PDA

View Full Version : Exr-IO free OpenEXR plugin for Photoshop



IgorPosavec
12-06-2016, 03:35 PM
Hello to all

sorry for starting with the advert, but i wanted to write here about news and ask at the same time for Lightwave help; it would help me to finish the Lightwave <-OpenEXR-> Photoshop tutorial. I am sure many younger 3d artists may profit from such know-how.

As first, here is the Exr-IO (http://www.exr-io.com) (www.exr-io.com (http://www.exr-io.com)), a free interchange plugin for working with 3d artworks in Photoshop. It imports all image channels from OpenEXR file into separate Photoshop layers. More than that, it has support for DeepPixels, accurate support for chromaticities and color formats, OpenEXR display window specification, MultiTile Pictures and actually every single feature Industrial Light&Magic has delivered. As far as i know, it is one of the most complete EXR loaders and writers that exists.


https://youtu.be/K54bQJkO9Dw


You can see some of the images on the homepage - they are done with Lightwave. I am still regular Lightwave user, and i want to finish a video tutorial for creating and exporting LW Image Buffers so that they can work in PS
(look at my videos to Vray and Arnold, the image buffer logic is very simple -> EXR Tutorials (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7GFCN2Gr86jNnPhGoAM_g3qdRojmxKbf))


135241

I have exported and tried almost all possible logical combination in Photoshop, which work in Vray, Mentalray and Arnold, but none of them creates a final look. In other renderers it is mostly DirectDiffuse+IndirectDiffuse+DirectReflect+Indire ctReflect (depends how renderer calls it)

LightWave Buffers are great, but for me not able to merge together in a final image. What did i oversee?
With this info, i would be able to create a final video tutorial for LW :)

thanks in advance for your help!
best regards

djwaterman
12-06-2016, 07:23 PM
Please can some one answer this.

djwaterman
12-07-2016, 12:11 AM
Gerardstrada, Lino or someone from LW3DG to answer this and get LW on the website of this great plugin. He's willing to make the tutorial but needs the basic info, and so do I, it's one of the reason I don't make use of the EXR buffer export from Lightwave as there is no good info on how to re-comp these all back to get the final render. What's the point if they can't be recombined successfully?

rustythe1
12-07-2016, 01:08 AM
is it just as simple as being the export colour space? I think by default the output colour space is different to the f9 and vpr space (usually on a new install one is set to srgb and the rest are linear)

- - - Updated - - -

i had issues with the same thing a while back and not sure i solved it for my self to be honest

rustythe1
12-07-2016, 01:12 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4sVez6aC5E
maybe this tut might help if some one has time to watch it?

Otterman
12-07-2016, 07:09 AM
This looks cool....How is this any different to fnords ProEXR apart from being free? Just asking as a ProEXR user.

I would love to have some way of automating layer stacking and layer mode to automatically create the beauty pass. It's a real ball ache having to do this each time.

Using Maya it's easy however I have always had problems with Lightwaves passes. Would love to know the magic formula.

djwaterman
12-07-2016, 09:51 AM
It's kind of ridiculous that no one knows how to replicate the beauty pass with the output from LightWave, perhaps we're just dumb motor scooters or it's a serious flaw in LightWave's output passes, but we need to know either way.

Otterman
12-07-2016, 10:00 AM
isn't something like multiple the raw with the diffuse then above this linear dodge the refraction, reflection and spec?

jwiede
12-07-2016, 10:07 AM
This looks cool....How is this any different to fnords ProEXR apart from being free? Just asking as a ProEXR user.

I'd love to hear any answers to the above as well, what are any benefits over Fnord's ProEXR?

samurai_x
12-07-2016, 10:55 AM
I'd love to hear any answers to the above as well, what are any benefits over Fnord's ProEXR?

Its free.
But so is Fusion.

IgorPosavec
12-07-2016, 01:23 PM
Hello to everyone!

Hey, this is great feedback, i did not expect so much input in 24h :D

Thanks for the Youtube Video, this is good starting point: i think i can build on this. It is a bit puzzling that you can't create 4 base light/shade passes out of LightWave in a simple way, this could be a feature request,.

