PDA

View Full Version : Height question



Randy in Minn
11-12-2006, 09:13 PM
Can someone tell me what the height indicator on the bottom toolbar line is for? I figured out is raises or lowers the height of a carved object inside a carved area but what units is it in. 1-999 what? It is not inches. in a .250 inch deep carved area, 100 in height will have the raised carving just a little below the surface of the board. Can anyone tell me?

BobHill
11-13-2006, 08:33 PM
Randy,

From what I undedrstand, if, for instance you do a carve region to .250 and you have text that you wish to have at .125, if you don't make the height change to 50, then the text will still be .250. What I really don't understand, however, is that I know the numbers aren't in percent, but if you go over 100 that would be above the top of the wood, which of course can't be, but you can write it as such. In other words you can have intermediate heights but you also have to adjust this height option to do so.

Bob Hill
Tampa Florida

Greybeard
11-14-2006, 03:21 AM
My reading of this height/depth figure is to start from the point that all the patterns in the library are proportioned to look best when carved at the default depth of 0.25 inches. (I think this is why they vary in size so much when imported onto the board.)
If you scale a pattern up, say to double the size, (length and width doubled) you will have to start your carving depth at 0.5 inches to keep it in proportion. The software will still refer to the carving as having a height of 100.
If you need to double the size, but stay with a depth of 0.25, you'll have to change the height to 50. This will have the effect of flattening the appearance of the carving.

If you keep the size the same, but want to emphasis the height, then start lower, ie set the depth to 0.5, and increase the height to 200 if you want the top of the carving flush with the surface.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I'm seeing it.
John

BobHill
11-14-2006, 08:05 AM
Boy, John, I hope you are wrong on that. Then you'd have to know the actual size plus the height the original items was created at. But you may well be correct, which means it's still as much a mystery to me as before. I guess one could do some heavy experimenting, but who's got that amount of time and patience?<g> Too little time and too much wishing to do.

Bob

cmorlier
11-14-2006, 10:17 AM
With a single pattern, Bob is basically correct you can think of it as a percentage. However, since it is not physically possible for a carving to be above the surface of the board, the software compresses objects that would extend above the board...this is why 999 is basically the same as 100.

The tricky part comes in when you are merging multiple carvings, especially for additive merges. If you merge two 1/4" thick carvings into a 1/4" depth, then potential height of the added carvings could be 1/2" so the software must compress the combined image to remain at or below the surface of the board. So in this case, the height values act more as weightings so for example:
Consider an additive merge, where the high points of two patterns overlap
Assign pattern 1 a height of 100.
Assign pattern 2 a height of 200.
Then pattern 2 will be 2/3 of the depth and pattern 1 will be 1/3 of the depth.

On a normal merge, where the highest pattern is what is visible, the weightings above would simply indicate that pattern 1 is half the height of pattern 2.

We chose this method over fixed height values (ie in inches) to give the software the ability to do the compression, without changing the values the user enters.

Hopefully, I've made this a little clearer than mud...

Greybeard
11-14-2006, 01:54 PM
Boy, John, I hope you are wrong on that. Then you'd have to know the actual size plus the height the original items was created at. ......
Bob

Bob, I assume that when you bring a pattern onto your board, it's coming in at the original size. But they all have there own default depth, and any subsequent change in size doesn't alter that depth. This is something the user has to alter to keep the appearance of the carving at its best.

I've attached a simple example both in jpg and mpc to illustrate.
Starting with a pattern as brought in from the library, then sunk in to the board by altering the depth to 0.5. The larger images are doubled in size but the depth is still 0.25 and the height is 100. This flattens the carving, so double the depth to 0.5 and double the height to 200 gives back the original form.

I think cw have given users a problem with this nomenclature, especially as in other parts of the software, in surfaces for example, the way of expressing the depth is different.

BobHill
11-15-2006, 08:56 AM
John,
I don't get that. Your work piece is 1" thick. With the large patterns, the one on the left is set to 0.250 depth and 100 height. the one on the right is set to 0,500 depth and 100 height. With the difference in cutting depth, I'd expect that.

The small patterns have the top set to 0.250 depth and 100 height and the lower one has it set to 0.500 depth and height 100. They don't look all that much different, but of course the depth is halved as you indicate.

I've made another piece and attached it along with it's JPEG. Try this:
Top name is text BOB HILL and is 0.125 depth set to 0 height ... ROBERT HILL is set to depth at 0.125 and height 50. Then R.D.Hill is set to depth of 0.125 and height of 100. A rectangle is outlining all text and opted with Carve Region to a depth of 0.500. Do a piece rotation to an isometric and view heights of all patterns. Compare carved heights on isometric view JPEG.

