PDA

View Full Version : Photoshop to Become 3D Program?...nope [or how i would change Photoshop]


CIM
05-24-2008, 09:15 PM
Photoshop is getting GPU and physics support. And:

...a new rotate canvas tool...

They stole Painter's best feature! It's about time.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37611/140/

ubermensch76
05-24-2008, 10:33 PM
They stole Painter's best feature! It's about time.

FInally Finally Fiiiinnnnaaalllyy !!

rayk
05-24-2008, 11:37 PM
O___O I hope I'm not dreaming! Also hope it's implemented in a pain free way, so that it's practical to use on the fly when you are drawing (like painters and open canvas rotate tools).

xsitar
05-25-2008, 12:36 AM
CS4, uhm i mean CS "Next" out already on october 1st?

Wasn't CS3 released like a few weeks ago? Man how time flies.

JesseDavis
05-25-2008, 01:09 AM
a few weeks ago? lol. I think you work too much...

Daegu
05-25-2008, 01:24 AM
CS3 has been out for a while now, lol.

heavyness
05-25-2008, 02:31 AM
physics support?

hmm, maybe something like paint actually dripping down the canvus or paint being flicked onto the paper?

CHRiTTeR
05-25-2008, 03:17 AM
CS3 has been out for a while now, lol.

but stll not so long ;)


this also sounds intresting:
Another impressive feature was the import of a 3D model into Photoshop, adding text and paint on a 3D surface and having that surface directly rendered with the 3D models' reflection map.

thatoneguy
05-25-2008, 08:38 AM
GPU support is great and all but what I want is:

Hold down CTRL. Drag. Scale the brush.

Right clicking and choosing a new size or even having to use hotkeys (or touchstrips) is SOoooo Gimp.

Geta-Ve
05-25-2008, 08:52 AM
It's never too early for updates!

biliousfrog
05-25-2008, 10:54 AM
It's never too early for updates!

It is when you've just bought CS3 :D

Veehoy
05-25-2008, 11:05 AM
Just what the 3D world needs.....another Autodesk :-P

xsitar
05-25-2008, 01:01 PM
Apparently it's not true and we should scratch this release date according to John Nack:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/05/oct_1.html

Koogle
05-25-2008, 03:21 PM
GPU support is great and all but what I want is:

Hold down CTRL. Drag. Scale the brush.

Right clicking and choosing a new size or even having to use hotkeys (or touchstrips) is SOoooo Gimp.

yeah I agree there are plenty of areas in Photoshop that could do with better workflow/speed improvements and shortcut customization.. and some of there implentation of tools etc is just retarded... but this is Adobe they'll probably spend more time trying to make an even shitter installation/uninstallation setup process than the lost one.

And I suppose CS5 might actually be the release to wait for to get GPU speed improvement to other areas and tools outside of moving/rotating gigapixel images because yeah thats everyone needs photoshop for right. :S

erilaz
05-25-2008, 03:30 PM
Apparently it's not true and we should scratch this release date according to John Nack:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/05/oct_1.html

Quoted purely to emphasise that people read the blog post from John. If anything happens, he's the one that will end up telling you the correct information.

Sharky0815
05-25-2008, 06:30 PM
Hold down CTRL. Drag. Scale the brush.

Right clicking and choosing a new size or even having to use hotkeys (or touchstrips) is SOoooo Gimp.

The funny thing is, you can do just that using GIMP.

Koogle
05-25-2008, 08:04 PM
The funny thing is, you can do just that using GIMP.

yup but its what you can't do in gimp, aswel as the programs own weird and quirky ways that keeps people from not bothering with it. Otherwise I'm sure lots of people dump Adobe Photoshop by the roadside.

Baltasound
05-25-2008, 08:11 PM
Its called GIMP for a reason...


;)

Bullit
05-25-2008, 08:21 PM
Just what the 3D world needs.....another Autodesk :-P


Well Adobe is about x1,5 Autodesk in revenue...

Dharroun
05-25-2008, 09:18 PM
physics support?

hmm, maybe something like paint actually dripping down the canvus or paint being flicked onto the paper?

Yeah, I think thats an area to improve on. For instance, watercolors seem like they would be hard to reproduce but with physics anything is possible!
Does this mean that Photoshop will be able to directly paint on our models? Or is it a step towards that possibly? What influence could this have on PS as our trusty backbone in the 3D pipeline?

ThomasMahler
05-25-2008, 10:35 PM
Personally, I think they should thinking about completely rewriting Photoshop. I think the whole app suffers from the old architecture that was written 20 years ago.

I'd LOVE to see Photoshop becoming a node-based, much more organized app. Right now, it kinda forces you to have backup files and layers and it's really often times a hit or miss (remember the older Photoshop versions that only had one undo? Yuck!), cause once you've changed something, it's basically changed forever.

If I apply a filter to some background element and I find out later on that I need something in the background to be quite a bit sharper, I'm basically screwed. So, think Fusion. If Gaussian Blur could simply be a node that would hook into the background node, which I could change all the time... man, things would become so much easier. The whole layer workflow in Photoshop with it's folders and sets and colors and shit is just a pain in the ass, especially if you know what other apps do in the compositing area, which just feels YEARS ahead of Photoshop. Here's to Adobe: Make the app node-based and make the node structure compatible to all the apps in the Adobe Suite. Being able to have a comp in Photoshop and simply exporting the whole tree to After Effects would be really sweet.

Anyway, I do like Photoshop for what it's worth and having a faster version of it that's GPU accelerated would definitely be nice. Oh, and 64bit!

CIM
05-25-2008, 11:09 PM
Personally, I think they should thinking about completely rewriting Photoshop. I think the whole app suffers from the old architecture that was written 20 years ago.

I'd LOVE to see Photoshop becoming a node-based, much more organized app. Right now, it kinda forces you to have backup files and layers and it's really often times a hit or miss (remember the older Photoshop versions that only had one undo? Yuck!), cause once you've changed something, it's basically changed forever.

