3 people found this helpful
you can see the properties in the timeline. just toggle the triangles down:
Shape layers in Ae are very powerful but the interface takes time to get used to. you have to work in a small space in the Timeline and learn how to build hierarchies and be smart about your choices because you can loose orientation pretty fast.
make sure you read through here:
Roei - thanks you again for your help.
I actually looked there (S) but only saw/now see the percentage it's at. FI- 100%.
And you're not kidding about the Shape Layers. I keep feeling so dispirited by their complexity - so thank you so much for the help!
I bet you wouldn't believe that I watched the Chrs/Trish Meyer Shape Layers video in it's entirety!
no I wouldn't . the Meyers are great. very comprehensive and also welcoming. their book "Creating Motion Graphics with After Effects" is my Bible. and I have watched almost all of their Lynda series.
If you draw the shape with the pen tool he will not get a size. If you use the shape tools (ellipse, rectangle, etc.) to draw the shape anywhere on the screen and then press the u key twice to reveal all the modified properties you will see the size of the shape and all of the other parameters that have been modified. If you're only seeing a percentage I am guessing that you created your shape with the pen tool.
I use keyboard shortcuts for everything that has keyboard shortcuts. My most used keyboard shortcut, the one that I use on almost every layer in every comp several times during the editing process, is a double tap on the U key. It is by far the fastest way to figure out what is going on with your layer. It should be your most used shortcut, especially when you are learning.
thank you Rick, sorry did not notice Op actually wrote that he did not find the size. as Rick mentioned - you can see only see the size on some of the parametric shapes: rectangle, ellipse and rounded rectangle.
if you choose the others, or draw it yourself with the pen tool, or use Alt as you create a parametric shape - it is now a Bezier path so no size option there.
I created it with the ellipsis tool!
I will make a screen capture in the morning and post it. I am quaking in my boots that I didn't twirl the triangle down enough times - or some such dopey mistake - but I do not lie. That's not my style!
you probably didn't twirl
Good morning! As promised - here's my screenshot. I don't see any size under scale - or an option to twirl down further. Am I missing something? BTW - I'm in CS 5.5. (?)
And . . . I challenge you to a duel on the village green at sunset for sullying my honor with a suggestion of lying!!!!!!! The loser of the duel must buy drinks for everyone in the forum!
wrote something and deleted it right back.
this is what happened - you pressed S for scale and did not see the contents parameter. if you would toggle the triangle up and down you would see all the properties. also UU could get you there. thank you for showing me yet another way to get lost in the software.
Well, a million thanks for you help and patience. I hope you weren't being sarcastic re:
"thank you for showing me yet another way to get lost in the software."
Tone can be hard to parse in text!
And, if anyone can help you get lost in AE, sadly, I'm the one to do it, and I rule, supreme on that count.
No Sarcasm! I needed to put a smiley face in there I need to know how to get lost because I teach students and knowledge is power! when someone comes up to me with a messed up situation, I feel happy when I can help them get out of it. so honestly thank you I was already prepared to write to you that apparently cs5.5 doesn't have too many shapes parameters when you wrote again and it occurred to me you did not see it because you used the shortcut to see the scale and that results in missing parameters.
Well, again, thank you. And BTW - you know what was really basic but hard to learn? The difference between precomposing & nesting. It occurred to me yesterday - that precomposing should really & logically be called postcomposing. Because you are already in a pre-existing comp. Whereas nesting is something you do before - you drag comps into another "preexisting composition, hence "pre". Certainly - I could be mistaken - but it was an "aha" moment for me. Hopefully one I got right!?! Believe it or not I'm really very skilled with many programs and html & css - but I've never seen a program so complex and unintuitive as AE.
BTW -I'll bet you're a great teacher!
thanks Karenfl you made me smile!
about pre-comps and nested: I used to try to explain to students the technical difference and exact scenarios (that's the best way to learn) but found out I should not bother. after some practice you eventually get when and why you should use each. nested means you were smart and prepared before hand, and Pre-comps is just the nature of working in Ae, you put things in boxes and in time you know when and why. the technical terms are just confusing, this is just a way to be organized and achieve a certain effect.
I always thought Ae is pretty intuitive and fun - but it is misleading. you can get to 70% intuitively - that's why it's so popular. that's why many users here ask basic questions because they think they can make it with just intuition. 80% requires study. 90% is after 10-15 years with it non-stop and 95% and above are geniuses (some are here) that can make anything with old school effects like colorama and card dance and a few expressions. that can give a killer workflow that solves a scenario in 30 minutes when it would take you 3 days.
Ae hides a lot of the complex stuff under the hood but there comes a time when you need to know that. no substitute for essential training even if it's slow, boring, not practical at first. yes the Meyers are not exciting like Andrew Kramer BUT you will get much more if you learn all the basics first. anyone can follow a recipe and make fire, shatter, smoke, whatever.
Btw I do get how it can be frustrating. that's why I called my Video Channel AeBlues. you are welcome to follow me on Vimeo/Youtube - just look up the name.
I just subscribed to your YT channel. How perfectly named!
I see you've liked some of the same videos & subscribed to some of the same channels as I have. I hope you'll do some tutorials on Shape Layers. Feel free to let me know if you need a beta tester/watcher for them!
I agree so completely on the intuitive to a point although personally I wouldn't have given a 70%! I felt like I watched so many videos and thought I "got it" enough to dive in. But then at around 40% I felt like I was tangled up in a spider web. And the only thing that made me stick to it was the time and PAIN already invested. Oh, and sheer stubbornness.
Really, I hope you will do some Shape Layer tutorials.
Thank you. I do have in mind to speak about shapes but I am more focused on workflows and tips and techniques that are very specific. so it's not going to be an essential tutorial. just some little tricks and stuff. if you watched Chris and Trish that's very comprehensive stuff. these are two great courses:
you can PM me questions if you have any . if you think it's worth a post then by all means - this way others can contribute and I can see if my methods are worth anything or maybe I am missing something.
Will do! Thanks again!
Oh how funny! I'm just finishing watching Eran's tutorial. The very one you mention here. It's great and he is just fabulous -but some of it was too complex for me. In that first "chapter" when he did those wipes within wipe things I couldn't even look at them and know what he was doing in the demo. And as someone who blames myself for everything, including the extinction of the dinosaur on our planet, I felt HE made that series too complex. More complex than it need to be. And he almost lost me at the very beginning. But then the rest of it, each chapter, was more contained to the idea he was demonstrating and I was glad I stuck with it.