Photoshop: Inconsistent Layer Preview Sizes

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • (Edited)
I have noticed this bug in both CS4 and CS5.5 versions of Photoshop. I have a number of duplicate elements on separate layers which are identical to each other yet the layer preview in the layers pallete randomnly distorts the proportions of them as can be seen in this picture:



These are all square on the canvas yet are randomnly presented here. This is not a major issue by any means but would also be nice to have it fixed. ^_^
Photo of Derek Russell

Derek Russell

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • Amused

Posted 6 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 765 Reply Likes
It looks like you have the layers palette set to show the cropped region of each layer instead of the full document size. And the contents of some layers have pixels that you may not realize making them non-square.
Photo of David Dobish

David Dobish, Senior QE Photoshop

  • 197 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
Like Chris said. Go into the panel options dialog and choose "Entire Document"
Photo of Derek Russell

Derek Russell

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hey guys.

Thanks for the responses. Whilst I understand that setting it to Entire document corrects the problem it does make it difficult to identify small elements from the layers palette.

As far as extra pixels causing the issue I know this not to be the case as these particular elements were drawn by hand pixel for pixel.

But like I said. It isn't a huge issue but all the more reason for it to be corrected in future versions.

But thanks again for the responses. ^_^
Photo of Brett N

Brett N, Official Rep

  • 2257 Posts
  • 108 Reply Likes
First, it doesn't look random to me. I see two distinct thumbnail sizes in your screen shot.

Second, could you give some exact steps so we can reproduce the issue on our side? Or maybe provide a sample file?
Photo of Brett N

Brett N, Official Rep

  • 2257 Posts
  • 108 Reply Likes
Actually, playing around with this, here is what I found:

We create three different thumbnail shapes when you have "Layer Bounds" selected: Square, horizontal rectangle (landscape), and vertical rectangle (portrait).

The shape that is chosen is based on the content, as it is created, but not exactly precisely.

From a single pixel, you get a square thumbnail. No surprise. However, until you have 5 or more pixels horizontally, you will not get a landscape thumbnail. To get a portrait thumbnail you need 7 or more pixels vertically.

These thumbnails have a tendency to be "sticky", that is, they only update to a different thumbnail shape when a sufficient change has taken place. For example, if you have a portrait thumbnail for a layer containing only 7 vertically stacked pixels, adding 6 more pixels horizontally from that stack (effectively making a 7x7 line of pixels), you do not get a square thumbnail, even though the dimensions are now equal. Instead, you have to push a bit further to prove that you mean business. When you go to 9 pixels in width you will get a square thumbnail again. You then have to to 17 pixels in width to switch to a landscape thumbnail.

I'm not big on ratios and statistics, but it seems that this driven by some pretty simple math. If you have a grasp of the math, then the thumbnails will not appear to be so random.
Photo of Derek Russell

Derek Russell

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hmmm. Thats very interesting.

What makes this strange however is that they are all duplicates of the same layer so does moving the position of the element on the canvas have an impact on it?
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 13968 Posts
  • 1664 Reply Likes
It shouldn't. Can you post this PSD file somewhere so we can take a look at it?
Photo of Derek Russell

Derek Russell

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Unfortunately this is work for a client which I am not at liberty to share at present. What may possible is for me to strip out all layers other than those featured in the screenshot above? Would that still be of any use in terms of diagnosis?
Photo of Brett N

Brett N, Official Rep

  • 2257 Posts
  • 108 Reply Likes
Yes, it should be. We'd really only be interested in those layers that are exhibiting the behavior, as displayed in the screen shot. Stripping the rest out should not have an impact on what we are interested in seeing.
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 13968 Posts
  • 1664 Reply Likes
Derek, I'll shoot you an email to get the file.