If I apply a filter to some background element and I find out later on that I need something in the background to be quite a bit sharper, I'm basically screwed. So, think Fusion. If Gaussian Blur could simply be a node that would hook into the background node, which I could change all the time... man, things would become so much easier. The whole layer workflow in Photoshop with it's folders and sets and colors and shit is just a pain in the ass, especially if you know what other apps do in the compositing area, which just feels YEARS ahead of Photoshop. Here's to Adobe: Make the app node-based and make the node structure compatible to all the apps in the Adobe Suite. Being able to have a comp in Photoshop and simply exporting the whole tree to After Effects would be really sweet.

Anyway, I do like Photoshop for what it's worth and having a faster version of it that's GPU accelerated would definitely be nice. Oh, and 64bit!

Trying to do everything is exactly why Photoshop is such bloatware.

Veehoy
05-25-2008, 11:11 PM
Well Adobe is about x1,5 Autodesk in revenue...
Wonder how large a procentage of that comes from bleeding European customers dry.....one thing they both have in common:twisted:

Koogle
05-26-2008, 12:13 AM
If I apply a filter to some background element and I find out later on that I need something in the background to be quite a bit sharper, I'm basically screwed. So, think Fusion. If Gaussian Blur could simply be a node that would hook into the background node, which I could change all the time... man, things would become so much easier.

not wanting to defend too much of adobe shitness i'd have to say that what you'd want to do there is very possible in CS3 when applying smart filters to a layer.. and smart objects also helps.

and while I do agree many areas of PS could do with a rewrite more for a better implementation of tools, certain filters and workflows.. but I don't agree with node based photoshop, seriously its just stupid and would get way more complicated to manage than it should be when working in app like PS thats used by a way more diverse group of people than just people coming from 3d animation > post process packages etc.. the layer panel and how it works with groupings/color sets is fine and just upgrading functionality in that area like they have been with smart filters etc is quite fine really although TONS more they could still be doing in that area to improve things in just that area that they've slacked on for long enough and I'm sure will carry on doing.. but that node thing won't ever happen in ps for good reasons.. but better importing/exporting to other applications I hope will improve though heck they could do more to just improve default save dialog and the process of saving out to image formats.

cavekid
05-26-2008, 01:02 AM
GPU support is great and all but what I want is:

Hold down CTRL. Drag. Scale the brush.

Right clicking and choosing a new size or even having to use hotkeys (or touchstrips) is SOoooo Gimp.

Although I agree the CNTRL-drag option would be extremely good, using the [ and ] keys (square brackets) to scale the brush isn't so bad. That combined with using the shift modifier with those same keys to control the hardness of the brush (and the number keys for opacity) means i don't have to make the trek into the brush palette too often.

Also I agree with others to read the adobe blog entry on this subject, as it looks like people are assuming quite a bit rather than dealing in the facts. Adobe has done some great other technology demos (like the video from NAB showing passing metadata through the apps, and the great use of speech to txt technology in Premiere), but likewise these glimpses at the cool tech might not make the next release, or might morph into something else completely (if they find better ways to do things). XSI has been doing similar things for the past year with Moondust tech, but again no guarantees it will be in the next revision, just a great glimpse at what might be, ...enough to keep us users on the edge of our seat awaiting official words down the line.

...and just to end, to those that bag Photoshop, ...what is a real alternative out there? I do a bit of matte painting work with my compositing and although you have the likes of Painter and Gimp kicking around, they have their own quirks and issues, ...no software is perfect, I agree that I probably only use 10% of photoshops features regularly (so I can sympathize with those that talk about bloatware, but again the features i don't touch might be essential daily tools for web or print artists, so as long as they aren't slowing me down, I'm not fussed) but my life would be a lot less happy if I didn't have photoshop as part of my toolkit. If someone knows of a streamlined app that has the same basic power of Photoshop, let me know, I'd be well keen to try it, but likewise if there isn't, I don't mind my old companion, the only app I've used and still use most days since i started in this crazy biz.

ThomasMahler
05-26-2008, 06:48 AM
not wanting to defend too much of adobe shitness i'd have to say that what you'd want to do there is very possible in CS3 when applying smart filters to a layer.. and smart objects also helps.

Oh, come on. The new smart layer / filter stuff SUCKS. That's just a cheap hack to kinda allow people to work without putting themselves into a corner, but I haven't adapted to that stuff yet, cause it's just more annoying than helpful, IMO.


and while I do agree many areas of PS could do with a rewrite more for a better implementation of tools, certain filters and workflows.. but I don't agree with node based photoshop, seriously its just stupid and would get way more complicated to manage than it should be when working in app like PS thats used by a way more diverse group of people than just people coming from 3d animation > post process packages etc..

Node-based Photoshop would be stupid? What the heck? Why? Have you ever used any good comp package like Fusion? Seriously, it's VERY easy to see that Layers, as they're implemented right now, are just quite a stupid way to organize and work with your data. It's just convoluted and often it's pretty darn hard to find out how the file's set up. A node-based architecture is just the way the go, no way around that.

It's the same thing with Modo - Building a shader setup that's based on layers and not nodes is just a really bad design choice. Node-based setups may seem more complicated at first, but they're really not. It's MUCH easier to understand the node-tree someone worked out than to go into someones Photoshop File and trying to figure out the set of filters, blending modes, smart layers, folder setup, etc. wtf, he used to build the doc. Smart Filters better than a node-based setup? Give me a break...

