5 Replies Latest reply on May 10, 2012 8:22 AM by Noel Carboni

    PSD Versus PSB file extensions

    MikeKPhoto Level 2

      This may be a dumb question, but what, apart from PSB's ability to handle very large files, are the advantages of one over the other?

       

      Reason I ask is the PS Autorecover file has a PSB extension, which I guess enables the feature to handle any file size. So if it is used to recover your work, why do we need to continue to have two formats. Why not just one?

       

      Just Asking

       

      MK

        • 1. Re: PSD Versus PSB file extensions
          Noel Carboni Level 8

          At first glance what you say makes sense, but there's history involved.

           

          An advantage to PSD is that more programs can read it, simply because it's been around longer.  That means PSB is less well-integrated into the computing environment in general.

           

          For example, the codec pack I bought doesn't make thumbnails for PSB files.  IrfanView can't read a PSB.  There are others.

           

          If enough people request the creators of the other software to add PSB to the stable of formats they work with then we'll eventually get there.

           

          -Noel

          3 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: PSD Versus PSB file extensions
            MikeKPhoto Level 2

            I had thought of that, and maybe there will be support for PSB's in the future. But was curious as Adobe uses the PSB extension for PS Auto Recover and wondered if this miight be a future clue for Adobe going forward?

             

            With the new camera technology I am seeing very large file sizes, really easy with a Nikon D800 NEF and a bunch of layers to begin banging on file sizes of close to 2 GB; and I don't see this changing and probably see even higher resolution cameras in the not too distant future.  So the file size handling will become a challenge that will need to be addressed.

             

            MK

            • 3. Re: PSD Versus PSB file extensions
              station_one Level 3

              MikeKPhoto wrote:

               

              … why do we need to continue to have two formats. Why not just one?…

               

               

              Another thing to keep in mind is that Photoshop uses the PSB format to save Smart Objects inside image files, so if you ever save SO Layers to files, you have PSB files.

               

              Now, you're not remotely suggesting that Adobe drop support for the PSD format, are you? 

               

              I can't even imagine what motivated you to ask that question. 

               

               

              .

               

              Message was edited by: station_one

              • 4. Re: PSD Versus PSB file extensions
                station_one Level 3

                Besides, it's not just "two" formats.  Adobe also owns or controls the TIFF format and supports all kinds of different formats like GIF, EPS, JPEG, PNG, BMP, Targa, etc., etc.:

                Picture 33.png

                • 5. Re: PSD Versus PSB file extensions
                  Noel Carboni Level 8

                  I can't even imagine what motivated you to ask that question. 

                   

                   

                  The one thing I can think of is that if PSB worked as seamlessly as PSD in all my other tools, I'd probably just save PSB files for all my master file needs, since that would be the simplest way and it would work for everything.

                   

                  Funny thing was that when I contacted the FastPictureViewer folks they seemed to assume that PSB would only be used for giant files.  There is of course no necessity for that.

                   

                  I wonder if we'll ever exceed the limitations of 64 bits.  Perhaps Skynet will have taken over the world by then.

                   

                  -Noel

                  1 person found this helpful