adobe.photoshop.macintosh
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh?hl=en
adobe.photoshop.macintosh@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Change in EXR open from CS2 to CS3 can this be fixed? - 7 messages, 7
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/8948fc2c826ed062?hl=en
* Large Format Document will not print - 12 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/6e3bd8a205e04b42?hl=en
* Dear Adobe, seriously: please release me from PAR distortion! - 2 messages,
2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/9e27951e0f9d1fdc?hl=en
* PS CS3 green fringe with USM - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/1bb960bbee7d8588?hl=en
* CS3 memory allocation question - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/a43360b2fb158240?hl=en
* iMac runs slowly in Photoshop - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/78f84c21f1212ce5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Change in EXR open from CS2 to CS3 can this be fixed?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/8948fc2c826ed062?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 11:53 pm
From: buck_forester@adobeforums.com
Thank you Zap
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 12:22 am
From: Dragos_H_Stefan@adobeforums.com
"VFX represents a very small fraction of the people using the EXR file format."
Could you read again what you have written? As one user pointed out, OpenEXR was *created* by this industry, specifically for it's use.
I do suppose that your statement is either a lie to server your argument or simply ignorance, as I'm pretty sure the VFX industry is the most important user of the OpenEXR format. But maybe I'm wrong, so enlighten us and tell us which other industries have a number of users of OpenEXR which is significantly bigger than the "very small fraction" in the VFX industry.
Nobody asks you to break anything.
Use the specs as you see fit, but offer the OPTION to your CUSTOMERS to use the software in the most useful way to do their job.
I don't care about the spec. I want an OPTION in the loader to let me ignore the alpha if I WANT TO. Because *I* know how my pipeline works, not you, neither Adobe.
I'd also like you to show an example of how this addition of this option would break the workflow of someone, who would that someone be and in what industry would he/she be involved in (supposedly with a greater number of user of OpenEXR than the VFX industry).
This is so typical of Adobe arrogance. "Screw the users, we know better and we will force them to break their workflows if it's more comfortable for us". Your users ask your for *options* to make their life easier -- or at least don't make it harder -- (again, they don't ask you to break something) and you hide behind the "spec" paper and tell them to leave you alone.
Dragos
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:30 am
From: erik_winquist@adobeforums.com
chris,
i've read through this entire exhaustive thread now and just want to mention a point that nobody else seems to be bringing up.
I can see your position with regard to CS3+4 treating the "A" channel as transparency by default, but as you have pointed out multiple times, photoshop's EXR plugin doesn't currently support more than RGBA OpenEXRs. if we want to bundle a matte with our RGB channels that does /not/ represent the transparency of the image, the only channel we have at our disposal is that A channel. anything else currently gets thrown away on import.
the suggestion of, "finding a more appropriate format" Chris Cox, "Change in EXR open from CS2 to CS3 can this be fixed?" #80, 3 Feb 2009 7:40 pm </webx?14@@.59b70e35/79>
isn't particularly helpful or realistic. visual effects facilities have entire pipelines built around specific image formats and re-structuring those pipelines around an inflexibility in a piece of software that likely makes up a very small corner of that pipeline just isn't going to happen.
the plea here is to (until the day when full multi-channel EXR support makes its way into photoshop) give your VFX user base some options with regard to how that precious "A" is handled. fine, let the default be the "right" way to interpret the data, but don't cut us off at the knees. being flexible is of primary importance in production.
regards,
erik winquist
btw..
"I probably do more compositing before lunch than you will do all year."Chris
Cox, "Change in EXR open from CS2 to CS3 can this be fixed?" #62, 3 Feb
2009 12:04 pm </webx?14@@.59b70e35/61>
give me an effing break.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 3:36 am
From: Brendan_Bolles@adobeforums.com
Wow, this thread is pretty intense. I wish someone had pointed me to it earlier. I'm a bit biased, but I agree that ProEXR solves all the alpha problems mentioned here. It was created by someone who works in the VFX industry (me). You can try it free for 15 days.
This is covered in the ProEXR manual and in this thread, but to recap: OpenEXR files use premultiplied images, while Photoshop long ago chose to use straight. Turns out this was an unfortunate choice because, as Florian and others pointed out, any non-black premultiplied pixels with a black alpha will get decimated when converted to straight. Nuke, Shake, and Fusion are premultiplied, so they don't have this problem. I can't think of any advantage to using straight, but it would probably be hard to switch back at this point.
