Reply to thread

Joy,

I'll agree it looks pretty realistic but I can't take much credit for it, other than buying the plug-in and knowing how to tweak the settings a bit along with a little post plug-in editing.

The Classic Frame plug-ins themselves have one fatal flaw in my estimation. When a square image is framed you can get all four sides to be approximately equal widths but when the proportions become rectangular, while the opposite sides are equal widths, adjacent ones are mis-matched having one wider than the other.

I suggested to the developers that they try to do something to eliminate that issue as it subtracted from the verisimilitude of the effects but there must be a distinct limitation in how the software is written for that was never addressed although they did send me a second version of the software which did attempt a work around by having landscape and portrait frames and were a bit better than the first version.

There is an additional flaw. When the frames are rendered there are generally 1-3 pixel lines, which are still the original image, residing outside the newly rendered frame. That results in a bit more post plug-in editing and the single pixel marquees come in handy!

However, even though the software is cheap, I can't endorse it without noting the fairly serious flaws because most plug-in users just presume you can click and play, so to speak.

Oh well...