Making a layer stationary or uneffected inside a group layer

foundmarble · Post by **foundmarble** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:16 pm

Question:

Is it possible to make a layer in a group layer, stationary or uneffected by the group's movement?

Example:

Group layer (Hide all)
- layer 1 (masked)--- I want stationary
- mask

I want to be able to move (keyframe) the group layer and have layer 1 not be moved. Is this possible without having to keyframe the heck out of layer 1?

I would just move the points however, in the example I have 2 layers in the group. In real life, I have MANY more layers.

Peace,
Found M.

twillis · Post by **twillis** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:45 pm

Would it work to put a subgroups inside the main group?

What I mean is:

Main Group
Layer you want to stay still
Sub Group of layers you want to animate

foundmarble · Post by **foundmarble** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:42 pm

Not for this application.

Here is an example file of what I am trying to do. It is a heat vapor from an engine.

Please disregard the graphics (they suck), they are there for reference points.
Go to the layer "b/k blurred/rippled". See all of the layer translate keyframes. I want to eliminate this and have the background mask stationary.

Maybe this is the wrong setup.....

I saw the heat effect topic, however, it was not working for this application. Masking/animated noise levels seem to work better than particles for me.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GMEZTK9R

Post by **Víctor Paredes** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:52 pm

It sounds like it could be done with a script.

n.hurst · Post by **n.hurst** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:59 pm

Haven't checked the example, so I'm not sure why you can't just translate the layer you want to move, rather than the parent group. But one simple way of doing it would be to move your intended static layer in the opposite direction to its parent group layer... I mean, it would work, and it's all about the end result.

Alternatively, use camera pans instead of translating layers. Then your intended static layer can be set to "Immune to camera movements". I haven't considered the implications for masking, but that might do the job.

Another idea would be to bind your sublayers to bones. Then simply translate the appropriate bones instead of translating layers. All of these might be a little... inane, but they let you keep the layer hierarchy intact, and it seems like that's what you're after.

foundmarble · Post by **foundmarble** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:32 pm

Thanks n. Hurst

I have tried to "compensate" the movement by moving the layer in the opposite direction. It's a work around, however, I wanted to eliminate the need to do this. I have much bigger plans for this effect than the example I posted.

Take a look at my example, you'll see what I am trying to do. Also, look at the layer I am trying to make stationary (b/k blurred/rippled). I want to eliminate keyframing. This example is only showing layer translation, not scaling or rotation, which is what I want to do next. Plus, if you make any adjustment to the path for the group, you screw up the "stationary" layer's keyframes and you have to reset them.

I think bones may work. I'll have to experiment.

Again, maybe my setup is wrong or I should be thinking in another direction....

Peace,
Found M.

foundmarble · Post by **foundmarble** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:51 am

Ah hah!

Layer binding (bones) worked perfect.

Thanks!