Sometimes VFX artists don't actually want Alpha to be transparency, although that is the standard thing to do and it's the ProEXR default as well. But we also give you a dialog for changing the behavior if you like. You can keep the alpha channel separate and choose whether to un-multiply the RGB. I don't know if Adobe should change what they're doing in their own plug-in, but I'm glad I could swoop in as a third party developer.
If you have other ideas for making ProEXR better work in a film workflow, let me know.
Brendan
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:02 am
From: Christoph_Bolten@adobeforums.com
[QUOTE] You seem to be confusing your segment of an industry with the larger audience of Photoshop users. People are using the EXR plugin shipped with Photoshop, in many industries. Only a few have complained. VFX represents a very small fraction of the people using the EXR file format. But Photoshop has to support everyone using the format, in many different workflows, interoperating with many other applications. [/QUOTE]
Chris, we've been over this before on the CS4 beta forums and it really surprises me how you stick so much to the "EXR File Specs"
Obviously a lot of people are really annoyed that they can't use EXR (a file format created BY the FX industry FOR the VFX industry!) anymore like they did in CS2. First I thought it was just Mental Ray's Problem, but it turns out that Renderman creates the same problems.
I really think it is Adobe's time to move on this and make a little File Open dialog where you can choose how to treat Transparency and Alpha channels.
It doesn't matter if it's different from the EXR specs Chris!
People need to be able to use their renders and pipelines and need this flexibility!
We also use ProEXR sometimes, but it is really sloooooow, so at the moment we have a separate machine with CS2 installed and save all our EXRs as PSB files, which is very annoying too.
Best Regards - Christoph C-:
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 5:10 am
From: Thomas_Helzle@adobeforums.com
Chris Cox:
- Either make it an option in preferences ("Treat additional channels as transparency or leave them alone")
- Or apply the Alpha as a layer mask, so the user has the option to enable or disable it at will.
The current implementation is destructive and very very very annoying.
And this is true for EVERY single format that supports more than RGB, not only EXR.
I do graphics for 15 years and I NEVER EVER even once wanted the behaviour that Photoshop is showing.
Photoshop it THE melting pot for billions of images from thousands and thousands of sources.
This is not about being right or SPECs etc. (you can't win this uphill battle anyway)...
This is about creativity software.
People want a choice.
Cheers,
Thomas Helzle
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:04 am
From: Alan_Boucek@adobeforums.com
Hi Chris-
This is not a game where you score points by belittling the work of your customers.
The folks who have commented on this thread as a result of cross-posting in the nuke list are not a bunch of drive-by hecklers, and we seem to be doing our best to add some clarity and represent our interests.
The computer graphics and visual effects community does have a sense of ownership over OpenEXR, because it was designed to work well in our pipelines. Adobe's customer base is so large that a seemingly miniscule change like we're talking about can break the things that we depend on. TIFF is a good example of this.
The EXR spec hasn't been updated for a while- probably because the folks who wrote it have moved on to other problems. Perhaps if you're not interested in listening to the concerns of the community, you could simply not support it, and give some breathing room to the plugin developers.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Large Format Document will not print
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/6e3bd8a205e04b42?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:14 am
From: eileen_dougherty@adobeforums.com
I am new to Photoshop and have no clue what I did wrong. My son helped me create a large format document 20X40 poster which is a collage of photos and scanned images. A memorabilia piece I wanted to print and hang in my office. When hitting "save as" the print option never highlighted, since I was not planning to print it on my home printer, I exported it to my desktop and saved it to a cd. The file is huge 3.1GB. I took it to kinkos to have it printed and they say it crashed their system and will not print. I assume something is wrong either with my set up of the original file or in how I exported it. Is that enough information for advice on how to get this printed?
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 5:16 am
From: eileen_dougherty@adobeforums.com
Using Photoshop CS3 On IMac Intel Core Mac OS 10.4.1. Created a large format document using scanned photos and documents. I created a poster 20X40 but when attempting to export the "print" option is greyed out. Saved the document to my desktop, it is a huge file 3.4 GB. Saved it to a CD and took it to Kinkos to be printed. They say it crashed their system and they likewise cannot get it to print and cannot save it to a pdf or any other file. I am new to photoshop and my son set up the document, I just filled it in so not sure what I did wrong. Any suggestions?
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 5:58 am
From: "Phos±four dots"
Kinkos was one mistake.
:)
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 6:55 am
From: eileen_dougherty@adobeforums.com
It's just a fun thing to hang in my office so didn't want to spend a fortune.
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:13 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
eileen,
3.4 GB sounds too large for a file that is just 20x40 (inches, I presume).
Please tell us file type, color space, resolution, if it has layers, etc., etc. Also tell us the specs that Kinkos provides for preparing art for giant prints.