- FUSION
As first the one from "samurai_X". Fusion and Photoshop are two different image processing solutions. It is like comparing Word and InDesign or so.
It is very difficult to compare them. Let us start with the first mistake in this comparison:
Fusion is NOT free. I mean you can have the demo, or the "light-version" or how they call it "Indi-Version" as free download. But if you want try to import an image that is larger then 1920x1080, you have to draw your CreditCard from the pocket and pay USD 1000,-. It is basically enough for students and small video productions, but if you load 4K renderings, stereoscopic data, RAW Camera footages and so on, you have to pay. Meanwhile YouTube offer you 4K upload by default.

Fusion is more video post-processing software, a node based image or sequence calculation than retouching and painting application. You work on cinematic frames, chromakey stuff, do great color-grading. You have few bezier mask tools and one brush in it, but i have never seen in my whole life that someone did image analysis, preparation for print magazines, poster or screen design or even photo retouch with it. You can not even make a custom radial gradient in it! This is a domain of Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop is for editing photos. Not every artists likes to retouch and paint with natural brushes and sensitive Wacom-Pen in Fusion, and i have no idea how to create a video tutorial "how to apply photo filter effects using gradient maps" or "dodge and burn skin tones and sharpen eyebrows" for Nuke or Fusion: therefore, the one approach was to bring EXR directly into Photoshop, at the best way it is possible concerning Adobe trashy SDK...

- John W
"I'd love to hear any answers to the above as well, what are any benefits over Fnord's ProEXR?"
Thanks for this questions: conceptually both do the same thing. The approach was a bit different, we are working here since years on small and large VFX Productions (some Emmy Award series too). It was always a half hour of extreme stupid work to convert all EXR promo shots or frames for matte-painting in Fusion and export them to PS for retouch. The problem appeared when you have multiple Photoshop artists across the world, to whom you send this EXR images to work overnight. Not every artist in India or Russia has ProEXR. The things got very complicated. I asked our development to make me solution for this case, so we can finish the jobs.
We have created in-house solution for our productions to read EXR in PS, in order to do retouch or direct image editing.
The projects are over (i don't think i will do it again in the near future), we have no "top-secret" level here anymore, and we have decided therefore to send them back in internet, so everybody can profit from it.

I would not like to list the benefits of Exr-IO, I would like rather to list the benefits of ProEXR: it works on Apple computers; we are Windows house, and none of our artists or studios has ever asked for Mac version, so we never did it. For this you have ProEXR.

Exr-IO It has in core some advanced additional settings in chromaticity calculation (it is important for science analysis work), AutoCropping (Maya) or MultiPart (like MippMapping, you can save and load in PS an image consisting of many different image resolutions etc), full configuration to load and save files with all settings, and supports fully EXR2.0 specs.
It is free, you can supply whole studio pipeline with it to avoid some problems i have listed above. But if you have ProEXR already, and do basic EXR loading in PS, you wont notice some visible differences.

- Ottermann
Since each EXR comes with own named layers, it is not possible to do anything about it. Each EXR image has probably custom names in the layers - the only idea would be to make a Photoshop Action.

If any questions or proposals, please write it here to me, i am very glad to hear this kind of feedback and workflow problems/solutions for EXR in LW

thanks
best regards

samurai_x
12-07-2016, 09:20 PM
Fusion is NOT free. I mean you can have the demo, or the "light-version" or how they call it "Indi-Version" as free download. But if you want try to import an image that is larger then 1920x1080, you have to draw your CreditCard from the pocket and pay USD 1000,-. It is basically enough for students and small video productions, but if you load 4K renderings, stereoscopic data, RAW Camera footages and so on, you have to pay. Meanwhile YouTube offer you 4K upload by default.


The fusion free version lets you use ultra hd. Was that changed?

