3 Replies Latest reply on Sep 11, 2009 10:45 AM by red-mike

# Need some 1337 help. Trying to invert a stabilized scale but not flip it.

So I am doing the equivalent of this:http://www.videocopilot.net/tutorial/demon_face_warp/, with one exception. My camera moves toward my figure so I tracked the scale when I stabilized the footage in one pre-comp and in the external pre-comp I want the footage to scale in the opposite direction of the stabilization so the footage plays the same way it did in the plate with the exception of my mesh warp.

Can you help me crack the code?!

comp("footage24p.stabilized").layer("footage24p.mov").transform.scale

Is the line I get when I pick whip the scale like you do with the other transform attributes. If one of you could write the equation that works it would make my night. So far everything I've come up with only flips it upside down.

Thanks!

• ###### 1. Re: Need some 1337 help. Trying to invert a stabilized scale but not flip it.

So this is what I'm thinking.

When a point is scaled at 65% and you want that point to equal 100% the equation is this:

(1/.65)*.65=1

OR

(1/X)*X=1

Now how do I script that?

• ###### 2. Re: Need some 1337 help. Trying to invert a stabilized scale but not flip it.

I'm not sure I understand you. The inverse simply is 1/x, you only need to multiply, but based on the source size, not the already scaled value, so in essence it's 1/x*1. In your case the part you could be missing missing is probably the difference, 1-y, which you may require to compensate for the value offset to start your calculations based on 100%.

Mylenium

• ###### 3. Re: Need some 1337 help. Trying to invert a stabilized scale but not flip it.

Thanks Mylennium,

I believe your math is correct. The only thing that remains is how I would write that in the code:

comp("footage24p.stabilized").layer("footage24p.mov").transform.scale

This is all academic now because I decided since it was one shot I'd scale by hand (sigh) but it's something I would revisit regularly if the process could be viable.

-RedMike