Photoshop 3D improvements

  • 2
  • Idea
  • Updated 6 months ago
Hello everyone.
Photoshop 3D features are very nice, but they could be outstanding by adding some, specifically:

NURBS Surfaces
Boolean geometry (intersect, join, etc)
Sweep
Particles
Transform/split/extrude vertex/edge/face

Thanks to anyone who helps me.

Have a merry Christmas and a great new year.

Bye, Ivano.
Photo of Ivano Da Milano

Ivano Da Milano

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 7 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 2055 Posts
  • 720 Reply Likes
Adobe has recently acquired a couple of well-known 3D companies and has continued working on its original 3D software—Dimension.  It also offers C4D Lite in AE. At the same time, it has done virtually nothing to expand 3D in Photoshop for some time now. I expect it intends, at least for the moment, to integrate its acquisitions into the Adobesphere, and it's quite possible that that's where you'll need to look for future 3D development. Photoshop may become a supporting player, but I wouldn't expect any serious modeling there in the near future.

However, in the complete suite of Adobe products, 3D is finally starting to look promising.
Photo of Robben

Robben

  • 80 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I hardly have a clue about anything 3D, but the no-brainer Layer Styles update I would love to see is that you can map its patterns to an object live with some sliders that control an on-the-fly depth/displacement map. Is that crazy, or do you think that should be easy by now?
(Edited)
Photo of Ivano Da Milano

Ivano Da Milano

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Most important are booleans and vertex/edge/face
Photo of eartho

eartho, Champion

  • 1479 Posts
  • 497 Reply Likes
again folks, if you want complex 3D tools, use a  proper 3D app. 
Photo of Ivano Da Milano

Ivano Da Milano

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Can't Adobe just put C4D Lite in PS?
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 2054 Posts
  • 719 Reply Likes
I take it you deleted your post about Adobe Fuse that I got in my email from this site? Found out support for it is being dropped?

C4D Lite is also licensed—from Cinema4D. Adobe didn't acquire C4D. If Adobe came to an agreement with that company to add it to PS, they'd have to pay for it. I'm again not sure that they see Photoshop as the best location for full 3D modeling, as full as C4D Lite gets, anyway. The customer base for textures for models is pretty high, but even product placement in a 2D environment got moved to Dimension. There's more support for video because, as is obvious, CG plays an enormous role in video production.

It's a major expense no matter how they do it, and a big commitment of resources, and  their lack of doing anything about 3D while 3D grew outside Adobe by leaps and bounds suggests to me that they haven't seen it as something their Photoshop base in general wants. They deal with demographics, various studies—numbers, and Photoshop is primarily an image editing program. So leveraging Photoshop's ability to paint and manipulate images makes creating textures for models a reasonable fit there should they choose to get Substance to play a role, but modeling—not so much. How many designers, let alone photographers, are going to do all that modeling themselves? They're far more likely to place models they buy or receive for their work into PS to work with textures.

Even bringing some aspect of Substance into PS I suppose isn't certain, but it makes sense that people who subscribe to Substance would be able to use it in some fashion with PS, not just Dimension, which doesn't have enough image editing features to fly with serious 3D folk. It's currently aimed at designers who don't know and don't want to know advanced 3D stuff, but have to do a lot of product placement with 3D models.

FWIW (not much), I agree with Adobe that PS isn't the right spot for 3D modeling. I have wished for almost 2 decades that Adobe would acquire a full 3D  modeling program, but they never seemed to think it was a good fit for them. That appears to be slowly changing, but not yet in big ways. Maybe tomorrow they'll announce something. That's not for us to know.

In the meantime, well, there's Blender. It's always had its own quirks, but it's definitely gotten better and more complete over the years. If you're not in the market for a seriously expensive 3D modeling program, Blender is worth a 2nd and 3rd look, for sure.
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 2055 Posts
  • 720 Reply Likes
> I would love to see is that you can map its patterns to an object live with some sliders that control an on-the-fly depth/displacement map. Is that crazy, or do you think that should be easy by now?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you talking about bringing in 3D models and skinning them in PS? Which may be what they'll eventually do if you have a Substance subscription? I would LOVE it — except 3D for me is totally a hobby interest and I've plenty to do without going there, so the price might be a bit steep for my uses.  '-} 

And no, I don't think what you want is easy. It isn't all that easy for the pro 3D apps and artists to do, let alone easy enough to add to PS that everyone would become an instant 3D artist. Although I do like your idea of tying it in with Layer Styles.

What I think is reasonable for them to do if they're not being dragged in a hundred different directions, is to make something decent of the displacement feature they've already got. Update it. And if they did give us live preview and a better way of mapping, it might then include sliders—so we could add textures that were displaced according to the tonalities. Not as big a stretch—and who know, maybe then using a depth map we create wouldn't be out of the running.

