), it is in The Circle Thread here:

Illustrator Windows hints

[tromboniator]

I recall reading that thread some (though fewer) days ago and being struck by the variety and quality of the cerebral input.

[mark-heaps]

Sometimes when testing blend output. After I've set the blend, I got back and use direct select to select one of the objects, and use

Object > Path > Add Anchor Points

So I can allow them to align in a way where the numbers are more easily distributed for a blend on complex shapes.

Object A can be 4 points and the other can be 12. But I can't have it be 4 and 9. That will get me strange results usually.

So I keep dividing elements uniformly until they are divisible into one another. The shape/geometry also plays a factor here, (curves, straight lines, etc)

[matthewp33322593]

I see this is answered, but why would you go to those lengths? the issue is that the blend tool doesn't know that you expect it to create rounder and rounder triangles until they look almost like a circle.

If you want a smooth transition, you don't need to download anything. Just extend handles along the length of the sides of the triangle, and apply object, path, add anchor points to the circle.

In the upper left, I added anchor points to the circle, and extended handles along the sides of the triangle.

In the one on the right, I just put a did a straight up blend.

in the on on the lower left, I copied the upper left and expanded it, then extended handlebars from the first step in the blend to give it more rounded corners, then blended that rounded triangle with the circle.