Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

CS3 and image stacking

Expand Messages
  • Andrey Ilyin
    Now I understand why only some lucky could do this trick with image stacking - they used beta of CS3 Extended!
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 27, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Now I understand why only some lucky could do this trick with image
      stacking - they used beta of CS3 Extended!

      http://photoshopnews.com/2007/03/27/image-stacks-in-photoshop-cs3-
      extended/
    • rogerhoward@rogerroger.org
      ... This was a feature that was never made clear it would only be in CS3 Extended :( If that s the case, I wonder why it was even visible (though not
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 28, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mar 27, 2007, at 10:32 PM, Andrey Ilyin wrote:

        > Now I understand why only some lucky could do this trick with image
        > stacking - they used beta of CS3 Extended!
        >
        > http://photoshopnews.com/2007/03/27/image-stacks-in-photoshop-cs3-
        > extended/

        This was a feature that was never made clear it would only be in CS3
        Extended :(

        If that's the case, I wonder why it was even visible (though not
        functional) in the public beta... weird.
      • robert_harshman
        ... It s not weird, just good product marketing. Think about it, if your the product manager for Photoshop you would probably love it if everyone purchased
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 28, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          > If that's the case, I wonder why it was even visible (though not
          > functional) in the public beta... weird.
          >

          It's not weird, just "good" product marketing. Think about it, if
          your the product manager for Photoshop you would probably love it if
          everyone purchased the extended version. The upgrade is almost double
          the price verses the lets call it crippled version.

          So how do you get the most people to upgrade to the extended version,
          you show them feaures they don't have. But it's not enough to do
          that, you make sure they can kind of see what they are missing
          everytime they use the product by those grey out menus. :)

          And, it's also a lot easier to keep the code streams the same as long
          as possible and there were probably some internal debates about
          whether to split PS, and then what to leave in and out.

          I would guess that the feaure Roger developed the tutorial for was/is
          intended by Adobe to only be useful for film/video producers that
          want to remove something across a series of frames or ....

          Regards,

          Robert
        • Luca Vascon
          Uh.... Let s integrate something similar in the GIMP. and let Adobe on its own!!! I just want to shift opensource, and left all behind. ... From:
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 28, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Uh....
            Let's integrate something similar in the GIMP. and let Adobe on its own!!!
            I just want to shift opensource, and left all behind.

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: rogerhoward@...
            To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:48 PM
            Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] CS3 and image stacking



            On Mar 27, 2007, at 10:32 PM, Andrey Ilyin wrote:

            > Now I understand why only some lucky could do this trick with image
            > stacking - they used beta of CS3 Extended!
            >
            > http://photoshopnews.com/2007/03/27/image-stacks-in-photoshop-cs3-
            > extended/

            This was a feature that was never made clear it would only be in CS3
            Extended :(

            If that's the case, I wonder why it was even visible (though not
            functional) in the public beta... weird.




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • rogerhoward@rogerroger.org
            ... It was more developed for scientific applications, as I understand it. That said, I was thinking it was weird because we were specifically admonished not
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 28, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:42 AM, robert_harshman wrote:

              > >
              > > If that's the case, I wonder why it was even visible (though not
              > > functional) in the public beta... weird.
              > >
              >
              > It's not weird, just "good" product marketing. Think about it, if
              > your the product manager for Photoshop you would probably love it if
              > everyone purchased the extended version. The upgrade is almost double
              > the price verses the lets call it crippled version.
              >
              > So how do you get the most people to upgrade to the extended version,
              > you show them feaures they don't have. But it's not enough to do
              > that, you make sure they can kind of see what they are missing
              > everytime they use the product by those grey out menus. :)
              >
              > And, it's also a lot easier to keep the code streams the same as long
              > as possible and there were probably some internal debates about
              > whether to split PS, and then what to leave in and out.
              >
              > I would guess that the feaure Roger developed the tutorial for was/is
              > intended by Adobe to only be useful for film/video producers that
              > want to remove something across a series of frames or ....

