[Kevin Tang]

Hi, I used this expression, but it kicks up an error at the keyframes where the parent scale is 0%. Any idea how to fix it, or should I ignore it?

[Kevin Tang]

Thank you all for the response! I really appreciate them.

Walter’s suggestion (math.round expression) worked well. Just out of curiosity, is there an advantage of using one over the other (mathround vs draft)? Are there any disadvantages to using math.round

Also, would there be any subpixel scaling issues, if I would like to scale a shape (let’s say a circle) with a constant stroke width of 1px?

[Kevin Tang]

Hi, thanks for the response. It is integral to the design / look of the video that the line is as thin as possible. I’ve tried making it in 2px but it just looks heavy.

[Kevin Tang]

Hi,

Thanks for the response.

Sorry I wasn’t clear.

The smaller comp is not made to fill up the big comp. It is in exact size – when I bring it to the 1920×1080 comp, the small comp will be in that size (595×842). It will not be scaled.

The small comps are pages from a book, that I want to make, adding the page turn effect.

My problem:
– After I made the book, I realise that the text in the small comps is blurred, despite it being made in exact size. Hence, I tried to enable ‘collapse transformations’.
– ‘Collapse transformations’ mess up the entire page turn effect. Is that because I added the effect after I enabled ‘collapse transformations’. Would it work if I enabled it first then add the page turn effect?

– If I can’t enable ‘collapse transformation’, can I scale up the smaller comp (let’s say by a scale factor of 2), and then when I bring it to the big comp, I reduce the scale by 50% so that I get the exact size I want. Would that increase the resolution?
– What is the standard practice for such process? How do I know the scale factor I use is sufficient to create a sharp comp?