Neil
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:15 am
From: "Phos±four dots"
A 20" × 40" document, even at 300ppi, shouldn't be any bigger than about 250MB (just a guess).
I think maybe your son isn't doing something right.
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:38 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
Phos,
My thinking as well.
Neil
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:40 am
From: eileen_dougherty@adobeforums.com
Looking under Image, mode, RGB Color and 8 bits channel are checked. It is saved as a .psb file. I saved it first time with layers checked, that created an even larger file, second time with layers not checked and as a copy. In save as embed color profile: sRGBIEC1966-2.1 I edit video so I realize this is an unusually large file, but I can't figure out how to adjust that.
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:39 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
Phos,
My thinking as well -- 250MB-300MB. And 300 ppi may not even be necessary. 240 ppi may be more than sufficient.
Neil
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:42 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
eileen.
Flatten all layers and save under a new name. How large is the file then? Is sRGB what Kinko's wants? It is not the widest gamut color space.
Neil
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:52 am
From: eileen_dougherty@adobeforums.com
I did not ask Kinkos that question, do you have a recommendation on RGB?
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:58 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
Ask Kinkos first -- maybe they do want sRGB for their workflow.
Neil
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dear Adobe, seriously: please release me from PAR distortion!
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/9e27951e0f9d1fdc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:00 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
Yes you are talking bout something that is not really the forte of most of the users on this forum even though it is a Photoshop issue.
You are asking what might seem obvious to you to be obvious to other people and that they should be concerned about this. I use PPro but this does not bother me. But I seldom use Photoshop to do much work exported from PPro, I might do it the other way around.
Everyone was trying to help but when given advice you ignored it and did not even offer a reason why you do not use a tv monitor for display to your client.
Also you want to know how to open the preferences so you could change it. I can do that easy and I would not feel confident in changing anything there unless instructed by an Adobe tech. But it does not bother you even though you do not have even a clue as to how to open the preference. So it y be your part where some of the problem exists.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:47 am
From: Thomas_Craul@adobeforums.com
I use PPro but this does not bother me.
But I seldom use Photoshop to do much work exported from PPro
ok, then please stop complaining about my complaints if YOU don't now where the troubles are.
Hopefully you'll get in one of these situations, maybe you will then remember my name very well.
Everyone was trying to help but when given advice you ignored it and did
not even offer a reason why you do not use a tv monitor for display to
your client.
TV Monitor? man you are making me nervous, without additional Hard- or Softwareplugins this is not possible with Photshop! Get it?
my last sentence here: the only thing that adobe has to fix that crappy resolution of images in Photoshop, because me idiot worked many years in AE with that PAR crap until i've figured it out how to deactivate with help from Chris & Trish Mayer by the way. period.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: PS CS3 green fringe with USM
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/1bb960bbee7d8588?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:00 am
From: BOB_CROXFORD@adobeforums.com
My radius setting in USM is causing some detail, usually grey, to turn bright green.
The most extreme example has been on grey chicken wire on a grey background. I have also had it on spots of grey lichen on a grey wall.
I have trashed preferences.
Any ideas?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:00 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
What settings are you using for USM? Can you post a link to a sample of what you see?
Neil
==============================================================================
TOPIC: CS3 memory allocation question
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/a43360b2fb158240?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:47 am
From: MacWright@adobeforums.com
a totally useless, mindless exchange
don't take things so seriously : )
my original original thread was about the thought behind the "ideal range" calculation and whether this is an updated process. Since there's no real tech support on this forum it morphed into a different conversation........ just a conversation.
bye
==============================================================================
TOPIC: iMac runs slowly in Photoshop
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/78f84c21f1212ce5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:36 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
Gary,
Sorry to hear of your G5 "experience". Mine has always had good manners and reliability.
I bought the machine for a song. It had been languishing in a client's closet, never used. To date, I haven't spent time or much money to keep this G5 usable: the original small 80 GB drive was replaced with two 250 GB drives; the original Pioneer burner was replaced twice (first time to gain dual layer capability and some speed; second time to replace the drive when it became temperamental); the original video card was replaced for better performance, although it still cannot run extended functions in Photoshop CS4); and the original meager RAM was expanded to 4GB.
At some point, I will replace the machine, if only because more apps are demanding "Intel Inside" -- obviously the writing is on the wall. Meantime, all I expect to do till then is swap out one 250 GB internal drive for a much larger one. Today's prices for 1 TB drives make it a no-brainer.
Neil
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobe.photoshop.macintosh"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adobe.photoshop.macintosh+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment