Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Pasted smart objects are distorted in CS6

Nov 21, 2012 9:33 AM

Tags: #cs6 #smart_object #illustrator_to_photoshop

Any time I paste an object from AI into PS, it's getting horizontally squashed. Here's an example:

 

1. 12x12 pixel circle in Illustrator, aligned to pixel grid.

Screen Shot 2012-11-21 at 12.19.44 PM.png

 

2. Pasted into Photoshop as a Smart Object, it's visibly distorted (12x11), but the W/H is inaccurately labeled 100%.

Screen Shot 2012-11-21 at 12.20.32 PM.png

 

3. After pasted, if I select Edit > Transform > Scale, now the starting W/H are shown with the accurate distorted values.

Screen Shot 2012-11-21 at 12.20.53 PM.png

 

This is driving me nuts. Can anyone suggest a fix, or is this a bug?

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 21, 2012 10:19 AM   in reply to jay_harlow

    I don't have CS6 and not sure if this is a problem there or you you are not doing it properly

    To do it properly, because you have a stroke on the object, In Illustrator go to Preferences > General, and check Use Preview Bounds.  Next, confirm the pixel size in the transform panel and if necessary change as desired. Then select the object and Copy it.

    Go to Photoshop, choose File > New, and in the New dialog make sure the resolution is set to 72 ppi. If not change it to 72 ppi, press OK, close the created document, and chose File > New again to have the resolution set to 72 ppi and pixel dimensions reflecting the size in Illustrator. Press OK to create the new document and Paste.

     

    If you want to paste in a already existing document that may not be the same as the size of the object in Illustrator, and don't want change in scale, make sure in Photoshop "Resize Image During Place" is not checked in the Preferences > General.

     

    Hope this helps.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 21, 2012 10:50 AM   in reply to jay_harlow

    I already had "Resize Image During Place" checked.

    In case that was not understood, "Resize Image During Place" should not be checked.

    Before assuming that this is only CS6 problem, please, make a simple test in a new document following the exact steps from my previous message. This is to rule out that it is not document specific or to documents created in a certain way.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 21, 2012 1:15 PM   in reply to jay_harlow

    the Resolution value in Image > Image Size... is the ppi when set to pixels/inch.

     

    When you use File > New when your clipboard content is a copied Illustrator object, Photoshop defaults to the ppi set for the "Screen Resolution" value in the Preferences > Units & Rulers

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 21, 2012 2:13 PM   in reply to jay_harlow

    Illustrator doesn't have ppi settings because it is a vector program and as such it is resolution independent. Only raster objects and effects have ppi information that is the same for all raster effects but can be different for each raster object in the file. In Illustrator, like in Photoshop, you can right click on the rulers and choose pixels for measurement units. The ratio of the pixels to other units in Illustrator is fixed using 1 inch = 72 pixels. In Photoshop the ratio depends on the ppi set in the Image Size. So, to make the rulers in both programs the same you have to match Photoshop to Illustrator by setting the image to 72 ppi. In Illustrator the pixel units are used for rasterizing the screen display of all objects (vector and raster) when you choose View > Pixel Preview. Also the default size of images when using Save for web and devices uses the pixel dimensions according to the rulers but you can change the size there to any other pixel dimensions.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 21, 2012 2:31 PM   in reply to emil emil

    emil emil wrote:

    ...

     

    When you use File > New when your clipboard content is a copied Illustrator object, Photoshop defaults to the ppi set for the "Screen Resolution" value in the Preferences > Units & Rulers

    Sorry, the quoted statement that I made is incorrect, the Screen Resolution value is used as a default ppi when the clipboard content is a raster image copied from other programs that don't have any other size information but pixel dimensions, for Illustrator clipboard content, the New dialog uses the ppi settings used previously in this dialog.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 21, 2012 3:07 PM   in reply to jay_harlow

    You can check and change the raster effects settings in Illustrator from Effects > Document Raster effects settings but this should not make any difference if you don't have raster effects applied to the object. Check the Appearance panel in Illustrator for any eventual raster effect applied to the object that may not be obvious on the artboard.

     

    edit: when checking the Appearance panel make sure to expand the fill and stroke because an effect may be applied only to those items, and also check for eventual parents like a group with effect applied to it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 21, 2012 3:18 PM   in reply to emil emil

    Try this, select the problem object in Illustrator and from the menu of the Appearance panel choose Clear Appearance, then reassign the fill color and if you like a stroke and check if the problem is still there.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 12:37 PM   in reply to jay_harlow

    I can confirm that Illustrator CS5.1 objects pasted as Smart Object or Pixels into Photoshop CS6 and CS5.1 often do have a height of 1 pixel less than they should have.

