Comments on: Real 3D in Photoshop CS3 Extended

By: Eric Senecal

Eric Senecal — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:11:58 +0000

Its a start!!! very very crapy stuff. Adobe still have a very long way to go before getting it the way a direct painting on 3d tool should be.

but still its a start!!!

Eric Senecal website
Eric

By: adobe_lover2007@yahoo.com

adobe_lover2007@yahoo.com — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:23:14 +0000

but when i import 3d model in cs3 it loaded well but without any textures what i can do in this case?

By: Thomas Colliers

Thomas Colliers — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:58:24 +0000

The implementation is not extensive enough to seriously work with it in a production environment. It’s neat for some very basic 3D-imagery but because it allows no shading, no lightning it’s no more then a gimmick right now.

It could grow, but it will never beat the full-scale 3D applications. And the fact you still need to create your model and UV maps in those applications makes it obsolete in my opinion.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:25:09 +0000

At my company were trying to place a 3d dome model with glass effect into photshop cs3. The plan is to place a photoshop file inside the dome, keeping the glass effect to create a domed product. Is this possible?

By: savagepriest

savagepriest — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:57:26 +0000

great this is a tutorial i would like everyone to see and save on their pc for later use

By: AlexW

AlexW — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:24:24 +0000

I work with Photoshop every day and can’t imagine the extra computing power this is going to take. I find it interesting that they would include a crappy 3D modeling program rather than just interfacing with a really great one.

In fairness, by importing 3DS and Maya they really *are* interfacing with great 3d programs.

Quite a few companies out there (SitePoint included) produce a lot of imagery of the same objects — books and binders in our case, but it might be CDs, DVDs & t-shirts for others. A handful of quality, tweakable, resurfacable models would, in theory, be all we would need to produce all our product images. If I could produce a new product shot without having to leave Photoshop, I’d do it.

By: mrtall

mrtall — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 03:55:07 +0000

I work with Photoshop every day and can’t imagine the extra computing power this is going to take. I find it interesting that they would include a crappy 3D modeling program rather than just interfacing with a really great one.

Did anybody check to see if there are any 3D glasses included in the box?

Bob Dale
Master Photographer
Visit Our Blog At
http://www.DaleStudios.com/blog

By: Mr D

Mr D — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:38:56 +0000

I have a problem when i insert a .u3d file from solidworks into photoshop it has various vertical and horizontal transparent lines through the 3d layer. It’s only about a pixel wide but it reveals the layer underneath and causes problems. Has anyone else seen this problem and how can it be fixed? (rasterizing and cloning is NOT the answer i’m looking for)

By: pixelsoul

pixelsoul — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:48:22 +0000

The 3d functionality in photoshop is pretty crap.. it’s about the same quality as you have in your open gl viewport. Offcourse everybody was hoping to paint the textures right in photoshop (like bodypaint), but it doesn’t work like that it works exactly like before you need to have the texture opened up in external flat document and then preview them in 3d window.

By: AlexW

AlexW — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:27:37 +0000

I should also say that for us, and engineering/manufacturing company, the cross-section tool is actually very useful as it allows you to see detail hidden inside a component.

I guess most of the models I was using during my tests had nothing much interesting inside them to see, so the value wasn’t quite so apparent. But I’d imagine something like a model of a petrol motor would be cool.