Bob

David M.
11-15-2006, 10:44 AM
Bob, what Greybeard is saying is that as you take a LIBRARY IMAGE, place it on a board, stop. This is your starting point, for size and depth (notice quality of carving), now make a copy twice or more larger, the size and the physical look of the carving has changed, and as you size the image up further and further the image will continue to flatten in apperance till it's unusable.

(NOTE: this only relates to the library images and not text or imported images)

The only way to keep the original QUALITY when changing the image size is to know the original image size and proportionally adjust the depth and height setting to match as Greybeard has worked out. I've noticed the quality loss but had not put the pieces together yet, great catch Greybeard.

This is a odd thing to leave in our control, I agree, but if you were to take the original size and start resizing it up and the depth changed proportionally. You would soon run out of depth since this machine is limited to 1", and it would also limit the size of all the library images.

Which it is doing to some degree now, the quality of these images are directly related to how large they are and how deep they are cut and the height setting. The larger you go without these adjustments the further the image quality is from it's original form.

This is something that everyone should take note of if you work with the library images.

Greybeard
11-15-2006, 11:42 AM
Bob, I think we are chasing each other around in circles, so I've produced the attached, hoping we are both on the same side. :D :D

A - shows the effect of just reducing the height if the depth is kept the same as the default setting, ie it flattens the carving.
B - the default imported from the library.
C - dropped the depth to 0.5, but kept the height 100, so it looks the same but is lower in to the board.
D - dropped it to the bottom of the region,0.75, keeping the height at 100. so I've got the carving as designed, but low in the board.
E - dropped the carving to 0.5, but set the height to 200.
F - dropped it to the bottom, but set the height to 200.

The jpg shows the effect for those without the software.

John

BobHill
11-15-2006, 11:53 AM
David,

Those patterns are actually raster and thus have all the atributes of raster, which means that since the patterns have a resolution (I believe) of 128ppi then if you enlarge the pattern appreciably it's going to pixelate just like it would if you went to print it at a much larger than original image, thus the flattened and less sharp look. That's one reason to make your raster images (not pattens) into much higher (at least 256ppi) if you wish to enlarge it on the work area of Designer.

Bob

Greybeard
11-15-2006, 11:54 AM
Hi David.
Yes, I think we're each finding the software a bit odd, with our own take depending on where we're coming from.
My own problem is the way some things are expressed, but this may be a "cross the pond" difference. :)

I've printed out all the help files as an aid to getting to grips with Designer, and find there are a few errors in fact("right click" is the most consistent one) and some of the illustrations may be from an earlier version.
Perhaps the help files are the last in line to get updated :wink:

John

Greybeard
11-15-2006, 11:57 AM
Bob, the flattening is real. If you use the isometric view and chop off the side of the sunk region, you can see it quite clearly.
John

BobHill
11-15-2006, 12:16 PM
John,

I think we are on the same page. The way I recall it being explained somewhat to me, is that if you set the image to, say, 0.125 with a region bottom of 0.500 and 100 height set, it'll cut to the depth of 0.125 but then cut the outline to a depth of .500. And so on. So besides the raster making larger pixels (less definition), unless the height is set as well as depth, it's going to cut the same, but not the shape.

Bob

Greybeard
11-15-2006, 04:19 PM
Bob - with you all the way.

I keep coming back to the help files, and now think that it was unfortunate the cw chose the figures that they did in the examples of depth and height ie using 0.25 and 0.5 inches doesn't help when you're discussing sums and differences.
If they had only used say 0.25 and 0.6, the difference of 0.35 would not be confused with initial depth figure.

Can you see through the smoke ? :D
John

BobHill
11-15-2006, 06:06 PM
I'm thinking of writing down my own experiences, questions, and answers (if I have them) along with detailed steps for particular projects using the software, but that's a time consuming thing I'm not sure I want to take the time in doing<g>.

Bob

Randy in Minn
11-15-2006, 07:29 PM
Well I am glad you guys understand this Bob and Greybeard cause it is about as clear as mud to me!

I am understanding it will raise and lower the carving in a carved area and it is diferent for an imported photo than a library graphic but other than that it will have to be a play with it an see what you like thing. I Do thank you for the discussion though. It has helped some and hope it helped others too.

BobHill
11-15-2006, 08:49 PM
Randy,

We don't have all the answers, that's for sure, especially me, however since it's an entirely new type of software program to me, I'm still in a learning mode also. I'm pretty good at vector and raster graphics (having worked in that business for over twenty years), but this is different from even AutoCad. That's one of the reasons why this forum is so useful...the messages and replies all have something from which I can think about and learn from.

Bob