     

    Interestingly, a particular object may be pasted correctly in one version of Ps and wrongly in another, but a different object will be pasted correctly and wrongly in the opposite versions of Ps, while the document setup is identical in both versions of Ps.

     

    Be vigilant and make any necessary height correction in the initial transformation opportunity when the object is pasted.

     

    Unfortunately Photoshop most likely will make a mess of rendering the object, anyway. Here is a simple example of a pixel-aligned Illustrator object being badly rendered by Photoshop. See the gray pixels put inside the black stroke of the square by Photoshop. (That object happened to be pasted with the correct height.)

     

    Screen-shot-2012-12-07-at-20.20.13.png

     

    Screen-shot-2012-12-07-at-20.20.25.png

     

     

    I and others have complained several times about Photoshop's handling of pasted Illustrator objects. The Adobe response has been that Photoshop is correct, despite blatant evidence to the contrary. Don't be surprised if this post is "moderated" very soon.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 1:13 PM   in reply to conroy

    I just made tests with CS5 but I can't reproduce the problem if the Photoshop document before pasting is 72 ppi  and the dimensions of the illustrator object in pixels are whole numbers (no fractions).

     

    The only way I can get similar mess as your Photoshop image is if the Photoshop document is set to other than 72ppi and the dimensions of the illustrator object in pixels are not whole numbers.

     

    I also tried fractured numbers for the x and y coordinates of the object and the artboard in illustrator but these didn't make any problems.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 1:25 PM   in reply to emil emil

    Emil, usually there is a mess, sometimes there isn't. The mess in Ps CS5.1 is typically different to the mess in CS6. My examples of misrendering by Ps in this thread and others are always with 72 ppi documents and with objects which have integer pixel dimensions, integer pixel strokes and perfect alignment to the pixel grid in Illustrator.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 1:41 PM   in reply to conroy

    I don't know, can't think of anything. You know, generally computers don't do random things, meaning that there is always a reason but it is apparently something very hard to detect. Are you guys using Macs or PCs? I'm on a pc.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 1:51 PM   in reply to emil emil

    I definitely don't think anything random is occurring. I just haven't spotted a pattern. OS X 10.6.8.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 5:11 PM   in reply to emil emil

    Emil, when you paste into Ps and are given the transformation opportunity, do you have "Anti-alias" enabled or disabled in the Options bar? I think you may have it disabled if you're not getting the messy rendering by Ps. Even if you don't make a transformation, the AA setting is effective, and the AA is obviously buggy when it produces these wrongly anti-aliased regions where there should be no anti-aliasing.

     

    I realize that disabling AA in the transformation opportunity is a solution when a pasted object contains only horizontals and/or verticals, but enabling AA shouldn't produce garbage rendering of artwork that is pixel-aligned and not anti-aliased in Illustrator. Many objects require AA because they contain sloping or curved elements, but any horizontals/verticals that are also in the object are ruined by Ps.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 2:44 PM   in reply to jay_harlow

    Jay, I veered off topic by raising the separate issue of wrong anti-aliasing, but can you repeat my example of horizontals and verticals being ruined by Ps when "Ant-alias" is enabled in Options bar when pasting?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 5:12 PM   in reply to conroy

    Anti-alias has always been enabled in my tests.

    It seems to me that it is a mac issue and the first suspect for me would be the handling of the clipboard by the system. Photoshop and Illustrator use the clipboard in a more private way because they share the physical dimensions of the content in absolute units (not pixels) which is the same like File>Place, while image data from other programs is treated differently. I wonder if the cause could be that the clipboard sometimes passes through a third party software like an utility or something. I know that in windows on a pc sometimes the clipboard get messed up by pasting something that was not copied last but I'm not sure how it works on a mac.

     

    The other thing that I would look at is if this is still inconsistent if you always choose File>New and accept the default Clipboard size before pasting. It works consistently for me when pasting on new and existing documents but it could reveal something there.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 7:30 PM   in reply to emil emil

    You could be correct that the bad AA is a Mac-only Ps problem. We need more participants to see if any Windows user is affected.

     

    An Illustrator-saved AI or PDF placed into Ps results in the very same bad rendering as a paste. A slightly different but similarly bad AA arises when the placed file is an Illustrator-saved EPS.