Anyway thanks for the free plugin.

m.d.
12-07-2016, 11:44 PM
- FUSION
As first the one from "samurai_X". Fusion and Photoshop are two different image processing solutions. It is like comparing Word and InDesign or so.
It is very difficult to compare them. Let us start with the first mistake in this comparison:
Fusion is NOT free. I mean you can have the demo, or the "light-version" or how they call it "Indi-Version" as free download. But if you want try to import an image that is larger then 1920x1080, you have to draw your CreditCard from the pocket and pay USD 1000,-. It is basically enough for students and small video productions, but if you load 4K renderings, stereoscopic data, RAW Camera footages and so on, you have to pay. Meanwhile YouTube offer you 4K upload by default.

Fusion is more video post-processing software, a node based image or sequence calculation than retouching and painting application. You work on cinematic frames, chromakey stuff, do great color-grading. You have few bezier mask tools and one brush in it, but i have never seen in my whole life that someone did image analysis, preparation for print magazines, poster or screen design or even photo retouch with it. You can not even make a custom radial gradient in it! This is a domain of Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop is for editing photos. Not every artists likes to retouch and paint with natural brushes and sensitive Wacom-Pen in Fusion, and i have no idea how to create a video tutorial "how to apply photo filter effects using gradient maps" or "dodge and burn skin tones and sharpen eyebrows" for Nuke or Fusion: therefore, the one approach was to bring EXR directly into Photoshop, at the best way it is possible concerning Adobe trashy SDK...



I have had Fusion back when I had to pay $5000 for it......the "light version" is very capable and can do 90% of what I need it to do....
RAW formats are totally supported in light.....as is UltraHD output (unlimited input resolution). You also can absolutely make a custom radial gradient in it....use the background tool and select the radial gradient :)

The main things you are missing is optical flow tools, plugins (the biggest missing feature), and stereoscopic
But if someone is rendering out 8k stereoscopic and cant afford a $1000 piece of software something is wrong.

I have both types of licenses and will often use the free one....
But you are right....Fusion and PS are totally different beasts, and PS is absolutely the way to go for still images.
Just wanted to point out the free version is not that limited for the average user (except for plugins)


That being said, your plugin looks awesome and look forward to giving it a whirl

Lewis
12-08-2016, 12:47 AM
Hi Igor!

Welcome to LW forums ad thanks for nice Freebie :).


Try this:
From LW CBE panel do export of these buffers:

1. Shaded Reflection
2. Shaded Difuse
3. Shaded Specular
4. Shaded Refraction

5. RGBA (this is Beauty for comparison)

Use 1,2,3,4 and set them all in Add/Linear Dodge in Pshop.
That should give you composed render back to look like Beauty pass.

Here is screengrab attached.



P.S. Jel razumiješ "naški" :)?

djwaterman
12-08-2016, 05:09 AM
Thanks Lewis, although I still get a slight difference compared to the beauty pass.

Lewis
12-08-2016, 05:14 AM
Thanks Lewis, although I still get a slight difference compared to the beauty pass.

Yes i've seen it but it's very slight, but try to switch Photoshop to 16bit instead 32bit i find photoshop not being greatest tool for 32bit depth images, it' s like 70% of PShop tools still don't work in 32bit mode :(.

IgorPosavec
12-08-2016, 05:56 AM
Hello Samurai

thanks :) , hey, i have checked - my wrong wording: you can load but you can't save :) its almost worse, since if i have 2200x2200 poster image i would like do in Fusion, it is not possible :(

135262

fishhead
12-08-2016, 09:36 AM
Well, with 2200 vertical res you will exceed the vertical of UHD by 40 Pixels. That might be it...

m.d.
12-08-2016, 12:45 PM
Hello Samurai

thanks :) , hey, i have checked - my wrong wording: you can load but you can't save :) its almost worse, since if i have 2200x2200 poster image i would like do in Fusion, it is not possible :(

135262

3840x2160 output limit.....dunno how much clearer it can be

IgorPosavec
12-08-2016, 02:07 PM
3840x2160 output limit.....dunno how much clearer it can be

Ok, the whole Fusion thing was now hijacked and went completely astray :)
The subject and the claim was: is Fusion free? No, it is not. We can talk about limitations.
My art exhibitions plates http://www.sa-po.com are between 16000px*9000px up to 22000px size (print size 2 or 3 meter, btw, modeling done in LW). Fusion is for me not free, i don't know how to describe else this condition.

