Skip to navigation

PCPro-Computing in the Real World Printed from www.pcpro.co.uk

Register to receive our regular email newsletter at http://www.pcpro.co.uk/registration.

The newsletter contains links to our latest PC news, product reviews, features and how-to guides, plus special offers and competitions.

// Home / Blogs

Posted on June 23rd, 2010 by Tom Arah

Photoshop Extended vs Informatix Piranesi

A while back I wrote a piece asking What is the point of Photoshop Extended? The underlying technology is undoubtedly brilliant allowing you to import fully-textured 3D models into your flat images, but the implementation is awkward and intimidating. Beyond adding some extruded text (or should that be “repousséd”?) I doubt whether many users have ever even touched the 3D menu.

blog piranesi

This might suggest that I can’t see the point of trying to mix the two worlds of bitmap editing and 3D. That’s absolutely not the case. These days 3D is moving centre stream wherever you look. Moreover the combination of 3D and pixel-based handling can unleash some extraordinary creative power. It’s just that it can be done so much better…

The program that succeeds where Photoshop fails is Piranesi from UK developer Informatix. You can read more about what it can do in my full review of the latest Piranesi 2010 Pro, but essentially the difference between the two programs is very simple. Piranesi works with its own EPix (Extended Pixel) bitmap format which stores depth information as well as colour information.

This enables some extraordinary and unique power such as the ability to quickly and creatively explore fully-perspectivized textures within your scene and to apply unique effects such as halftoning which takes into account the angle of the underlying surfaces and even the distance from the viewer.

Best of all is the ability to load flat bitmaps and 3D models and to place them in your scene. Under Photoshop Extended such imports are detached add-ons floating above the flat background; within Piranesi they immediately become a seamless part of the overall 3D composition – scaling automatically as you move them around the scene, partially hidden by objects in front of them, even casting accurate shadows.

This is true-3D photo-compositing and unlike Photoshop Extended’s awkward pseudo-3D handling, the resulting scenes automatically work as compositions and the process for creating them is actively enjoyable.

If you are at all interested in the creative possibilities of 3D, or just have an afternoon on your hands and want to see an extraordinary and unique program in action, I strongly recommend that you download the free trial of Piranesi.

I also strongly recommend that the Photoshop Extended development team does too. Under Informatix the wonders of EPix handling will remain a little-known secret; under Adobe, the format would instantly become a standard. The obvious immediate benefits would be for rendered stills from all 3D applications, but the potential goes far beyond that to include true-3D compositing within moving images and maybe even future 3D cameras.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted in: Rant, Real World Computing, Software

Permalink

Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

2 Responses to “ Photoshop Extended vs Informatix Piranesi ”

  1. Mike Baldwin Says:
    June 24th, 2010 at 9:41 am

    I’m not sure why you don’t make and render out to JPG or TIF your images in 3DMax or another 3D program and just tweek the final photo in Photoshop or another image editing program.I cant’t see the point of this or Photoshop extended at all.Unless of course the next versions become full 3D modeling and rendering apps and they decide to tread on AutoDesk’s toes !!

     
  2. Nigel Varley Says:
    June 24th, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Mike, your comments might on the surface seem valid but they miss the entire point of Pirenasi in that it provides MUCH more artistic ability than having to set up full 3D model renderings with textures and lighting and then capture them as bitmaps and then edit or tweek them and then post process them for artistic effect and then add extra ‘bits’ to the image that you may not have included in your 3D model and have to mask areas etc etc. you get the drift.
    As for Autodesk, they certainly do not have the monopoly on 3D modelling or rendering and are usually well behind everyone else in these areas. There are dozens of renderers and modellers out there that are better and or less expensive than Autodesk offerings.

     

Leave a Reply

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

* required fields

* Will not be published

SEARCH
SIGN UP

Your email:

Your password:

remember me

advertisement


Hitwise Top 10 Website 2010