     

    The AA bug appears to be related to Photoshop's rasterizing of vector files rather than something to do with the clipboard.

     

    There is no improvement by pasting into a new document created with clipboard dimensions. I had already tried that and I've rechecked now.

     

    Here's an example comparing Ps CS5.1 and CS6 using the same clipboard content. The very same results happen when placing the design as a vector file in the two versions of Ps.

     

    1. Object in Illustrator CS5.1 that's copied to clipboard.

     

    Screen shot 2012-12-08 at 02.49.52.png

     

     

    2. The transformation opportunity of the paste into Ps CS5.1. The height is short by a pixel.

     

    Screen shot 2012-12-08 at 02.45.35.png

     

     

    3. After correcting the height and committing. A perfect rasterization.

     

    Screen shot 2012-12-08 at 02.46.08.png

     

     

    4. The transformation opportunity of the paste into Ps CS6. The height is correct.

     

    Screen shot 2012-12-08 at 02.47.24.png

     

     

    5. After committing. A terrible rasterization with gray pixels which should be white.

     

    Screen shot 2012-12-08 at 02.47.29.png

     

     

    Other examples will result in the height being initially wrong in Ps CS6 and the height being initially correct in CS5, which is the opposite of this one, and the rendering being differently bad in each version of Ps.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 8:06 PM   in reply to conroy

    This is not a bug, just Photoshop rendering the shape as given to it by Illustrator.

     

    Before commiting, there is no antialiasing.

    After commiting, the Antialiasing will be done.

    Because the outside is snapped to pixel boundaries, it has no antialiasing on the outside. But the stroke is not an integer number of pixels wide, and will show antialiasing because that's the shape you pasted.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 8:34 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Chris Cox wrote:

     

    This is not a bug, just Photoshop rendering the shape as given to it by Illustrator.

     

    Before commiting, there is no antialiasing.

    After commiting, the Antialiasing will be done.

     

     

    You're not understanding the information that's presented in this thread. The two problems in this thread have nothing to do with no anti-aliasing before the commit.

     

    The first problem is the height of a pasted object or placed vector file sometimes being short by a pixel.

     

    The second problem regards bad rendering after the commit. Look at the images again. Especially the images of after the commit. CS5.1 is rendering perfectly. CS6 is making a mess.

     

    I brought this to your attention before and you insisted Photoshop is correct, so I tried to help you understand the problem but you stopped communicating. Now we're back to square one with you claiming Photoshop is correct despite users posting blatant evidence to the contrary.

     

     

     

    Because the outside is snapped to pixel boundaries, it has no antialiasing on the outside. But the stroke is not an integer number of pixels wide, and will show antialiasing because that's the shape you pasted.

     

    What?! Why are you saying the stroke isn't what it is? The stroke is defined in Illustrator as exactly one pixel. Look at the screenshot of Illustrator.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 8:39 PM   in reply to jay_harlow

    Photoshop is correctly rasterizing what it got from Illustrator.

    So far I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise.

     

    But Illustrator does some tricks for "pixel perfect" rendering that don't show up in Photoshop.

    And Photoshop tries to snap the boundary of the pasted graphic to pixel edges, which can make non-integer sized objects show antialiasing inside the boundary.

     

    I've tested this a dozen times, and in every case we found that Photoshop was correctly rasterizing what it got from Illustrator (which may not have been precisely aligned to pixels).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 8:49 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Chris Cox wrote:

     

    Photoshop is correctly rasterizing what it got from Illustrator.

    So far I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise.

     

    But Illustrator does some tricks for "pixel perfect" rendering that don't show up in Photoshop.

    And Photoshop tries to snap the boundary of the pasted graphic to pixel edges, which can make non-integer sized objects show antialiasing inside the boundary.

     

    I've tested this a dozen times, and in every case we found that Photoshop was correctly rasterizing what it got from Illustrator (which may not have been precisely aligned to pixels).

     

     

    How do you explain an object coming into CS5.1 and measuring n pixels tall then coming into CS6 at n-1 pixels tall, and vice versa?

     

    How do you explain the correct rendering in CS5.1 when exactly the same data from Illustrator is badly rendered by CS6?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 8:55 PM   in reply to conroy

    conroy wrote:

     

    Chris Cox wrote:

     

    Because the outside is snapped to pixel boundaries, it has no antialiasing on the outside. But the stroke is not an integer number of pixels wide, and will show antialiasing because that's the shape you pasted.

