merging many individual layers with a background layer

[Gartenkralle]

Hey guys,

I was trying to make a "deal-with-it"-GIF that will basically look like this one:

So let me explain, the background image doesn't change at all, only the glasses will drop from the sky. So i did this dropping sequence of the sun glasses with step&repeat and got like 20 individual layers.
I now have to merge every single layer of the sun glasses with the background layer (Obama in the example GIF). I did it with stamp visable layers (ctrl-alt-shift-e) but that is a hell of clicking work and takes some time. Is there a way to make it faster, like merging all layers of the sunglasses with the background layer but output them into seperate layers? Remember, it need those 20 individual layers in the end to be able to make the GIF out of them.

I feel like i haven't explained it that well, but i can't do it better at the moment since my english sucks. I hope someone did unterstand what my problem is.

 

[Gartenkralle]

Luckily i just found a solution. If anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwbOIzqcz_s

 

[MrToM]

Sorry Gartenkralle, the site was (still is?) having some problems earlier whereby posts were not showing....this is the first I've seen of your question.

Had I have seen it earlier I would have said that you didn't need to merge anything at all.....what you have is perfectly fine.

That video shows a very 'backwards' and inefficient way of doing things......why move all the animation to the background? It makes more sense to just add the background to the animation.....at the bottom of the stack......one layer instead of many......no?

There is also no need to have the background in EVERY frame....as in merged in each layer.

As long as the background is on the very first (bottom) layer and turned ON for each frame that's all you need to do.

To do that you just select all the frames and turn the background layer on....it'll then turn it on for every selected frame........much easier.

Anyway, if you're happy with that solution then thats fine but there really wasn't any need to do anything that drastic.

Regards.
MrTom.

 

[Gartenkralle]

Yeah i see what your point is. It is indeed easier and a lot faster the way you explained it.

Thanks man.

 

[MrToM]

No worries.....sorry I didn't get to you earlier but your post just didn't show up till literally just now......well, for me anyway.

I didn't really explain it very well but if you understood it anyway then even better!

Regards.
MrTom.