There's so much old baggage in Photoshop, like the whole filter stuff - why in all world do I have to work in yet another window when I'm applying a filter like liquify? Why can't I just get a brush tool and work directly in my doc? Why do they come up with something like 'Warp' without giving the user the control to setup how many points there'll be to deform the data? Photoshop, at it's base level, is good stuff, but it really suffers from being such an old application. It's like building up a snowman with the same dirt all over again ready for its 10th winter.

avinashlobo
05-26-2008, 07:20 AM
While I agree with the node-based idea, I'm pretty certain there'd be a massive uproar from the web-design and print community. And they're huge! I doubt Adobe will be considering a node-based revamp any time soon. What they could do is start trickling in a few node-based options, or perhaps bring nodes just to the Extended version. But that'd be a version nightmare really.

One major issue with a node tree is the amount of space you need to display it. A layer list sits quietly tucked away in the corner, allowing you far more screen space. Try fitting a node tree into the same space. I doubt many artists want the inconvenience of having to constantly flip between the canvas and the node display window while they're painting.

Nodes are great. Switching paradigms over a couple of versions even might not be such a great idea though.

Kabab
05-26-2008, 07:22 AM
Oh, come on. The new smart layer / filter stuff SUCKS. That's just a cheap hack to kinda allow people to work without putting themselves into a corner, but I haven't adapted to that stuff yet, cause it's just more annoying than helpful, IMO.



Node-based Photoshop would be stupid? What the heck? Why? Have you ever used any good comp package like Fusion? Seriously, it's VERY easy to see that Layers, as they're implemented right now, are just quite a stupid way to organize and work with your data. It's just convoluted and often it's pretty darn hard to find out how the file's set up. A node-based architecture is just the way the go, no way around that.

It's the same thing with Modo - Building a shader setup that's based on layers and not nodes is just a really bad design choice. Node-based setups may seem more complicated at first, but they're really not. It's MUCH easier to understand the node-tree someone worked out than to go into someones Photoshop File and trying to figure out the set of filters, blending modes, smart layers, folder setup, etc. wtf, he used to build the doc. Smart Filters better than a node-based setup? Give me a break...

There's so much old baggage in Photoshop, like the whole filter stuff - why in all world do I have to work in yet another window when I'm applying a filter like liquify? Why can't I just get a brush tool and work directly in my doc? Why do they come up with something like 'Warp' without giving the user the control to setup how many points there'll be to deform the data? Photoshop, at it's base level, is good stuff, but it really suffers from being such an old application. It's like building up a snowman with the same dirt all over again ready for its 10th winter.
I totally agree Photoshop is the MOST frustrating and outdated application i use...

Its just so backwards i don't find any of the tools or work flow intuitive..

I think there is a real market opportunity for someone to build a really streamlined Node based GPU accelerated image editor.

ThomasMahler
05-26-2008, 07:35 AM
I think there is a real market opportunity for someone to build a really streamlined Node based GPU accelerated image editor.

I think so too. The problem is that almost every artist out there is so used to Photoshops tools now, cause Photoshop is the industry standard. So it'd be great if someone could come up with a tool that'd have very similar tools (and you could improve a shit load here like the selection stuff, cropping, the brush tools, shapes etc.) that'd allow a similar workflow, but make the whole thing gpu accelerated and node-based.

There is some interesting stuff out there, like this here: http://www.pixelmator.com/ , but it just copied all the good (and bad) aspects of Photoshop and that's it. I'd love to see an app that's basically a combination between Fusion (architecture) and Photoshop (tools).

Bercon
05-26-2008, 08:21 AM
The good point of node based structure is that it contains all the information of the current folder system of photoshop and more. What this means is you can collapse any node tree into current photoshop layer system. So the node structure could be implemented as optional, this would mean that all those who don't like it, don't have to use it.

berniebernie
05-26-2008, 10:48 AM
so. A tool too make dotted lines ? (that isn't some annoying brush workaround)

No ?

Ah well, 2020, maybye.

Gein
05-26-2008, 10:54 AM
I think so too. The problem is that almost every artist out there is so used to Photoshops tools now, cause Photoshop is the industry standard. So it'd be great if someone could come up with a tool that'd have very similar tools (and you could improve a shit load here like the selection stuff, cropping, the brush tools, shapes etc.) that'd allow a similar workflow, but make the whole thing gpu accelerated and node-based.

There is some interesting stuff out there, like this here: http://www.pixelmator.com/ , but it just copied all the good (and bad) aspects of Photoshop and that's it. I'd love to see an app that's basically a combination between Fusion (architecture) and Photoshop (tools).

I saw a concept like that, but I'm not sure if it was going anywhere.

Still have that bookmarked, after all. Naked light is the name. http://www.naked.la/

Zendorf
05-26-2008, 12:12 PM
If you really want to try out a nodal interface within PS, then there is a version of Conduit for PS:

http://www.dvgarage.com/prod/prod.php?prod=conduit2

It seemed like a great idea to have nodes inside PS and AE, but personally I found this third party solution to be too slow and clumsy....your mileage may vary...

Koogle
05-26-2008, 12:59 PM
There's so much old baggage in Photoshop, like the whole filter stuff - why in all world do I have to work in yet another window when I'm applying a filter like liquify? Why can't I just get a brush tool and work directly in my doc? Why do they come up with something like 'Warp' without giving the user the control to setup how many points there'll be to deform the data? Photoshop, at it's base level, is good stuff, but it really suffers from being such an old application. It's like building up a snowman with the same dirt all over again ready for its 10th winter.

totally agree with all that stuff it peeves me off aswel especially the warp tools pathetic fixed 9 point setup they could have at least made 3 different levels of control start from 9point.

