-
1. Re: Why doesn't gradient layer line up with its definition!?...(where is it?!)
Silkrooster Nov 20, 2011 9:21 PM (in response to Astara_)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_ Nov 20, 2011 10:20 PM (in response to Silkrooster)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 Nov 21, 2011 10:18 PM (in response to Astara_)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.








