Preserved Topic: single pixel bewel??? how?

Hey how can I make a single pixel bevel grafix? I saw this stuff in hyperpark.com and there was also a tut but it didn't work. Can someone help me with this? Awilthil?

Cheers

-Time is always against me-



[This message has been edited by nt (edited 01-16-2001).]

What the heck is a bewel?

Is this the kind of thing your talking about? If so go to http://www.HandsOn.nu/HTML/insetbar.shtml

*clears throat....puts spectacles on*


sorry!

No, it's not a graded bevel...he wants a one pixel bevel...like icons, or browser bars.

nt:

Make a Selection of the layer you want bevelled......move the selection one pixel up, and one pixel left.

Hold Ctrl + Alt (Cmd + Opt for MACheads) and click the Layer in your layers Palette....it will subtract all but your one pixel top and left.

Move the Selection back down, and right one pixel.

Make a New Layer....fill with white.

Repeat this, but this time, when you make the first Selection, move it down, and right one pixel, and fill the next New Layer you make, with black.


Now, play with the blending modes and opacities of those two new layers to match your graphic colours and decide how much highlight, and how much shadow to give.


Done deal.

This can be done with Layer Effects as well, by setting the inner bevel to 0 blur, and a low depth....keep your angles at 45s and 90s though, or it will seem jaggy.

Hope it helps.

Peter



ICQ:# 10237808

[This message has been edited by DarkGarden (edited 01-16-2001).]

Yo Pete, that's a 2 pixel bevel

I thought about that one for a couple minutes before replying.....

Now the only way I figured that you could get a 2 pixel bevel from my explanation was if you started adding the verticals and the horizontals....but where I come from, that would make for a four pixel bevel (since we'll call the shape a box, or we're really f*cked)

One pixel up....One pixel over.....does not equal two pixels up


I'd do a quick diagram...but I'm too lazy to open PS right now, as Wead would say.


Now quit confusing the guy...jeez


Peter





ICQ:# 10237808

Thanks Peter!

I don't have time to test that now, but because you made this tut, it works!
Thanks Pete and others!

-Time is always against me-

I thought about that one for a couple minutes before replying.....

I've got PS7 and it does single pixel bevels just wonderfully at the standard 90° CW, CCW or arbitrary angles, it can split atoms as well. It's a processor hog tho...

I can remember back in the old days when we still used PS7...... damned hippies.

Hmm? I read the one pixel two pixel three pixel up! Bit, I get confused when I try *saying* it, much less reading! Still I know how to do it, it just sounds complicated! Hmm, picture a box on one layer and a background under it, cool? Select the box, nudge one right and one down, and make that *background* brighter (not the box, what's UNDER the box!) Nudge two pixels up and 2 left and make the background really dark. Select the box again, and working on that layer (the box this time!), take the inverse of that selection (all *but* the box!), nudge 1 pixel down and one pixel right, and make it bright. Go 2 pixels up and two left and make it dark. One, no TWO pixel bevel, which is still what folks are after, methinks.

Sorry to say exactly what everyone else just said, but with different words. I figured maybe if you beat your head against the desk often enough it will become clear just how simple of a technique this is. I like it! You should too. Quick, cheap 3D-like effect, low bandwidth, etc, etc, yadda yadda...

Your pal, -doc-



PS: Does everyone know what I mean when I say "nudge"? That's when you use the arrow keys to nudge the selection a pixel at a time. Make a point not to have the mover key selected, a common error at the start! You'll know you screwed up this way if your edges get all muddy from dragging the background around with you, try it, you'll see. (Most of you probably have done this, 'fess up now!)

[This message has been edited by DocOzone (edited 01-16-2001).]

well I thought it would be impossible to get a true one pixel bevel actually.... cos PS only will transform/nudge in one pixel increments?.. so either you would end up with a line that was 2 pixels thick or else you would have to work out a way of applying a highlight or lowlight to a pne pixel line?.. sounds tricky to me

edit: I ahvent tried this yet.. but here is a link to a DL of a thingy that is supposed to give the impression of sub-pixel offsets, just incase anyone is interested fyi
http://www.idignet.com/photoshopcentral/tips.html (its the first tip)



[This message has been edited by vogonpoet (edited 01-17-2001).]

http://www.hyperpark.com/images/tutorials/singlebevel/singlebevels.gif
that's the pic and actually the whole layout done by Awthill in http://www.hyperpark.com/

Cheers

-Time is always against me-

Okay, I do believe the number of pixels at stake here is for each individual bevel (ie: the bevel done to the background plus the bevel done to the box = 2 bevels...eaech bevel being one pixel.....).

I have used both methods for bevels (what Doc said and what DG said), and both have their particular pros and cons. The brightness adjustment generally yields better results, but the white/black layer method remains editable long after the fact which is pretty nice.

Ooh! You mean like the text in an AIM window?
Take that little image and zoom in, the bevel of which you speak is simply this:
Layer 1, your text/lines/shape/whatever
Select that layer, create a new layer and drag it below the other layer
nudge the selection one pixel down and one pixel right, then fill white or whatever color the highlight should be.



[This message has been edited by Sloloem (edited 01-17-2001).]

Hey VP :
I downloaded the sub pixel thingy, but it seems to be in the wrong format... Is there a trick ?



BTW Cool new sig VP...Nice job, man

[This message has been edited by docilebob (edited 01-18-2001).]

not sure Bob.. I never tried it myself... isnt thir like 2 different DL's?.. maybe one for mac and one for PC?

sorry I cant help.. I was just pointing out the llink is all

~Vp~