but you're not gonna get a node replacement setup in PS.. ain't never gonna happen.. and someone already mentioned one reason why.. the dialog window space needed to show a node based setup and allow for decent control etc.. ..and you're really missing the fundamental point of how many artists like to use PS when working on images.. they don't just stare at the image and start applying filters( that might be ok for importing rendered files that don't need any actual pixel pushing).. but for most users you actually get brushes/tools and start working in the image where having as much of the document in view at a decent zoom ratio for what you're working on, is way more important than some node based window hogging the screen space.. thats why a slim width layer panel to the side showing as many layers as you're working on is way better than nodes spread out all over the bloody place.. until artists start getting way bigger screen /dual screens where they can chuck that windo onto another screen the little old layers panel will be just fine as the less you have to mess about moving around a windows position etc the more time spent on the actual work and even if more do start getting bigger screen setups, still got bigger images to work on so no.. maybe as a seperate plugin... but going by how current plugins/filters work within PS like dog shit i'd have to say thats unlikely to happen either.

anobrin
05-26-2008, 02:18 PM
Nodes in Photoshop??
Like the ones in MAYA or Houdini

COOL!.....:argh:
As a person who spent 16 years in Graphic Design
and prepress before getting into 3D /film post I think its worth mentioning that Not
every photoshop users is a 3D enthusiast
and there are really good dedicated UV/3D paint apps
for texturing your models.( maxon Bodypaint etc.)
I am not an Adobe hater or Fanboi heck I am still using the CS1 Suite.

I lament the day when we see BLOATWARE abombinations with so called "feature lists" that read like the closing credits to "Lord of the Rings"

soulburn3d
05-26-2008, 04:01 PM
I'd also love a node-based photoshop, in fact, I told that directly to one of adobe's primary developpers. But I think the number of clients that would want something like that is just too small for them to consider doing it. Visual effects / animated features etc is just tiny compared to the print / photo retouch industry, and the print industry doesn't have enough experience with compositing apps like fusion or shake to know that they may want a node based layer system.

If photoshop isn't going to become more like a highend compositing app, then the other possability is that maybe the compositing apps will improve their paint engines. We'll see. Until then I'm stucking moving images between compositing apps and paint software, trying to get the best of both worlds, but spending an aweful lot of time transfering files.

As for smart filters, I agree with Thomas, I was all excited when I saw them, and then after I used them, the excitement went away. The fact you can't paint on a layer after you've applied a smart filter removes the major reason I'd want to use them in the first place. I'm sure someone will find them useful, but not I.

- Neil

bhemfine
05-26-2008, 04:17 PM
Haha...Well, if you think about it , a node based 3D PS = AutoDesk

I guess what is really important that we must appreciate how those people who created photoshop scratched their brain to make it as simple for us as possible ( though CS3 is not easy to use compared to CS2 )
but i must say they reduced alot of traditional method and made into filters.

The moment photoshop is created years ago is already a miracle.It work wonders for some people... no?

Intervain
05-26-2008, 04:29 PM
FInally Finally Fiiiinnnnaaalllyy !!

quoted for agreement!! really better late then never!

Enlightenment
05-26-2008, 05:15 PM
I don' think opposition from the print and touchup communities would be a big roadblock for a node-based rewrite of Photoshop. Since node-based architectures are a superset of layer systems, it wouldn't be a problem to present a simple layer-based approach to users who aren't comfortable with nodes. Further, I suspect many if not most of the node-skeptics would switch over to a node system pretty quickly once they got a handle on how much easier node systems are for keeping multiple versions and making last-minute changes. Anything and everything that helps people meet deadlines is a Good Thing in every sector of the gfx biz.

Screen space for a node tree will become much less of an issue as multi-monitor setups become more common.

soulburn3d
05-26-2008, 06:14 PM
I don' think opposition from the print and touchup communities would be a big roadblock for a node-based rewrite of Photoshop.

I don't forsee opposition being a big problem. I think it's more just economic based. I you have Budget A for new features, are you going to spend that budget on what 2% of your customers are asking for, or what 98% of your customers are asking for?

But I agree, they could put in a node based system as an enhancement to the already existing stack based system, just as long as they were both full featured so that you could choose to use one method or the other exclusively if you wanted.

- Neil

iskon
05-26-2008, 07:43 PM
I would like that Adobe make totaly new package for 3D painting. Realy one thing bothers me, and that is I can't imagine that after so much usage of Photoshop in 3D industry they didn't make, let's say a new app or Photoshop with full 3D support. As someone mention PS have great tools and if they could put support for 3D stuff inside it would be perfect. Zbrush+PS is a great combination, but as Mr. Blevins said you must constantly transfer your files, waiting for texture to be applied etc etc.
But maybe Mudbox 2 will change things. Who knows?
Why Adobe don't hear voices from 3D industry? :scream:

heavyness
05-26-2008, 09:01 PM
not only do i want everything everyone had mentioned in this thread in the next version of PS, but i want soooooo many of those little "quirks" fixed....


like letting me add the file extension i want by typing it and not having to choose it in the drop down [or make PS remember what file extension i "SAVE AS" last.

or EDIT UNDO [step back in history] not to undo what layer i was just working on.

ThomasMahler
05-26-2008, 09:21 PM
Why Adobe don't hear voices from 3D industry? :scream:

Cause we're a really small industry and most devs probably treat what we have as 'good enough' already cause there's already so much great stuff being created.

Koogle
05-26-2008, 10:00 PM
not only do i want everything everyone had mentioned in this thread in the next version of PS, but i want soooooo many of those little "quirks" fixed....


like letting me add the file extension i want by typing it and not having to choose it in the drop down [or make PS remember what file extension i "SAVE AS" last.

or EDIT UNDO [step back in history] not to undo what layer i was just working on.

yeah I agree with those points.. edit history i usually select all on the layer.. go back in history and then paste that previous copied layer.. but it sucks that the history function still can't be improved to allow for more control.

and again with the save dialog.. its sooo crap, and I have the same issues with file extensions and having to pick them manually.. you can't even just flick mousewheel down the options or have it remember the most common extension you've been using in a session.. its just f#tard design.. and when you doing gui web gfx work and saving out files over and over to test changes its just adobe retarded implementation of areas like this that could easily be improved to allow for better workflow.

Kabab
05-26-2008, 11:28 PM
You know Autodesk already has the basis of what we want its called toxik..

