Photoshop: old features need reviewing

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • (Edited)
Guys. I know it's great to add newer, fancier, more bombastic features to publicize and get everyone all amped about. It's probably very exciting, but:

I really think you need to update or get rid of older features. Some of these things have not been updated since photoshop 5. Some are even older.

Now, I'm going to present a list, here, but this is not to imply that I am demanding you fix everything on the list. I'm just trying to paint you a picture, to get you thinking "before I add this next new feature, are there any older features that need some love?"

Just... consider:

Resize algorithm has been bicubic for a billion years. I am not implying that there is some kind of ZOOM AND ENHANCE tool that's lacking here, but for shrinking things? Quadratic and Mitchell-Natraveli are both more useful for sampling detail. Lanczos, whatever. Point is that most games do not even use bicubic anymore.

Radial Blur could be coded to be easier on your processor and better-looking—right now it is shadowy and jittery and has a very small maximum radius. You could let people place the center point based a proportionate thumbnail of the picture instead of trying to guess the point on a featureless, 1:1 ratio grid.

The clouds algorithm could let you offset the clouds on the x, y and w planes. You could pick a noise algorithm, and pick its size and the amount of octaves it synthesizes.

I know people have spent ages trying to get RID of lens flare, but if they do want to add it again, they should at least be able to use the industry-grade, thousand-dollar software package they paid for to do it. A decades-old representation of four, and only four, lenses, that does not even take into account the picture content or colour space. Wouldn't it be far further ahead to let people specify the lens width and focal depth and synthesize the flare from there? Or something? Come on guys.

Displace: It would be nice if we didn't have to load a completely separate .PSD file for this to work, and had some way of seeing the outcome before applying it.

Mosaic, could you let people offset the mosaic tiles from the top-left corner by a number of pixels at least?

Gradients, still linear. B-spline or cubic would lend a lovely soft touch to these things.

Emboss: another field where almost decade-old video-games have photoshop beat.

Grain: why can't you port Adobe After Effects' film grain algorithm over? Add Noise is not suited for the purpose, and Grain itself is terrible and cheesy.

Stained Glass: What is this even used for?

Plastic Wrap: Whaaaaat?

Seriously guys. Just think about this, at least.

I mean wouldn't it be great to advertise "NEW. DOZENS OF PHOTOSHOP'S BEDROCK FEATURES OVERHAULED FROM THE GROUND UP WITH INNOVATIVE MODERN FEATURES AND NEXT-GEN ALGORITHMS."

that sounds pretty glamorous to me.
Photo of blackboe

blackboe

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • long-suffering

Posted 6 years ago

  • 2
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 813 Reply Likes
>> Gradients, still linear.

Smoothness == 0 is linear.
Anything else is a cubic spline, and has been for many years.

Oh, and we do update old features every single release.
Photo of blackboe

blackboe

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
really? cause I still get some weird banding issues with disparate colours but I mean, I guess that's to be expected.

Still though maybe you do update old features but some of these things have not been touched since I first remember using them. (I haven't actually ever used stained glass or plastic wrap though, hahah)
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 813 Reply Likes
banding is due to quantization, not interpolation.

Yes, some of the less used filters haven't been updated for a long time.
The things that people use and need more improvement - those get addressed more often.