Back to the subject:

@ m.d
Don't start with it - i could cry... i paid $5000 for VideoToaster with LW and Fusion. LW was dongled to VideoToaster. Later I updated for $2000 to Fusion 6. And now i can't use it, since it doesn't work on Win10.... I don't think there is an update option to Fusion 8 :(


@ Lewis
Hello Lewis, i think this is it, you have got it. I will try tomorrow to compose it on some complicated shots and if it works - it is much easier then i though :)
In other software the diffusion is split in direct (light) and indirect (gi and the rest) shading - as well as reflections. This gives much more control for compositing. But for the start, this could work. I will write asap how far i did come with the workflow, thanks!
and yes, "jos uvek razumem" :)

Thank you all very much for the great feedback, it is amazing to see again LW community helping!
till later
best regards

m.d.
12-08-2016, 02:25 PM
@ m.d
Don't start with it - i could cry... i paid $5000 for VideoToaster with LW and Fusion. LW was dongled to VideoToaster. Later I updated for $2000 to Fusion 6. And now i can't use it, since it doesn't work on Win10.... I don't think there is an update option to Fusion 8 :(




I hate to hear that....
I upgraded to FU7 and luckily got thrown into FU8.....I bought Fusion by itself however...but also owned a video toaster and tricaster, but they never included Fusion :)

Your works are very interesting, and no...for what you do Fusion is near useless compared to photoshop....even the paid version

As far as comping the buffer layers, yes Vray and Octane and others will split the render into direct and indirect lighting, as well as a RAW spec/refract/reflect and a spec/refract/reflect FILTER...which must be multiplied together before adding the other passes....LW is much more basic

The only caution would be to watch pre multiplied passes in semi transparent objects....they will be pre multiplied against black, which will make them slightly darker on assembling the beauty pass (unless the background is pure black) to avoid this all passes should be pre-divided by the alpha before reassembling...this could be the slight discrepancy seen in the reassembly....the result should be identical if done properly

djwaterman
12-09-2016, 01:38 AM
Please oh please elaborate more fully or explicit, I would love to know the exact passes for output and the post process of pre-dividing with the alpha, stacking order, multiply modes to bring back an accurate beauty pass. Everyone needs to know this.

Otterman
12-09-2016, 03:50 AM
Please oh please elaborate more fully or explicit, I would love to know the exact passes for output and the post process of pre-dividing with the alpha, stacking order, multiply modes to bring back an accurate beauty pass. Everyone needs to know this.

I second that! Ive never really found a combination of passes that allowed me to manipulate the raw colour without effecting the diffuse and vice versa

m.d.
12-09-2016, 12:56 PM
Gregory Chalenko (russian Fusion compositor) has the best summary going....

http://compositing.tv/Research/MultipassCompositing/

These passes directly relate to both Vray, and Octane as well as several others.
Lightwave is a bit different, but you should be able to reverse engineer the passes for the most part, from the formula given.

Mostly they are just additive, with the exception of the reflect/refract filters that need to be multiplied by their counterparts before adding.....the pre-dividing of the alpha may be less straightforward in photoshop than in Fusion of course....

Remember, internally LW is just combining these buffers....so the results should be identical when re-combining. Where most people get it wrong is the little things....small mistakes in the math that are barely visible.....but added together with other elements can make a mess of a comp.

EDIT: love your demo reel BTW Andrew :)

S0nny
12-12-2016, 03:03 AM
Guys, I don't know about Fusion, but what I do in AE is usually set Reflection and Specular using ADD over diffuse and I get 100% correct beauty, no difference at all.

edit: I'm talking about 16 or 32 bit files with linearized color space.

S0nny
12-12-2016, 03:57 AM
I found out a very old scene of mine I comped in AE, here's a low res and low aa test with just the essential passes:

135307 135308

In this example there's no specular because it's an HDRI lit scene (stil ADD, like reflection) but as you can see there is absolutely no differences in beauty pass.

Thomas Helzle
12-12-2016, 03:59 AM
Brilliant. I used the Otoy EXR import plugin for a while now but found it rather crappy.