They should make another revision more focused on 2d image editing and not so much composting and it will be what we all want.

hominid
05-27-2008, 01:36 AM
Also ..don't forget that autodesk now owns mudbox, and it was rumored to eventually have texture painting capabilities.

Pete

evanfotis
05-27-2008, 07:58 AM
Here's to Adobe: Make the app node-based and make the node structure compatible to all the apps in the Adobe Suite.
Being able to have a comp in Photoshop and simply exporting the whole tree to After Effects would be really sweet.

As for nodes vs layers as we all know, there are two camps.
Node UI and Layer UI fans.
Adobe is reknown for the latter, and imho it would be dead wrong for them to change it in its top app. PS.
Now, If you need non destructive editing, compositing applications like AE, Fusion, Shake etc will do that. But...
Have you tried working in them with Print resolution images??!!!
For something simple its Ok, but.. when the image has many many layers, it gets really ugly, and unusable to work with.
Even in PS with large images, from one point onwards it is more productive to use a flattened copy or smart object of an element than have all the construction layers in there.
It may need a bit more organizing, but it lets you work faster with XL images.
Ideally it'be great to have 100% non destructive editing in PS like in compositors, but we need quite a few years to go still till hardware can cope.
For now, adjustment layers, layer comps and smart objects will do.

prixatw
05-27-2008, 09:10 AM
The web and html videos over at AdobeTV are amusingly informative.

The 'Web Evangelist' is quite openly Ex-Macromedia.

Every few minutes he stops mid-sentence to demonstrate something Fireworks does that Photoshop doesn't.

iskon
05-27-2008, 09:12 AM
This is chance for new company to make a new app based on all said things here(node based, PS like tools with support for 3D model etc). Something like Pixologic done with Zbrush, I mean to change workflow of how we work today.
And that would be in my opinion totaly new breed of package. If guys at Pixologic read this thread... I think that only they could change and make another revolution, now this time in 2D world.

ThE_JacO
05-27-2008, 09:27 AM
I find it hilarious that so many people are saying a node based photoshop would be harder to use than a layer based one.

Layers can be easily represented by nodes, it would be trivial to offer the old, familiar layer management that under the hood creates nodes for it. However when the only option you have is unbranched sequential pulls like layers, you're screwed the moment you need what nodes can do.

Just goes to show that developers saying that "people know what they want but not what's good for them" are right more often than not I guess.

Geta-Ve
05-27-2008, 09:40 AM
I find it hilarious that so many people are saying a node based photoshop would be harder to use than a layer based one.

Layers can be easily represented by nodes, it would be trivial to offer the old, familiar layer management that under the hood creates nodes for it. However when the only option you have is unbranched sequential pulls like layers, you're screwed the moment you need what nodes can do.

Just goes to show that developers saying that "people know what they want but not what's good for them" are right more often than not I guess.

I'd have to agree with this, and everyone else that WANTS node based PS. That fix/edit/rewrite/whatever alone would alleviate so many issues/complaints that people have with PS right there.

Then add the ability for custom nodes node sets, etc and wam you're done.I think that most people really don't understand how nodes work hence they are apprehensive of the change (if it ever occurs)

I mean, shit, you could have 6 different blur nodes each with different settings plugged in to a single layer switching on and off each seperately just to see what kind of effect your getting and to compare results on the fly without having to undo results and such.

Ya, big money in nodes, for sure.

ThomasMahler
05-27-2008, 11:16 AM
I think so too. There would just be so many advantages in having the same tools that we already have, but making the whole thing node-based... it'd make the whole experience so much better. Photoshop just grew so much over the last 15 years - it's probably time for a major new thing. Everytime software hits its tenth revision, there'll probably be new ideas around, new hardware, new software, new ideologies, just new ways of doing things. And taking all the experience you gained from the last thing and put all of that into the new thing is really vital.

But that's the thing with software development. You start somewhere, you plus it and plus it and plus it and once you've got a huge userbase it'll be really hard to take all the things you've learned and create the 'new' thing, even if it's totally the right thing to do. People don't necessarily like change, even though, as Jaco said, even a node-based Photoshop could work very much the same way as Photoshop does right now.

We see that everywhere right now - 3d software, operating systems in general, etc., a lot of software out there is at a point where it's clear that there's a lot of stuff that could be done more efficiently nowadays and often has already been researched, but nobody jumps into that wagon cause they're afraid to lose their userbase.

ThE_JacO
05-27-2008, 11:56 AM
But that's the thing with software development. You start somewhere, you plus it and plus it and plus it and once you've got a huge userbase it'll be really hard to take all the things you've learned and create the 'new' thing, even if it's totally the right thing to do. People don't necessarily like change, even though, as Jaco said, even a node-based Photoshop could work very much the same way as Photoshop does right now.

I have to say, that's the thing with BAD software dev.
Of course there are constraints, but very often there's a lot that's possible that isn't done for a number of reasons, few of which involve the codebase itself.
There's also the fact that many teams aren't led by visionaries and have a quick turn-around, so little is planned to make sure that there are generation jumps and considerable changes over time.

Sure, Photoshop's user base is touchy and largely made of complete (technical) idiots that just memorize a few buttons here and there, but given the amount of money it pulls in and how crappy an app it is, there's only adobe to blame if it's as bad as it is; not to mention that treating users like idiots as they do made a large part of the userbase in the idiots they were catering for.
If it wasn't for the terrible company policies they would have been perfectly able to start on parallel budgets considerable rewrites, and the app would be so much better for it.

Adobe is single handedly responsible for holding an entire market back by years and dumbing down a number of people for it.

soulburn3d
05-27-2008, 02:39 PM
As for nodes vs layers as we all know, there are two camps.
Node UI and Layer UI fans. Adobe is reknown for the latter, and imho it would be dead wrong for them to change it in its top app.