I see us wanting, even needing, a fair bit of user control for displacement and how much it gets displaced/distorted (think of using it with vector, too) even if it's just 2D we're dealing with. Auto-everything to work in every instance doesn't seem to be very useful just yet. Even old standbys like auto-tone and auto-color only work sometimes—but mostly need a lot of user adjustment.

https://www.substance3d.com/products/substance-painter/

Photo of eartho

eartho, Champion

  • 1479 Posts
  • 497 Reply Likes
Robben, even 3D heavyweight apps have a difficult time doing a proper displacement like you describe. Aside from the projection mapping of the plaid pattern, you'd also need to define what gets displaced in which direction.

Also, who gets to decide which 3D features are included in Ps? It's all a very slippery slope and from my perspective, there's already been way too many dev cycles wasted on 3D in Ps, which never should have been there in the first place. 
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 2055 Posts
  • 720 Reply Likes
> I've seen a few people somehow (suggesting) using Liquify instead for it.

All these "warping" features do somewhat different things more or less easily. I would think that for wrapping around a cylinder-type shape, or sphere, Puppet warp would be easier than Liquify, or at least starting there and finishing the finer details in Liquify. And if it's simple enough, possibly use the main warp feature—I find it more difficult for me to get that realistic, but I've seen very experienced users work wonders with it.

But if they update Displacement, I see no reason they have to ignore  maps with a concept of roundness. Today those are common enough. Any computer that can run today's software is also far more powerful than they once were. I remember when we had to keep track of a script (and run it once) if we wanted to force as many PS features as we could to run as smart filters.

But that was a very long time ago now, and I don't think lack of CPU and/or GPU power is an excuse. Lack of customer interest? But then it's which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Does Adobe need to update Displacement to make a market for it, or is it going to be reactive only to large numbers of customer requests, when we all know that if a feature has a lousy interface, it's not going to be all that popular.

Or, it could be that Adobe has long term plans for some way to use the 3D it already has with  maps we create or extract from our images—a good use of auto-something. That could be very interesting, and do more than Displace currently does by working with more than one kind of map—iow, it could do more for different projects, different purposes than the simple Displace.

I understand that you just want something that improves on what we currently have, but if PS is to be competitive, it's going to have to continue to provide and expand upon easy access to other programs and plugins, or it's going to have to take some pretty bold steps to improving the core program, not tinker about the edges taking baby steps. There's a lot of very decent competition out there for image editing, but currently, you're mostly locked into whatever each program offers, something PS has never done since it first offered developers a way in.

One thing that's obvious, they're finally taking 3D seriously and they'll be sure to come up with something for us PS users.
Photo of Robben

Robben

  • 80 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Thanks & ok... I guess I understand it better now and can give up. i would probably use it most for jokes anyway... ;-)
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 2055 Posts
  • 720 Reply Likes
Well. . .I wouldn't give up asking for stuff that's core to Photoshop.  Heck, just adding the ability to have more than one Pattern Overlay in Layer Styles would be well within reason to ask for. And if you want to stray from core functions to advanced stuff like 3D, why not? Telling them what we need is important. But saying it needs to actually be in Photoshop is less likely to fly.

If you haven't taken a look at the Substance site, you might want to see what appears to be the future for a lot of what we want that's not core image editing. I think we can probably expect more coming that's an extra subscription. Way cool, probably worth the price of admission, but we're not likely to get this sort of thing for the price of the Photography Plan, and in this particular case, not even for the price of the entire Creative Cloud subscription. It's just too expensive for Adobe to develop and maintain not to charge extra for it, and too niche to demand we all pay for it by paying more for the Creative Cloud.

I kind of hate to bring economics into this.  But it's a way of managing our expectations—or the way I manage my expectations to avoid too much frustration and disappointment. Even the easy stuff isn't easy when it has to compete with everything else—including whatever the top brass has in mind for us.

I want Substance. I just don't know that I want it enough to pay the subscription price. Like you, would I use it mainly for silly stuff? I guess first I'll see if I master modeling in Blender and what I use that for—if I don't want to do that much work, I probably don't need Substance. If it opens up new creative avenues I want to go down, then at least the base subscription would be worth it.

https://www.substance3d.com/

Photo of Robben

Robben

  • 80 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
"I wouldn't give up asking for stuff that's core to Photoshop."
> I mean, with the info I already added and what Earth said, I understand it's clearly asking too much. Might work for very basic stuff...
The Substance3D site looks amazing! It clearly seems its own thing already. Maybe they'll add the cool stuff to that and let us muck around with Dimension... "I'm too old for this" anyway... ;-)
(Edited)
Photo of Ivano Da Milano

Ivano Da Milano

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Photoshop: Modeling tools.

Hello everyone.

I miss:
NURBS Surfaces
Boolean geometry (intersect, join, etc)
Sweep
Particles

Thanks to anyone who helps me.
Photo of Ivano Da Milano

Ivano Da Milano

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Is it there anything like Swift3D?