              It was more developed for scientific applications, as I understand it.

              That said, I was thinking it was "weird" because we were specifically
              admonished not to discuss "Photoshop Extended" features (as no one
              yet knew they were launching a new Photoshop product) and to keep any
              public discussion limited to features found in the public beta, which
              was meant to be representative of the featureset to be found in the
              final, main version of Photoshop.

              As Adobe has been pretty adamant about, they aren't looked at
              Extended as an upsell - either it does what you need, or it doesn't.
              The vast, vast majority of current Photoshop users will have no
              reason to pay extra for Extended, and Adobe isn't looking to convince
              them otherwise. This was (and I believe them) simply a way to fund
              development of extra features a small, but valuable market wanted to
              see in Photoshop, without having to make the product even more
              complex for most users.

              -Rh
            • rogerhoward@rogerroger.org
              ... It was more developed for scientific applications, as I understand it. That said, I was thinking it was weird because we were specifically admonished not
              Message 6 of 7 , Mar 28, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:42 AM, robert_harshman wrote:

                > >
                > > If that's the case, I wonder why it was even visible (though not
                > > functional) in the public beta... weird.
                > >
                >
                > It's not weird, just "good" product marketing. Think about it, if
                > your the product manager for Photoshop you would probably love it if
                > everyone purchased the extended version. The upgrade is almost double
                > the price verses the lets call it crippled version.
                >
                > So how do you get the most people to upgrade to the extended version,
                > you show them feaures they don't have. But it's not enough to do
                > that, you make sure they can kind of see what they are missing
                > everytime they use the product by those grey out menus. :)
                >
                > And, it's also a lot easier to keep the code streams the same as long
                > as possible and there were probably some internal debates about
                > whether to split PS, and then what to leave in and out.
                >
                > I would guess that the feaure Roger developed the tutorial for was/is
                > intended by Adobe to only be useful for film/video producers that
                > want to remove something across a series of frames or ....

                It was more developed for scientific applications, as I understand it.

                That said, I was thinking it was "weird" because we were specifically
                admonished not to discuss "Photoshop Extended" features (as no one
                yet knew they were launching a new Photoshop product) and to keep any
                public discussion limited to features found in the public beta, which
                was meant to be representative of the featureset to be found in the
                final, main version of Photoshop.

                As Adobe has been pretty adamant about, they aren't looked at
                Extended as an upsell - either it does what you need, or it doesn't.
                The vast, vast majority of current Photoshop users will have no
                reason to pay extra for Extended, and Adobe isn't looking to convince
                them otherwise. This was (and I believe them) simply a way to fund
                development of extra features a small, but valuable market wanted to
                see in Photoshop, without having to make the product even more
                complex for most users.

                -Rh
              • Carel
                ... I have tried the free astronomy program DeepSkyStacker but there were still some ghosts left. Iris is a very complete and complex astronomy image
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 1 1:44 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Luca Vascon wrote:
                  >
                  > Uh....
                  > Let's integrate something similar in the GIMP. and let Adobe on its own!!!
                  > I just want to shift opensource, and left all behind.
                  >

                  I have tried the free astronomy program "DeepSkyStacker" but there were
                  still some ghosts left. "Iris" is a very complete and complex astronomy
                  image manipulation program that also has median stacking, which I have not
                  tried yet.

                  Then I found SAR Image Processor: http://www.general-cathexis.com/
                  It has some very interesting features, including extended focus stacking and
                  it also has "Multivariate Median Stacking", which works very well and seems
                  to do the same as CS3 Extended for removing objects. It is not freeware
                  ($35), but that still makes it a lot cheaper than CS3 Extended and SAR has a
                  number of very usefull other abilities as well, f.i. texture and Tschumperle
                  Inpainting.

                  Carel Struycken

                  --
                  View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CS3-and-image-stacking-tf3477249.html#a9781948
                  Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.