Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

"Return 3D Layer to Photoshop" from VP Issue

Feb 26, 2013 1:13 PM

Hey everyone,


I've got another 3D question today. Why is it that when I create planes in Vanishing Point (in this case, 2 walls and a floor) and check off "Render Grids to Photoshop" and "Return 3D Layer to Photoshop" that the grids and planes almost never line up with each other? Is it something I'm doing wrong in VP?


Some may already know that I'm a designer/illustrator/digital artist that is frequently building 2D/3D room settings for a client, and always looking for the quickest and most efficient way to achieve accurate perspective within the rooms.


Any reply is greatly appreciated, as always





  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2013 2:42 PM   in reply to Andymc7

    Hi Andy,


    The feature is a mess, like just about everything 3D in Photoshop.


    If you're very lucky, the camera will be correctly aligned relative to the planes and will only have the wrong focal length to create the correct perspective. For example, it might be 40 mm when it needs to be 35 mm. Fortunately, that's easy to adjust. Note that the focal length control is integer, so it may be impossible to make a perfect correction.


    Often, the camera will be misaligned with respect to the planes in addition to having the wrong focal length.


    Sometimes, the ground plane of the 3D layer will be at ceiling level instead of floor level when you make walls in addition to floor.


    The ground plane will be XY instead of Photoshop's usual XZ.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2013 3:10 PM   in reply to Andymc7

    If the bed doesn't come from a photo on which the VP planes were based then I don't think any of the problems with VP-to-3D-layer are to blame for your difficulties in getting the bed perspective to match your 3D virtual room perspective.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2013 7:23 PM   in reply to conroy

    Here's a quick attempt which could be slightly better. The 3D layer created by VP filter had a view with a 30 mm focal length. I dialed that down to 10mm and the 3D planes became an almost perfect match for my VP grids.


    Notice that Photoshop created the ground plane at ceiling level, with "above ground" pointing downward.



    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 27, 2013 6:00 AM   in reply to Andymc7

    Yes, I was relieved to find that only the initial focal length was wrong in the 3D layer and simply changing that produced a good result. 9 mm was slightly too wide-angle and 10 mm not quite enough, but the control is integer so I had to settle for 10 mm.


    Often, the camera will be initialised in the wrong location relative to the floor and wall, and considerable fiddling around is required to correct that, especially when the focal length also needs adjusted.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 27, 2013 6:04 AM   in reply to Andymc7

    Can you post a screenshot without the 3D layer displayed? Just show a VP grid layer overlayed with the bed layer.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 27, 2013 6:37 AM   in reply to Andymc7

    Your VP grids look good.


    Yes, your test of VP drawing order is a good idea and I look forward to the results.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 27, 2013 7:56 AM   in reply to Andymc7

    I wish the behaviour was as predictable as you found with your tests. I think you drew conclusions from far too small a sample.


    Here is one where the VP planes are drawn completely inside the canvas and with no tweaking of corners.


    The VP grids:





    The generated 3D layer has the camera pointing 180 degrees the wrong way and displaced vertically and the focal length is wrong.





    To correct it, I need to rotate the camera by 180 deg around its z-axis, move it 120 units along its z-axis then adjust the focal length from 77 mm to 75 mm. Further tweaking would improve it further







    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 27, 2013 9:32 AM   in reply to Andymc7

    Either 99 percent of Photoshop 3D is not tested before release, or it is tested to some degree and found to be buggy as heck but a decision is made to release it anyway and charge an extra $300 for the garbage. Much of the 3D features are not fit for a public beta, never mind a full release. Some of the 3D problems are, without any doubt, a result of sheer incompetence by at least one member of the Photoshop 3D development team. The actual ray-tracing render engine itself seems good (although excessively slow when considering that it has been restricted to one indirect light bounce), so I think Adobe purchased it or licence it from some other company, but the materials model is absolutely dreadful and ruins the potential of the software.


    Andymc7 wrote:


    Oh my. May I ask about how long did it take you to fiddle with it until it lined up?


    I was experimenting with multiple documents, simultaneously, but I guess less than a minute of the total time was devoted to correcting that particular example because the camera required a precise 180 degree rotation and movement along a single axis then a tweak of the focal length.


    Now I'm wondering.. what happens if there's simply 1 "floor" plane made? Does PS screw that up too?


    The focal length of the camera tends to be wrong but I haven't yet noticed any problem with misplacement of camera relative to a single plane, so an easy correction can be made there.

    Mark as:

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