3 Replies Latest reply: Nov 21, 2011 10:18 PM by Silkrooster RSS

    Why doesn't gradient layer line up with its definition!?...(where is it?!)

    Astara_ Community Member

      Ok, this is a an example of the headaches I'm going through .. I don't understand why it's doing what it's doing...or why it's so broken!?!?

      (ARG...ok...user may be broken, but...um...isn't software supposed to be written for humans, not the other way around?)...

       

      Start with a blank layer, and create a path...and have put in a gradient.

      Looks like:

      adobe-shape1.png

       

      Without the shape, it looks like:

       

      adobe-shape2.png

       

      (You can still see the shape outline there...)

      So I create a new fill layer of type gradient...and setup to create the gradient to match the one I've already created in a bitmask)...

      (as I only want to store the formula for the gradiant, not the whole bitmask!) -- take a look at a ".grd" file...theya re alot smaller than

      a 80MB bitmap image .... (each layer of this photo is 80MB uncompressed...)...but a gradient...<1k...

       

      adobe-shape3.png

      There's the gradient, looking pretty much like the one on the shape below it...

       

      adobe-shape4.png

      Got the gradient lined up......the little gradient map looks like the gradient picture...ok...so lets apply...

       

      adobe-shape5.png

       

      Huh!?....  doesn't look at all like the one above....   looks like 1 color....  lets try w/out the bounding shape...

       

      adobe-shape6.png

       

      ARG...where's the Gradient?!!?!

       

       

      Note, I've zoomed out -- it's not on the entire canvas!

       

      So where the heck did my gradient go?!?!?!

        • 1. Re: Why doesn't gradient layer line up with its definition!?...(where is it?!)
          Silkrooster Community Member

          Have you tried a gradient style? That should reduce the overhead if thats what your after.

          • 2. Re: Why doesn't gradient layer line up with its definition!?...(where is it?!)
            Astara_ Community Member

            Which do you mean?  Gradient as an 'effect' on an existing layer (that will hide stuff on the layer), or gradient adjustment layer? that can apply to one or more layers below, that only seemed to give me a semi-transparent effect,  when I tried it...)no doubt due to some obscurely documented inter-rerelated setting somewhere?), or what?   My problem is my each time I add a gradient layer as a layer, it adds it as pixels and costs 80MB/layer.  After a couple hundred, it adds up!...My machine can only handle a certain amount of such resource abuse before it abuses me!.. ;-/

             

            (occasionally fun, but more often than not, not...), so i'm trying to figure out how to get his program to be morer efficient be default rather than torturing me every step of the way.)...

             

            (note -- couple hundred is not exaggeration -- 200, 300 , no prob.  This file has hit 2.6-2.6GB at its largest, and that easily 200,300 of those 80MB layers)

            (note2 -- usual machine abuse involves being forced to wait one of the various forms of Win7 "wait while we do X" messages (often just a spining circle)...so computer abuse...we, it could eat files (its done that), or eat the OS (done that too, more than once!..different ways)...etc...so I play nice and give it more HW & resources and it's happy for a while.  But some programs are a bit more ...

            *cough*, shall we say, resource hungry than others?)

             

            *sigh*

            • 3. Re: Why doesn't gradient layer line up with its definition!?...(where is it?!)
              Silkrooster Community Member

              I was wrong... A gradient overlay, requires the layer to have an opaque fill. Which goes towards your issue.

               

              Visually, using a gradient object from illustrator looks like it does the job. However saving the file shows another story. the file size appears to multiple the same size per layer. It's looking like the gradient fill is a smaller file than that from illustrator. Must be extra overhead involved.