Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Smart Objects rendered incorrectly in CS6

Mar 13, 2013 1:44 PM

Tags: #photoshop #rendering #incorrect #object #cs6 #smart #antialasing

Here is a logo, pasted as a smart object from Illustrator into Photoshop CS5.1 :

 

Screen Shot 2013-03-13 at 2.25.35 PM.png

Here is the same logo pasted as a smart object from Illustrator to Photoshop CS6:

 

Screen Shot 2013-03-13 at 2.24.51 PM.png

Note the gaps in the orange gradient at the top of the graphic, and the transparent areas in the border of the shield. This discrepancy appears (to me) to be a result of using a "sharper" antialiasing mode in CS6 which is leaving 1 pixel wide gaps between objects that are actually completely aligned to the same points in Illustrator. Scaling the object will result in the gaps showing up in different areas of the graphic. This is incorrect behavior on the part of Photoshop CS6. Will there be a fix forthcoming? I'll have to keep working in Photoshop CS5.1 for the time being until issues like this are resolved.

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Noel Carboni
    23,456 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 13, 2013 2:38 PM   in reply to MarketingDen

    There is a preference setting in the General section, [  ] Snap Vector tools and Transforms to Pixel Grid.  I don't know whether that would affect what you're doing, as I don't use AI but but have you tried changing it?

     

    I have to admit, the second version looks a little better because it seems sharper (at 25% zoom).

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 13, 2013 3:11 PM   in reply to MarketingDen

    I rasterize in Illustrator and export PNG for placing in Photoshop to overcome the completely unreliable rasterizing of imported vector artwork by Photoshop.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 13, 2013 3:19 PM   in reply to MarketingDen

    MarketingDen wrote:

     

    Edit: Ouch... just tried that workaround. The scaling method used when I shrunk the logo to final size resulted in some VERY heavy handed over-sharpening:

     

     

    You probably scaled down with ugly Bicubic Sharper interpolation, as a result of the Ps CS6 default of "Bicubic Automatic". Transforms of Smart Objects use the interpolation method set in Preferences > General. Set that to plain "Bicubic" to match CS5. And when transforming raster layers, the Options bar has an independent interpolation control in CS6, which also defaults to Bicubic Automatic, so set that to Bicubic to get the good ol' CS5 interpolation.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 13, 2013 3:22 PM   in reply to MarketingDen

    Rasters inside Vector Smart Objects are subject to some other interpolation which can look horrendous. Generally avoid resizing VSOs containing rasters! Yet another reason to rasterize in Illustrator, export a raster file (e.g. PNG) then place that file in Photoshop.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 13, 2013 3:30 PM   in reply to MarketingDen

    MarketingDen wrote:

     

    Adobe seems to ruin something that was working perfectly well in the previous version every time they do an update.

     

    And insist that Ps CS6 is correct and any software that differs is simply wrong!

     

    I kid you not.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 13, 2013 3:33 PM   in reply to MarketingDen

    Yes, no doubt.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,456 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 25, 2013 8:06 PM   in reply to MarketingDen

    MarketingDen wrote:

     

    Edit: Ouch... just tried that workaround. The scaling method used when I shrunk the logo to final size resulted in some VERY heavy handed over-sharpening:

     

    On re-reading this thread, one thing came to mind that I didn't think of before, as relates to the above observation:  The default resampling is called "Bicubic Automatic", and it can cause some real nasty oversharpening during resizes.  Try changing the preference to "Bicubic" (which is the old, traditional resampling).  Perhaps it won't end up looking so overdone on downsizing.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 25, 2013 8:40 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel, that was covered in replies #5 and #6.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,456 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2013 11:41 AM   in reply to conroy

    So it was.  Perhaps I need to re-read more carefully. 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2013 4:38 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    The positive thing about this thread is that nobody from Adobe has disputed the existence of a problem this time, so maybe that can be read as them accepting that a problem needs to be fixed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,977 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2013 9:44 PM   in reply to conroy

    One thing to keep in mind is a smart object layer acts like its a single raster layer created  from the composit of the layers of the embedded smart object. Smart object layer therefore behave like a raster layer.  However this raster layer can updated by updating the embedded smart object. You do this by double clicking on the layers smart object icon in the layers palette.  When to do that the embedded object will be opened in ACR or Photoshop and you can use ACR or Photoshop tools on the object.  If the object opens in Photoshop and it contains vector layers like shape layers and text layers when you use tools like image size and transform these layers will be updated using vector graphics. When you click OK in ACR or save in Photoshop the smart object layers embedded smart object will be updated to reflect the changes made using ACR or Photoshop its the raster layer pixels will be regenerated using the updated embedded smart object.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 5:31 AM   in reply to JJMack

    JJ, the essay on Smart Objects is completely unnecesssary. You've entierely missed the point of this thread.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 7:06 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    The default resampling is called "Bicubic Automatic", and it can cause some real nasty oversharpening during resizes.  Try changing the preference to "Bicubic" (which is the old, traditional resampling).

     

    Another thing to keep in mind with resampling and SOs, is that a Smart Object does not "remember" what interpolation algorithm was used if it gets edited after scaling. So if you downsample a Smart Object using Bicubic, then change your Preferences to Bicubic Automatic, then at some later point decide to Edit Contents of the SO, it will apply the current resample algorithm (Bicubic Sharper, in this case), even if there was no change to its scale in the edit.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 9:36 AM   in reply to MarketingDen

    Screenshots of simple example of Ps CS5 correctly rendering Vector Smart Objects and Ps CS6 rendering garbage...