I don't believe people here are saying adobe should change it to node based. They should offer the option of going node based, and keep the layer based approach so the user has more options on how to work.

- Neil

soulburn3d
05-27-2008, 02:59 PM
We see that everywhere right now - 3d software, operating systems in general, etc., a lot of software out there is at a point where it's clear that there's a lot of stuff that could be done more efficiently nowadays and often has already been researched, but nobody jumps into that wagon cause they're afraid to lose their userbase.

That's part of the issue.

Another part is to rewrite an app like photoshop or any of our favorite 3d apps from scratch or to have some major fundemental part of it changed is a HUGE undertaking. You'd basically need a large team of programmers working for years before they could even try and release a product, because these applications are now so complex. And it's tough to convince investors to give up that kind of money for such a large project that will take so long with no money coming in. That's one of the reasons Luxology made a modeler first, sold it, then did the renderer, sold it, etc, so they could make money along the way towards their goal of eventually making a full 3d app.

And secondly, in general (and there are a few exceptions to the rule), most of these applications start with a single person or small team of 2 or 3 people who are excited about making something new. They make giant leaps forward in innovation, then they start hiring more and more people to keep up with demand. Slowly but surely, the company becomes huge, or they got bought by a larger company, and the small team that started it all moves on, leaving no one at the helm of the project anymore. Large committees of people start making decisions, the question "What do the investors want" becomes more important than "what do the users want" or "What would I want to see when I use the software", the codebase becomes overly complex, and features and innovation start becoming more scarse. There was an interview posted on the Luxology site a few weeks ago where they talk with John Knoll, who was one of the original guys who helped create photoshop, and it's a lot of fun to listen to him discuss the old days when photoshop was just him and his brother, and the sorts of leaps they'd make, the sort of innovative spirit they had.

I believe the best software is always written when you have a small group at the top who have tremedous passion for what they're doing, and sadly the larger a company gets, the tougher it is to keep that spirit alive. Yet, the company must get larger to keep up with demand and to handle larger projects. Hence the Catch 22.

- Neil

suztv
05-27-2008, 09:35 PM
I don't believe people here are saying adobe should change it to node based. They should offer the option of going node based, and keep the layer based approach so the user has more options on how to work.

- Neil

I think that would be a cool option. Giving that option to users would empower them, kind of like scripting - those that use it really understand it. Photoshops cousin AfterEffects has a flowshart view which is a baby step toward nodes but I wish that AfterEffects was more node based. True you can see the hierarchy of a project via the flowchart but you can't really edit it. Both should have that option. Oh well.

ThE_JacO
05-27-2008, 09:43 PM
I don't believe people here are saying adobe should change it to node based. They should offer the option of going node based, and keep the layer based approach so the user has more options on how to work.

- Neil

You can have the graph being node based, have compounds, and offer an option to make a compound's contents "layered" and have an interface for layered compounds to be interacted with through the old layers interface.

Layers are nothing but a sequential one-in-one-out daisy chaining of nodes.
There's absolutely nothing preventing users to have the best of both worlds, and there is no need to have an option to go one way or another, it's just a matter of representation that could be trivially solved.

Enlightenment
05-27-2008, 10:27 PM
Adobe is single handedly responsible for holding an entire market back by years and dumbing down a number of people for it.

"Single handedly" being the operative phrase in that Adobe has a near monopoly on professional image editing software. The lack of serious competition is the real problem: monopolies seldom innovate because they have no commercial need to do so.

The only way we're likely to see major improvements in Photoshop--or in still image editing generally--is if someone ponies up the money to improve PSP or the Gimp far enough to start eating into Photoshop's market share.

Kabab
05-28-2008, 12:27 AM
Another part is to rewrite an app like photoshop or any of our favorite 3d apps from scratch or to have some major fundemental part of it changed is a HUGE undertaking.
Lets not kid ourselves here Photoshop is no where near as complex as any 3d app and it wouldn't be that big of a job compared to say any actually complex application like Maya/Max/Xsi etc...

Adobe is slack, look at how much photoshop costs and look at how lack luster the updates are every year...

Compare that to Max / Maya / XSI you get far more complex updates each year for the same ball park costs.. These applications are far more complex and have far smaller userbases...

Adobe has dropped the ball.

evanfotis
05-28-2008, 08:06 AM
You can have the graph being node based, have compounds, and offer an option to make a compound's contents "layered" and have an interface for layered compounds to be interacted with through the old layers interface.

Layers are nothing but a sequential one-in-one-out daisy chaining of nodes.
There's absolutely nothing preventing users to have the best of both worlds, and there is no need to have an option to go one way or another, it's just a matter of representation that could be trivially solved.

ideally it would be great to have a ui of choice.
...just out of curiosity, how many applications are there around that offer both node based and layer based ui?

ThE_JacO
05-28-2008, 11:08 AM
ideally it would be great to have a ui of choice.
...just out of curiosity, how many applications are there around that offer both node based and layer based ui?

None that I can think of, bar maybe combustion that kinda hacks its way around both a bit.
Usually it's because in the fifteen minutes it takes a dead cat to metabolize the concept of nodes anybody will have realized how redundant layers are anyway.

Enlightenment
05-28-2008, 11:30 AM
just out of curiosity, how many applications are there around that offer both node based and layer based ui?

Lightwave 9's material editor supports both layers and nodes. Layered material support has been with LW for a very long time. Nodal material support was grafted onto LW in version 9.

soulburn3d
05-28-2008, 02:25 PM
...just out of curiosity, how many applications are there around that offer both node based and layer based ui?

Combustion started out layers, then after so many people asked for it, they added a schematic editor, but it was a half hearted effort (ie, you always had to use the layers in order to do most operations, the schematic editor was more of a viewer than an editor). I'm sure it's improved over time, but the real key is you should be able to do everything in one editor that you can in the other, so a user doesn't have to use both unless they want to.

