Binding and Edge Finishing a Corset
I have been experimenting with the binding tool but noticed that it only binds between seam lines and not over them, (see photo).
When finishing a corset a long piece of binding, (which may be bias binding or cut on grain) is sewn to the finished garment to cover the raw edges of the panels.
How might I use Clo to finish this way? I assume I would have to have a single long thin pattern piece and sew it segment by segment along the panel edges and then fold it to the inside.
On a real garment the bias tape is sewn right sides together on the outside of the garment and folded to the inside and slip stitched to provide a neat finish. Can I do this in Clo?
-
@allyshake, please refer to below below! It is a shortcut to create bindings in CLO.
The Binding feature was added in CLO 4.1 and needs more improvement (which we are very well aware of!) Our developers are trying their best to illustrate real-world garment making method.
I will stress this needs to our UX team again!
2 -
Brilliant, the video is very helpful, thanks.
0 -
I'd like to bring attention to this as there really needs more improvement to the binding capabilites. We need an option to have binding showing on *BOTH* sides of the material so it can be more accurate. Binding often is used to finish a raw edge and wraps around the edge of the fabric as shown below.
1 -
It's not perfect, but what about using a pucker and topstitch to illustrate the binding, instead of simulating? I used a strip of muslin texture on the bias, and set opacity 100%. It shows on inside and outside of the fabric and across seams. I also added a topstitch with deep offset.
1 -
jne4sl Thanks for sharing this technique. I haven't familiarized myself with the puckering tools but it looks great in the picture you shared. How is it that you were able to add 'Muslin Binding' to the puckering browsing window? I'll research more on puckering since it's not something I've used in the past.
0 -
Here's my attempt to achieve this technique. I added in the texture and normal map to the property editor of the default puckering and renamed it to muslin. I don't think I did it right however due to the raw edge but it's getting there. Yours looks a lot nicer as it's thicker too. But this is a very useful method I could see myself using again very soon.
0 -
For a normal map, I appropriated the standard seamline normal map. If you select any stitching line, you'll see it. It's in the library folders, too, I think under Hardware and Trim -> Seamlines. That gives it a rounded look, but it could be more sophisticated. If fabric and binding are the same, there's no issue with the edge color peeking through, but as a workaround, you can create a fabric with side edge of the fabric to the color of the binding. The topstitching would normally be on the other side, so increase that spacing to .8cm or something. I wish I knew more about how puckering maps are sized, I think I found some info previously. They also can include transparency.
0 -
Hi elyannie. Our developers are working on creating a binding that will wrap around pattern edges.
In the meantime there is another technique we recommend to users.
Use the Edit Pattern Tool and Offset Internal Line from pattern edge where the binding will be and set the offset width the the finished binding amount
Use the Edit Pattern Tool and R-Click on the new line and choose Cut & Sew from the drop down menu
Select the newly created pattern piece and go to the Property Editor. And Additional Thickness Rendering to the desired amount, also turn on Curved Side geometry and adjust to desired amount.
You will now have a pattern piece in the 3D window that gives the look of binding.
We hope that this helps!
0 -
I was looking back at how I've used puckers previously, just following up in case it's of interest. This beginners guide has info on using custom topstitches https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZncCv3ijsZM but not as much on pucker. One difference is pucker maps are distorted to the shape of a contour, while topstitches are set down as segments. So topstitch works well for small repeats like stitches or rhinestones, but something too long just ends up placed too far from a curved edge the edge. Puckers on the other hand work best if they are long and narrow, typically 10:1, the CLO provided files are 400x40 pixels. When setting up a pucker, first set the width (e.g. I used 1 cm for binding) and then adjust the density if the texture doesn't look natural, but 100% is a good starting point. Puckers can work well on curves if the turning radius isn't too tight.
So here's a couple textures and some normals I've played around with
Here's a binding made with pucker, one made by cutting off and apply gingham fabric, and one doing both pucker applied to the trimmed pieces.
Same thing with rib texture.
Pucker only:
Cut, thickened + rib fabric:
Cut, thick and rib pucker added:
1 -
I’m having the same issue but none of these proposed solutions do anything to solve my issue with binding and this issue exemplifies clo3d’s faults as a whole. All of these solutions are for visual simulations and do little to reflect the tangible printed pattern. How is a sample maker going to understand that there is supposedly binding there if the binding feature doesn’t reflect the pattern whatsoever? What purpose do any of these solutions actually solve?
Separate binding, like attaching a t shirt’s collar, is possible with the clo official post demonstrating just that. But bias binding where a strip of fabric covers the front and back of a raw edge is not a intuitive feature in clo and the binding tool is entirely a useless visual change.
So far the only way to simulate over edge bias binding, in the traditional or topstitch method, is by offsetting the edge, creating a shape, sewing it to the back and front edge of the pattern. This is a collision nightmare.
0 -
I think I've been down the same road. It's worth stopping and thinking about binding patterns and how even in real life, they are often treated a little differently from other patterns. Look at the binding diagram above. There are 5 layers of fabric, but 3 of those are seam allowances, 1 on the garment (the fabric edge that gets encased) and 2 from the binding strip (the edges folded under). First binding is often applied from a spool, with no pattern at all, it is a seam finish that ideally in real life doesn't change the shape of the garment edge being bound. Second when there is a pattern, it's tiny, so it usually includes seam allowances and folds but no markings. Even then, the person using the pattern will trim off excess, or take the pattern less literally than other pattern pieces, because bias binding is stretch to fit and the machining determines the length needed.
For consistency in CLO, where seam allowances are usually eliminated, you might want to step back and indicate these as seam allowances. E.g. take your garment edge offset by the binding width and add that back as seam allowance. The printed pattern is unchanged. Take your binding pattern, offset the two long edges, and add back as seam allowance. The pattern is unchanged. Then you're left with a folded fabric strip to be sewn to the edge of your garment (which could be further simplified as a single layer strip). If you sewed that up, you would at least have the textures and grainlines in the right place.
But there's an issue, binding isn't trim. Meaning this isn't a new piece of fabric that should be simulated under it's own characteristics. This is a case where the garment edge, the seam allowance, determines the geometry. The binding is just a finish, and ideally just adds thickness, doesn't really reshape the raw edge. Which is back where we started. The first image of a corset above, actually depicts the fit and construction of the corset very well. The binding is largely cosmetic in real life and simulation. So the question is how accurate do you need this next step to be depicted? (This is different from a rib collar on a knit shirt. There, the rib fabric should be attached as a strip, and it needs to simulate to create the geometry of the neckline with collar. The rib collar is an essential pattern.)
For a quick pretty picture inside CLO, I've used the puckering approach above. More accurate but sufficient for my purposes, would be using the binding tool, and adding a bias strip to the outside of the garment. So the image looks good from the exterior (the same sort of simplification as all other seam allowances and hem folds that typically aren't depicted). Then indicate in instructions that these are double fold bindings, and include the schematic diagram and possibly a pattern or dimensions for the bias strip. I haven't tried the binding tool in the beta update, if it's available, but it is supposed to have a double sided option, which might be what you want. But for my purposes, I don't want to fight with simulating multiple layers just to get the look of a binding. I really don't need polished product images, but for those there are other techniques still. For me the strength of CLO is that it can simulate the geometry of the garment from the pattern pieces. The corset, even without binding, is an example of that. For the most part, the patterns I'm working with in CLO are the garment patterns.
0 -
Thank you for the follow up that is really helpful. I just really would like it if the clo patterns do reflect the patterns as they would be in reality on paper instead of a footnote in the printed patterns and a "hack" in the visual display.
0
コメント