9 Replies Latest reply on Apr 17, 2014 8:19 PM by Andrew Yoole

    Opacity and Parenting

    Nic_Petersen Level 2

      I understand that opacity is NOT affected by parenting one layer to another, but I'm curious to know WHY. Was there something about including it that made the coding difficult/annoying when parenting was first included in After Effects? Was it a programmer's/designer's decision? Inquiring minds want to know...

        • 1. Re: Opacity and Parenting
          Dave LaRonde Level 6

          Parenting is ONLY concerned with the position, scale and rotation properties. 

          You'll note that you can't parent the animation of any effects or audio levels, either.  That's what expressions are for.

          • 2. Re: Opacity and Parenting
            Mylenium Most Valuable Participant

            Why would anyone even want that? Makes no sense at all. You are confusing rendering properties with transforms. There is a million scenarios where one might want to hide/ fade parts of a hierarchy, but not others... Enforcing such an inheritance would only complicate matters much more than the way it is now.

             

            Mylenium

            1 person found this helpful
            • 3. Re: Opacity and Parenting
              Nic_Petersen Level 2

              Thanks for the reply. I understand the facts behind parenting, but I'm trying to get at the reason for why it is the way it is.

              • 4. Re: Opacity and Parenting
                Nic_Petersen Level 2

                Mylenium:

                 

                I didn't say that I wanted it to be that way; I'm just trying to figure out why it was made to be so in the first place. In other words, were the reasons you listed an active part of the decision making process at the time parenting was created, or were those reasons developed later in response to the decision not to include opacity in the parenting relationship.

                 

                The only thing that I can think of is that parenting affects everything affected by the anchor point; opacity obviously is not. Was it then easier to write the coding based on the anchor point, rather than something more all-inclusive?

                 

                Nic

                • 5. Re: Opacity and Parenting
                  Rick Gerard Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                  I cannot think of a single project I have worked out where parenting opacity would be an advantage. About 80% of my projects that use parenting would run into incredibly complex problems should opacity be included.

                   

                  If you wish to try Opacic the of one layer to the opacity of another it's a single click with equipment and an expression. To tell you the truth most of my opacity changes are accomplished with an expression saved as an animation presets that fades in and out based on in and out point. I keyframe opacity very rarely.

                  1 person found this helpful
                  • 6. Re: Opacity and Parenting
                    Nic_Petersen Level 2

                    Mr. Gerard:

                     

                    Thank you for your reply. I understand and fully agree that parenting opacity would not be helpful/beneficial. Again, my question was aimed more at getting information about the decision making process when parenting was first established in After Effects, and less about the practical reasons why it would not be beneficial for designers if opacity were affected by parenting. As I stated previously - were the reasons you listed an active part of the decision making process at the time that parenting was created, or were those reasons developed later in response to the decision not to include opacity in the parenting relationship?

                     

                    Nic

                    • 7. Re: Opacity and Parenting
                      Dave LaRonde Level 6

                      I'm pretty sure that Adobe considered parenting to be a feature for transformation properties only.   But you'd have to ask them.  Perhaps someone will shed some light.

                      • 8. Re: Opacity and Parenting
                        Nic_Petersen Level 2

                        Thanks, Mr. LaRonde - I figured I'd have to pose the question directly to Adobe, but thought I'd check in the forums first. I'm an ACI for After Effects, and of course I get the question all the time: "why isn't opacity included in parenting if its a standard feature of every layer?" I've reverted to the default answer: "I'm not sure, but I think that it's because parenting only affects properties affected by the anchor point", but I have no idea if that was truly in the minds of the designers when parenting was first coded. I realize that it's somewhat OCD, but I'd like to give an answer that I know to be true, rather than my best guess.

                         

                        Also, Devil's Advocate time...if opacity were not considered a transformation property, then why include it in the transform property group?

                         

                        Thanks again!

                         

                        Nic

                        • 9. Re: Opacity and Parenting
                          Andrew Yoole MVP & Adobe Community Professional

                          The answer is quite clear from the responses above, and no doubt from your own experience using AE.  As the desire to link opacity between layers is very uncommon, it would be an impediment to include it with parenting.  So Adobe didn't.

                          1 person found this helpful