     

    What?! Why are you saying the stroke isn't what it is? The stroke is defined in Illustrator as exactly one pixel. Look at the screenshot of Illustrator.

     

    Chris, I'd appreciate an explanation for your claim, please.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 9:16 PM   in reply to conroy

    Tried that again a few more times. If everything is aligned I can't reproduce the problem on the pc. Will be interesting to see if others can get the problem on a pc.

    Untitled-2.jpg

    However I misaligned only the outer square by changing its height to 8.001 and Illustrator rendered it as expected but when I paste it in Photoshop it hit with aliasing the smaller square inside. I know that the raster engine in both are not the same and will render differently the same vector but given the nature of the change that result in Photoshop is rather strange.

    Untitled-3.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 9:43 PM   in reply to emil emil

    Emil,

    Perfectly aligned Illustrator artwork renders correctly in Ps CS6 on your PC.

    Perfectly aligned Illustrator artwork renders badly in Ps CS6 on my Mac.

    Chris has already insisted that I'm getting the correct result.
    That means, according to Chris's argument, that your good rendering is the wrong result.
    Ridiculous!

     

     

    Edit: Wait a minute. Is that Ps CS5.x that you're using? Jay and I are using Ps CS6. The rasterizing of pasted or placed Illustrator vectors in Ps CS6 is demonstrably different to Ps CS5 on a Mac, anyway. I get a good rendering of the two squares design in Ps CS5.1, but not in Ps CS6, yet Chris claims Photoshop is correct. My CS6 rendering with bad anti-aliasing is the odd one out, and surely demonstrates a bug.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 9:39 PM   in reply to conroy

    1) Antialiasing improved greatly in CS6

    2) SnapToPixel is new in CS6 (could have caused antialiasing elsewhere before)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 9:44 PM   in reply to conroy

    I'm using CS5 and I don't have CS6 to test it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 9:53 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Chris Cox wrote:

     

    1) Antialiasing improved greatly in CS6

     

    How is it "improved greatly" when CS5.1 renders the vectors correctly and CS6 makes a mess? I showed a degradation, not an improvement!

     

     

    2) SnapToPixel is new in CS6 (could have caused antialiasing elsewhere before)

     

    But I showed anti-aliasing happening in CS6 where there should be none, and where there correctly is none in CS5.1. Again, that's a degradation, not an improvement.

     

     

     

    Your arguments are contrary to the evidence.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 10:01 PM   in reply to conroy

    If the vector shape is not perfectly pixel aligned, then CS5 might not have shown antialiasing, where the higher precision antialiasing in CS6 might show it.

     

    Now, if there really is a platform difference - that we need to investigate.

    But so far you're arguing about CS6 doing the job correctly.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 10:28 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Chris Cox wrote:

     

    If the vector shape is not perfectly pixel aligned, then CS5 might not have shown antialiasing, where the higher precision antialiasing in CS6 might show it.

     

    If increased precision results in poorer rendering, there is a degradation and not an improvement, in my opinion.

     

     

     

    Now, if there really is a platform difference - that we need to investigate.

    But so far you're arguing about CS6 doing the job correctly.

     

    Yes, I'm not convinced of a platform difference. Hopefully some CS6 Windows users and more CS6 OS X users will contribute to this thread.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 7, 2012 11:15 PM   in reply to conroy

    Increased precision results in correct rendering, where the older rendering might have been what you liked - but was incorrect.  (and most users would prefer their artwork rendered correctly and with better antialiasing)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 8, 2012 4:48 AM   in reply to Chris Cox

    What?! Are you serious?

     

    Surely, users want their pixel-aligned Illustrator artwork rendered as it was designed in Illustrator, and not being ruined by surprise anti-aliasing provided by Photoshop CS6 where there is deliberately no anti-aliasing in the design.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,514 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 8, 2012 6:21 AM   in reply to conroy

    conroy wrote:

     

    Hopefully some CS6 Windows users and more CS6 OS X users will contribute to this thread.

     

    I'd like to help but can you provide a file and some simple instructions?  I don't have AI, and just glancing back at this thread I don't see a clear 1. Do this, 2. Do that, 3. take screenshot.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 8, 2012 8:18 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Thanks, Noel! I'll email some vector files to place in Ps because I get exactly the same Ps problems with both placed vector files and pasted vector artwork.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points