Welcome to TVPaint Community forums !

Periodically, I find that an instance on a layer is missing the handles that I need to drag it longer. The tiny box at the top left and bottom right. Here is a screen grab which shows this. Two layers. Bottom one has no handles. The top one is a new layer I made. I grabbed a brush from the other layer and pasted it on that new layer. It has handles. So now I can delete the other layer, but why do I have to do this? Why are the handles not there? What does it mean? Is Santa Claus real, or are my parents lying to me about that?

The bottom one is a so called image layer designed mostly for backgrounds -- the entire layer is the "frame" and is not possible to break into. But it can be changed at any point into an anima layer using the command Layer: Make Anim.

I see, but why do I ever need an "image layer" and why does it happen without me asking for it? Can't a background sit just as happily on a normal layer? How can I avoid a layer being this and how can I tell it is, apart from the missing handles?

Hi David
Paul asked me to help you out because I like the frame without handles for my backgrounds.
But don't fret..most people don't use it. It must depend on how you make a new layer.
I use a keystroke that makes this single frame then I stretch it out with a plugin . but without a plugin.... you can just grab the end of the single frame >anywhere and pull out.
As Paul says > you can tell the difference simply that one has handles and an image window.. the other (that you don't like) is plain.
I have a keystroke A ( Layer: make anim) > it makes anything into an anim frame or layer . Into what you want.
Still confused ? PM me ( or on Facebook)

For me the image layer makes sense, when it comes to guide-layers.
Let's say you got a guide layer which you need to see and edit it on every frame of your animation. I know it sounds like some sort of special case and I guess I could live without them, but in some cases a layer which you can change from everywhere in time comes in pretty handy pretty often. Well, at least for me.

Indeed.

the image or static layer is ideal as a help or guide layer to draw helplines, arcs, spacing, notes etc..
because you can extend it for the length you need and it won't break up when you draw.
No matter where you are in the timeline each addition is always layerwide.

YES that too (how could I forget!)

schwarzgrau wrote:For me the image layer makes sense, when it comes to guide-layers.
Let's say you got a guide layer which you need to see and edit it on every frame of your animation. I know it sounds like some sort of special case and I guess I could live without them, but in some cases a layer which you can change from everywhere in time comes in pretty handy pretty often. Well, at least for me.

yep, but what the difference if you use an animlayer made of a single instance, with "autobreak" option set "OFF" ?
afaik, the only difference is that you have to drag the tail when an single instance animlayer,
where you drag the end-handle when it's an image layer, so it's just a bit more easy with the Image layer,
as the end-handle is 4 or 5x wider (easy to pick) than the instance's tail, a very very minor advantage to my eyes.

I still fail to see the difference between an anim layer and an image layer. The points made about an image layer being layer wide are the same with an anim layer. Make one image on an anim layer, put it on hold and anything you draw on that image will be seen right across the entire time line. I do agree that the bigger handles for dragging are useful though. I asked about improving those tiny boxes (Fingers crossed for PT 11). Anyway, maybe I am still missing something or maybe I can just not worry about it anyway.

think of an anim layer as a pinball machine >>> an image layer (static layer) as a picture of a pinball machine
Anims move and for moving drawings >> image ( static ) is one picture for ever and ever on the time line. CAN NOT BE BROKEN or any other image brought in to that layer.
Don't worry ... be

I hear you, and I don't mean to drone on here, but why would anyone need to use an image layer when an anim layer does exactly, precisely the same thing? If you want it to never be able to be broken, you can even lock the layer. Can anyone tell me what an image layer does that an anim layer does not? If not, why is it there? I know, to confuse ME!!

How many kitchen knives are there in anyone's kitchen when just one carefully chosen knife will do all the work. There is much talk about "my workflow", "my pipeline" and mutual acknowledgement that we have all developed our own little spheres of interest and tools -- and oh yes, plugins to get certain areas of expertise done in grater personal comfort.

I never quite understood Sandra's infatuation with the image layer myself -- until just recently I began to pay closer attention to how she goes about her own routines and suddenly I understood. I lost our favorite kitchen knife the other day and went through a short grieving period before, to my surprise, I discovered I've picked another knife to now be my favorite.

To work in this environment and field, we become our best when we are tinkerers. Hollywood animators are not. They sit down where they are told to sit (between the guy who farts all day, and the gal who reeks of gad awful perfume) and they do as they are told and work with what they are given and most don't even get a mention in the credits. The biggest fear these animators harbor are the nightmares of one day having to become a tinkerer. For most of my life my biggest nightmare was to become a studio animator because I wouldn't be allowed to tinker with my tools.

The software (TVP) has also developed from a much simpler work space. Early on we didn't have handles on the anim frame = instance didn't exist. Back then a static layer was much easier for a background painter to deal with when making so many layers and one could jump in at any point in the timeline (along the stretch) and add something to the background anywhere without having it turn into a single anim frame (what we call "Break" now).
We also had to hand stretch the entire head out to the end by hand and Paul had very long scenes back then.. so we developed the HOLD to ease that.
Onward

First of all, I love Paul's response and his reference to perfume and farting. Not, I might add, a reflection of my studio working environment with Alison. Also any comparison with cooking is right up my alley. Sandra makes a good point and now I get it. For a locked BG, no difference, but if you want to draw on that BG, you don't risk a break, as you explain. Now I get it!!! Cheers.

YAY..hip hip and all that.....