- Neil

Tlock
05-28-2008, 05:05 PM
I would like to try and change the gears on this discussion. Now that it has been established that Photoshop might be quite impressive and a leap forward if it had nodes. How in detail would you expect it to work?

My simple example is, lets say you have 5 layers and as you created each layer you applied 2 filters. How would the undo work if did 5 clicks back? Just curious into ppls think process.

ThE_JacO
05-28-2008, 05:13 PM
that's one of the reasons why baked layers are a retarded system, nodes make undoing/redoing a lot less important.
if you want to apply a blur twice you chain a couple nodes through, if you want one out of the way you just disable the node, or even both and you're good.

soulburn3d
05-28-2008, 09:42 PM
Now that it has been established that Photoshop might be quite impressive and a leap forward if it had nodes. How in detail would you expect it to work?

I'd say just look at a program like Shake. No need to reinvent the wheel. There are already tons of examples of good working schematic editors doing almost photoshop like things, the only issue is none of them have a paint engine as good as photoshop :) So keep the photoshop paint stuff, and merge it with a editor like shake or fusion.

- Neil

Geta-Ve
05-29-2008, 05:46 AM
that's one of the reasons why baked layers are a retarded system, nodes make undoing/redoing a lot less important.
if you want to apply a blur twice you chain a couple nodes through, if you want one out of the way you just disable the node, or even both and you're good.

Agreed. As soulburn3d was saying the nodes would work similar to shake, fusion, etc. I would still keep your basic layers, (or simply have them nodes NAMED layers :D) but then all your effects, filters, transitions between layers/nodes would be in node form.

If you wanted layerd 1, 3 and 4 to include the same type of blur you would simply use 1 Blur node for that. If you then wanted layers 1, 2 and 3 to have some other effect, like say, darken or something, you would just use a Darken node connected either to the layers themself (layer 2) or through the blur nodes that have already been connected to layer 1 and 3.

When writing this it SOUNDS a bit complicated but it would be way simpler than baking the effects in to the layers directly. The great thing about this as well is that if you wanted to go and change JUST the blur on layer 1 without affecting the darken on layer 1 you would be able to do that through the blur node.

ThE_JacO
05-29-2008, 07:25 AM
If you wanted layerd 1, 3 and 4 to include the same type of blur you would simply use 1 Blur node for that. If you then wanted layers 1, 2 and 3 to have some other effect, like say, darken or something, you would just use a Darken node connected either to the layers themself (layer 2) or through the blur nodes that have already been connected to layer 1 and 3.


No you wouldn't, becuase if you pushed 3 inputs into one blur (which a nodes gui normally wouldn't allow anyway) then the system wouldn't know, if you wanted (and you most likely would wantit) three connections out which is which.
The system would be needlessly complicated.

That kind of recycling in a node system exists, and beats layers hands down for efficiency by a mile, but for other things, like using the same matte for several nodes etc.
It also makes rotoing, which with PS masks is a royal pain in the arse, a lot more efficient.

You're still idealizing the system without really thinking of how a classic graph works though if that example with the blurs even remotely crossed your mind :)
What you are thinking of there is rather a templating system where node setups can be instanced from a master, which afaik isn't present in any software anywhere, not in immediately fruible forms at least, although it can be efficiently emulated with operators and expressions in maya and xsi, and even better in houdini with chops.

Geta-Ve
05-29-2008, 07:48 AM
Ignoring how horrible this drawing is, this is pretty much what I meant. :P

I assumed that this is pretty much how nodes work currently? Last time I used shake (2.5 win version) this is how they worked.. Unless I am remembering incorrectly?

http://ts-studios.com/Mike/nodes_idea.jpg

The (B) node is obviously the Blur node, (D) is Darken, the letters to the left of each layer indicate what effect is being applied.

In my previous post I said that connecting the Darken node to the Blur node would only affect layers 1 and 3, which is obviously wrong (my brain is broken I think), it would of course affect all layers that the Blur node is connected to.

Upon thinking about this example further, what would happen in this instance is that the Darken, while yes affecting ALL layers, it would only darken the actual BLUR on layers 1, 3 and 4.

Though this wouldn't really be anything special in this instance it would change things if you had different effects applied in different ways, applying a Distortion (wavey?) node to a layer would affect what is on that layer directly, while applying it to a Blur node would affect the Blur instead of the layer itself. So you would end up with a Distorted Blur instead of a Blurred Distortion.

Oh my god my head is going to explode.... hahaha :D

ThE_JacO
05-29-2008, 07:55 AM
that's not how the blur node works.
if you fed it three different images it wouldn't know what to do with them.
a blur node will take one RGBA input and one mask. If you fed it three RGBA inputs it might even blur all three images (that is pretending for a minute it would accept three RGBA inputs, which it won't), but then how does it know how to sort those in output if you need those three images fed to three different branches?

It's simply NOT how shake or any nodal compositor works I'm afraid :)

avinashlobo
05-29-2008, 08:20 AM
@ThE_JacO, I think his image is illustrative only and not actually showing left-to-right flow. It's flowing from right to left in there. The blur is being applied to each layer and not actually receving 3 rgba inputs.

It's a good point to raise actually.

Here's the scenario: I have 8 layers to which I want to apply the same effect. The method you described involves plugging the source image+mask into the blur and then outputting to a final display node (or whatever). If, as you described, the blur takes in only one rgba input, does that mean I need 8 blur nodes? Doesn't this sort of defeat the purpose of the whole node-based flexibility?

Geta-Ve
05-29-2008, 08:25 AM
that's not how the blur node works.
if you fed it three different images it wouldn't know what to do with them.
a blur node will take one RGBA input and one mask. If you fed it three RGBA inputs it might even blur all three images (that is pretending for a minute it would accept three RGBA inputs, which it won't), but then how does it know how to sort those in output if you need those three images fed to three different branches?

