I Need to translate some graphical content into PowerPoint. I just imagined it would be really cool to make PowerPoint itself transparent, put the source Image "below" and then start copying the content with PowerPoint shapes. Like this:
Does such a Thing exist?
Draw a shape, make it about 50% transparent, then right-click on it and choose Format Shape. Then under Shape Options>Fill& Line, set the Fill Transparency to about 50%. Now right-click on the shape and choose Set as Default Shape.
Place the image to be replicated on the slide, then move it to the background. Draw transparent shapes on top. When you're all done, make the shapes opaque.
Related
I'm using a prefab for a box shape, which has a front and back plane.
My images are PNG and have transparent areas around the edge. I dragged the image onto my front plane, which now has a drop-down box for "Shader".
First I chose Shader: "Standard" but the transparent areas of my PNG image weren't transparent, so in order to fix that I changed it to "Sprites / Diffuse"... now the image looks fine (from the front).
However, when I rotate the shape, the image is also visible from the back. I want a way to not see the image / texture from the back.
How can I make the images only visible from the front side of a plane, whilst also preserving the transparency areas of the image / texture?
If you are using the standard built-in shader, you need to set the rendering mode to transparent in order for the texture's alpha channel to be transparent. The sprite shader, by default, forces the rendering of otherwise invisible back-faces, whereas the standard shader does not.
Kind of a weird question for you today. I was requested to take a IMAGE like the following (small portion of a rather big diagram)...
And make it into an editable diagram. I was wondering if there was anyway to decompose into PowerPoint shapes to be able to edit the lines, text, color of boxes, etc. The diagram was created in PowerPoint, then was created into a image, while the PowerPoint diagram was deleted.
Thanks for your time!
I had to do this exact thing for another reason. The closest I could get was to import the image into Photoshop or Adobe Acrobat. These programs can detect the text. Sometimes Acrobat detected text better, but to change the shapes it still had to go to Photoshop. Then, I put the text on its own layer. Next, I redrew the shapes on top of the original. Finally, I deleted the original image, leaving me with the text layers on top of the shape layers on top of a background layer(I prefer it to be alpha channel). Then any edits can be made as desired.
I can generate a MATLAB surface object (using h=pcolor(X,Y,C)) and I would like to save just that surface object in an image format (png, tiff, ...) without any visible background.
The surface is elliptical and not rectangular so I want to see just the ellipse, without white background, axes, labels, ticks, frame, menus, etc.
I want to use it as an overlay on Google Earth so the entity may be rectangular, as long as the parts outside the ellipse are transparent.
MATLAB and its user community seem to offer a number of ways to save images but I have not yet found one that saves just the surface object. Any solutions or even suggestions would be appreciated.
You can use export_fig tool from the matlab's FEX (www) to export the figure with a transparent background (not all the image formats are supported).
To get rid of the axes and just plot the surface, you can do
set(gca,'Visible','off')
I've done a few little games here and there, same for GUI programs but I can't seem to make things re-sizable. Most GUIs handle re-sizing fairly well, but how is this achieved?
Lets say we have a 600x800 window, which has a 100x100 box in the very center, and another identical box 200x above it. If I stretched the window to 1280x720, what algorithm would ensure nothing slips out of place while moving and re-sizing the buttons to the new resolution?
I'd like this to apply to "pixel by pixel" displays, such as drawing a centered quad on the screen is where you tell at which pixel each vertex is, not something scalable such as OpenGL's default matrix.
I was making a circular icon with semi-transparency, so I started with a large filled-in circle with a black border, then I did white->alpha, and resized the image to my required size. Would it have made a difference if I resized first, and then did white->alpha?
Thanks.
Yes.
In general, whenever you are re-sampling, this will have an impact if you are using any anti-aliasing, or the resampling algorithm is something other than nearest-neighbor.
Try the following exercise for a visual example:
In both cases, create your circular icon.
Case 1:
Change white-center of the circle to alpha (0%, fully transparent).
Re-sample (ie: down-sample to 25%) the entire image using something other than nearest neighbour (ie: actually use antialiasing of some sort)
Paste a copy of the result over a red background.
You should only see black and red colors inside the circle when you zoom in, with a smooth transition from black-to-red.
Case 2:
Re-sample (ie: down-sample to 25%) the entire image using something other than nearest neighbour (ie: actually use antialiasing of some sort)
Change white-center of the circle to alpha (0%, fully transparent).
Paste a copy of the result over a red background.
You should see a black outer circle, with a bit of a white halo inside of it, then the red center, with a smooth black-to-white transition, and a sharp white-to-red transition. This will depend on the aggressiveness factor you set with the magic-wand tool you are likely using to auto-select the region you want to modify the alpha properties of.
Now repeat case 2, but disable any sort of anti-aliasing, and enforce the use of a nearest neighbour algorithm rather than bi-cubic spline, Hermite, Gaussian, etc. Your results will look very similar to case 1, except you won't see the smooth transition from black-to-red when you zoom in, you will just see a sharp black-to-red transition.
In general, you will get the best subjective quality when working on your images first, then re-sampling later. If you paste it as its own layer, then you still have all the image data available any none is lost, the image is just rendered smaller.