     

    Illustrator artwork: 4 squares, pixel-aligned and butted together.

    Screen-shot-2013-03-27-at-16.09.32.png

     

     

    CS5 rendering correctly.

    Screen-shot-2013-03-27-at-16.09.40.png

     

     

    CS6 creating anti-aliasing garbage between elements of the imported vector document.

    Screen-shot-2013-03-27-at-16.09.45.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 9:53 AM   in reply to MarketingDen

    Although my example didn't show it, beware that VSOs which are simply placed and not scaled or rotated can be erroneously rendered by Ps CS6: garbage antialising can appear where there should be none in vector artwork that's definitely pixel-aligned in Illustrator.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,456 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 11:25 AM   in reply to conroy

    Conroy, is there a way you can make that test file available online?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 11:40 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 11:43 AM   in reply to conroy

    Remove the .ps extension that is mysteriously appended to the download.

    The filename is "butted squares.ai" (without quotes).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,456 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 11:47 AM   in reply to conroy

    I had to change it from butted squares.pdf myself.  Could AI files really be PDF format under the covers?  I have "Mime Sniffing" enabled.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 11:49 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Yes, modern AI files are PDF.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,456 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 11:58 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Thanks.  The problem is trivially easy to reproduce with that file.

     

    Kind of a twist...  In 13.1.2 we have this behavior:

     

    PlacedRotatedScaled.png

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,977 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 11:54 AM   in reply to conroy

    Conroy your entitled to your opinion be it right or wrong.  When someone like Noel repeat something you wrote it may be because he missed your append or he was showing he agreed with what you wrote and was re-enforcing it.  Also humans learn from repetition.  Some may think I missed the point of this thread. However I'm quite sure some think that if an embedded smart object is all vector graphics the smart object layer will be scaled using vector math when scaled which is not the case.  I know you elected yourself judge and jury for this forum however in my opinion you stepped outside your authority.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 12:35 PM   in reply to JJMack

    JJ, go away if you cannot contribute to the thread.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 1:46 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel, I think I can explain your results being different to mine... we're not comparing apples with apples.

     

    Your "Scaled" VSO is correctly rendered because it is aligned with the pixel grid and has even dimensions, therefore all edges of its four squares lie exactly on pixel boundaries and no anti-aliasing happens.

     

    My scaled VSO has deliberately odd dimensions so that, even though the overall object is aligned to the pixel grid, the internal edges of the four squares are mid-pixel and provoke the undesirable internal anti-aliasing by CS6 (but not CS5).

     

    Regarding the poor rendering of your "Placed" VSO, it should have placed as 50 px by 50 px but yours is 67 by 66, and the odd width results in the undesirable internal antialising by CS6 (but not CS5) for the reason given in the previous paragraph.

     

    Edit: I've realized that your Ps document must have a different resolution to mine, which will cause the placed VSO to cover a different number of pixels. I used a 72 ppi Ps document and my Illustrator artwork is aligned to pixels in a 72 ppi grid.

     

    However, the VSO should still place as a perfect square, but both CS5 and CS6 occasionally miscalculate the size of one dimension of an imported vector document. The Ps versions make different sizing errors for any given imported file.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,456 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2013 3:37 PM   in reply to conroy

    Yep, I can exactly reproduce your results with 72 ppi and an odd sized rescale.

     

    Interestingly, whether I place the image in a 96 or 72 ppi document in Photoshop CS5, I see no division lines, and the square stays all black (except for anti-aliasing at the edges).

     

    Looks like an obvious regression.  I'm surprised it's been allowed to remain.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,977 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2013 9:42 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel do you think that Adobe management will have their programmers fix a bug like this one that is minor and effect only the few users that notice thing like this.  It would be nice if Adobe fixed reported bugs however Adobe for years has only fixed major bugs and put bugs like this one their may be fixed is some future release bug list.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2013 9:54 AM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    [...] a bug like this one that is minor [...]

     

    Are you trying to be funny?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,977 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2013 12:05 PM   in reply to conroy

    No its not funny at all it just seems to be the way Adobe does thing.  While for some its a major problem Adobe may not classify it as a major problem to be fixed. I've been trying to get two bugs they added to Photoshop in CS4 since CS5 I skipped CS4.  They also have not fix the bug I reported ic CS6.  There many bugs in CS6 that have been reported and not fixed. It the way Adobe supports its customers. A management problem.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,456 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2013 6:14 PM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    Noel do you think that Adobe management will have their programmers fix a bug like this one that is minor and effect only the few users that notice thing like this.  It would be nice if Adobe fixed reported bugs however Adobe for years has only fixed major bugs and put bugs like this one their may be fixed is some future release bug list.

     

    Can't say.  I know I certainly wouldn't consider leaving any reproducible customer reported bugs unfixed across a major release.  I personally don't even leave any internally reported bugs unfixed across a minor update.

     

    Adobe management would say they have a sustainable strategy that produces value and it would actually be hard to argue with that, inasmuch as it's tough to argue with success - the product DOES sell for a crapload of money.

     

    But honestly, it's just possible management needs a few more engineers and a few less marketeers.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,977 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2013 6:24 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Most programmers feel that way bugs major or minor they all should be exterminated.

     

    Yes Adobe just seems to be market driven.  At one time I was involved in a project that was driven by marketeers. The ones I worked for were a strange group individuals with inflated egos. They were even more concerned with impressing upper management then the market.

     
    |
    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