It's simply NOT how shake or any nodal compositor works I'm afraid :)

EDIT: As avinashlobo states my image does indeed flow from RIGHT to LEFT....

Oops, I guess I should have stated that before.... My bad!!! lol (Now I think I realize our confusion JacO.. :P )

LOL, I wish I understood half of what you said. But I don't see how hypothetically this couldn't work, considering nodes aren't even present in PS currently :D

I would have thought though that a Blur node would be self contained. You would essentially set the paramters of what you want the blur to do (in this case blur the image... 50% or whatever) and then connect it to whichever image/layer you want blurred 50%. ?

That seems straight forward and logical no? I realize in Shake you weren't really able to feed nodes out to 3 different sources/images/whatever but I don't really see why you wouldn't...

Or rather, SHOULDN'T be able to do that? Especially if you want them all blurred the same exact way (so to speak)

Technically speaking I most certainly have no clue how nodes work, but from a users point of view it would seem redundant to have to use a seperate blur node for each image/layer you want blurred, especially if you want them all blurred the same way (50%)

You were saying that it won't accept 3 different RGBA inputs, but I ask why not? And I am not trying to have a debate or argument here, I truly want to know.

I think I am just confusing myself... *sigh*

Sorry :love::D

EDIT2: To expand slightly further, layers would be INPUT only, so that all effects/nodes are being applied/output TO them instead of the other way around.

Rainroom
05-29-2008, 10:30 AM
Geta-Ve...if i understand u correctly then what u want to do is that u want to darken input-2 using a combined blured image of input-1,2 and 4 as a matte/mask. To do that u have to first combine the 3 inputs using a "plus" or "screen" (depending upon which compositing app u r using)...and then blur the combined image using a blur node and feed it in the mask channel of the darken node. But if your input mask images are RGB then i guess u also have to convert the output of the blurred image to alpha before feeding it to the darken node.

I am affraid there is no way u can feed 3 inputs to a single blur node...unless u combine them :hmm:.

lazzhar
05-29-2008, 11:29 AM
EDIT2: To expand slightly further, layers would be INPUT only, so that all effects/nodes are being applied/output TO them instead of the other way around.

I know in Nuke you can clone nodes so they act as instances (pointers) to the original one to just tweak it and see the rest affected.

Geta-Ve
05-29-2008, 11:51 AM
@Rainroom

Well the whole situation was purely hypothetical anyways but the darken would connect to the blur which would connect to the layers (1 2 3 4). To expand a bit further, the darken would be OUTPUT to the blur, which would be OUTPUT to the layers.

I think most are reading my image from left to right, thinking the layers would be output to the blur, etc. which is not how I intentioned it.

@lazzhar

That sounds like a great idea, but do you HAVE to do it that way? or is it just for organization?

lazzhar
05-29-2008, 11:56 AM
@lazzhar

That sounds like a great idea, but do you HAVE to do it that way? or is it just for organization?

I'm novice in Nuke but I got the habit from Maya.
I'd say also when you feel lazy to copy the whole parameters one by one, it would make sense to just clone everything at once.

soulburn3d
05-29-2008, 02:33 PM
In Shake, you cannot have multiple input attach to 1 blur node. Instead, you create an instance of your blur node. So you'd have 8 layer nodes, hooked into 8 blurs, however all the parameters in the blurs are identical and if you change 1 you change them all, the only thing different about them is they have different inputs and outputs.

However, I know I've seen at least 1 schematic interface where you can add your 8 inputs to a single blur, and everytime you do, the blur gets an extra output added to the bottom. It's internally probably doing the same thing as described above, it's just presenting it with a slightly different user interface, which has the advantage of less screen clutter, although it's possibly slightly more confusing.

Either method would be fine with me.

- Neil

heavyness
05-29-2008, 03:00 PM
soooo...

who nows how to write come code? lets get CGSociety to fund a user created paint program.

i'll start. we'll name it "CGSociety 3D Paint Operations" or C3PO.

Enlightenment
06-01-2008, 09:45 PM
It seems there's already a bunch of work going on to create a nodal image library (http://gegl.org/) to replace the core image library in the GIMP. Of course the GIMP would still need a major UI overhaul to be useful, but given the slow rate that Adobe improves Photoshop, the GIMP could wind up with a usable nodal interface long before Photoshop gets a major overhaul.

CIM
06-01-2008, 10:29 PM
If you all started using The Gimp, you’d really show Adobe.

hueyyeng
09-27-2008, 03:16 PM
Sorry to bump this thread.

It seems there is a new video feature of PS CS4 Extended at AdobeTV:

http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1556v1684 -> CS4 Extended features
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1556v1686 -> Regular CS4 features

The ability to paint directly over the 3D model with the painting tool of Photoshop sounds great but what catch my attention more is the GPU powered features where now zooming is seamlessly anti-aliased on the fly while we all already know the ability to rotate the canvas too.

Now I can do my lineart drawing in Photoshop without using either OpenCanvas or Painter. :)

jeremybirn
09-27-2008, 04:03 PM
If you all started using The Gimp, you’d really show Adobe.

The Gimp seems to have everything backwards, as far as my needs are concerned. Instead of focusing first on things that Photoshop doesn't do, they have spent years plodding along trying to copy most of the features from the last version of Photoshop. As a result, if you already have Photoshop, downloading Gimp seems to give you zero innovation, but just provides the many of the same functions you've already got, packaged in a clunkier interface. If anyone were serious about making a Photoshop competitor (rather than just an open-source knock-off) they'd want to start with enough things that Photoshop doesn't do that people who already had Photoshop saw a reason to pick it up, at least as a companion tool.

-jeremy

alshakno
10-31-2008, 09:28 AM
sorry if my question is stupid one

does GPU and Rotate Canvas support by XP64 or these featers just work for Vista?

i search for it but cant find anything

CGTalk Moderation
10-31-2008, 09:28 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.