White masks does hide the effect and should reveal

I don’t know if masks work different in BorisFX as with other programs where black conceals and white reveals. When I apply an effect (lens flare) I add a mask so I can paint out the light streaks that I don’t want instead of disabling boxes in the lens flare editor. I invert the mask so it is white and it should reveal the effect so I could paint out with black brush but this is not what happens The white mask acts the same as the black one. I think it is a software glitch but I have to click only once with the brush on the white masks and it reveals the effect.

It would be also much more intuitive to put a black and white brush option in the upper menu instead of add and substract as many of us do all the time paint in black and white to refine masks.

Hopefully, the points below will provide a better understanding of Optics masking.

  • With Optics masks, the white areas show the filter effect while the black areas show the unaffected image.

  • For Paint masks, Optics is designed to paint the mask in the area where you want to see the filter. The Brush Opacity is used to decide either opaque, transparent or somewhere in between. By default, the Brush Opacity is set to 100 (opaque) but you can use the right-mouse button to paint with 0 opacity (transparent).

  • When there are no paint strokes and you invert the mask, there’s a bug where the mask does not render until the first stroke is painted. We will fix that in the next point release. For the moment, I suggest painting a transparent stroke (right-mouse drag) before inverting the mask. Invert the mask, then paint with the left mouse button to remove the areas that you don’t want affected by the filter.

  • When a mask has been inverted, the inversion step occurs after the paint stroke steps. So when inverted, this means that painting with a 100 brush opacity (normally opaque) results in a transparent result.

  • Since Optics supports multiple masks per layer (unlike Photoshop), it makes more sense to paint in the areas of the effect, rather than paint them out like you do in Photoshop.

1 Like

Clear. Thank you . But I would like to point you out that the last statement operation is much worse than the adopted by Photoshop. I explain you why. For example I put a light flare on an image with multiple lightstreaks but there might be 2 small ones that I want to take away among dozens. With your method I have to paint in the whole image and leave out that two that I don’t know where they are. So it is much more time and guess work. Painting out you see the whole effect at once in front of you and you just paint out what you don’t like. Faster, easier and intuitive. I think BorisOptics is wrong in their approach. I will adapt but I think it is much more cumbersome that Adobe masks

IMHO, there is not a one size fits all approach for all images.

  • For images where you only want the effect on a small portion of the image, painting in only the area where you want the effect is faster than your approach.
  • For images where you only want to paint out a small portion of the effect, your approach is faster and it can be achieved by inverting the mask and painting out the areas to be removed. Once the bug is fixed that I pointed out in my earlier post, you will save one addition keystroke.

Whose to say that there are more instances of users painting in small portions of the effect or painting out small portions of the effect. In either case, there are controls to handle both cases. The added benefit of the Optics approach is when adding multiple masks on a layer, you don’t have to have to clear out the opaque alpha you are suggesting as a starting point.