Thank you very much!

As for the layers: Photoshop to this day has no real add like the one in After Effects, so this may be the problem...

Cheers,

Tom

m.d.
12-12-2016, 01:03 PM
I found out a very old scene of mine I comped in AE, here's a low res and low aa test with just the essential passes:

135307 135308

In this example there's no specular because it's an HDRI lit scene (stil ADD, like reflection) but as you can see there is absolutely no differences in beauty pass.

Run those passes with difference mode on the beauty and I think you'll see all your edges are dilated by a pixel or 2

m.d.
12-12-2016, 01:06 PM
Brilliant. I used the Otoy EXR import plugin for a while now but found it rather crappy.

Thank you very much!

As for the layers: Photoshop to this day has no real add like the one in After Effects, so this may be the problem...

Cheers,

Tom

Linear Dodge is Add

S0nny
12-13-2016, 10:42 AM
Run those passes with difference mode on the beauty and I think you'll see all your edges are dilated by a pixel or 2

Well, yes, but I guess it's because I just saved out everything with pre multiplied alpha and the matte over the backdrop with a stupidly low aa, just to do a fast beauty match. Or there's something else? I didn't notice it before, usually this is the way I get like 99% of the beauty pass, but now that I think of it the refraction pass is always a very small portion of the render.

Thomas Helzle
12-13-2016, 12:05 PM
Linear Dodge is Add

It behaves different for me than the add in AE.

Cheers,

Tom

gerardstrada
12-13-2016, 03:17 PM
Just in case, LW formula (in DP Render Buffer terms) is:

(((Radiosity Color * Diffuse) + DiffuseColorShade + SSS) * Raw Color) + Refraction Color + Specular Color + Reflection Color = Beauty

Where:

Radiosity Color is the indirect lighting

DiffuseColorShade is the direct lighting = (((Diffuse Color / Diffuse) / Raw Color) - Radiosity Color) - SSS)

SSS should be exported through DP ExtraBuffers from each surface or generated globally on the fly in DP Pixel Filter Node Editor. Both solutions depends on the type of SSS shader/material used.

There's an old article about some unconventional passes got with Denis Pontonnier Filters here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140617115130/http://lightwiki.com/wiki/Multipass_Rendering_with_Filter_Node_Editors

Could give you some ideas.

Many Thanks for the initiative!



Gerardo

m.d.
12-13-2016, 05:08 PM
It behaves different for me than the add in AE.

Cheers,

Tom

Set both to 23 bit linear color.....save out of PS in a tiff and import into AE and use the difference blending method....they should both be the same

The math is identical (A+B) it can be complicated by the fact that PS has 2 ways to handle transparency...opacity and fill

check this link
http://photoblogstop.com/photoshop/photoshop-blend-modes-explained#TheSpecial-8-BlendModes

I think the 'fill' values would translate into opacity in AE (not 100% sure though)

- - - Updated - - -


Just in case, LW formula (in DP Render Buffer terms) is:

(((Radiosity Color * Diffuse) + DiffuseColorShade + SSS) * Raw Color) + Refraction Color + Specular Color + Reflection Color = Beauty

Where:

Radiosity Color is the indirect lighting

DiffuseColorShade is the direct lighting = (((Diffuse Color / Diffuse) / Raw Color) - Radiosity Color) - SSS)

SSS should be exported through DP ExtraBuffers from each surface or generated globally on the fly in DP Pixel Filter Node Editor. Both solutions depends on the type of SSS shader/material used.

There's an old article about some unconventional passes got with Denis Pontonnier Filters here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140617115130/http://lightwiki.com/wiki/Multipass_Rendering_with_Filter_Node_Editors

Could give you some ideas.

Many Thanks for the initiative!



Gerardo


I remember that article.... :) great stuff

S0nny
12-14-2016, 02:09 AM
If anybody is interested I still have a clean 13mb pdf saved from the original wiki page. I took the habit to save Gerardo's technical stuff for archive :thumbsup:

allabulle
12-14-2016, 04:44 AM
If there's no problem with sharing that, I'd love to have that pdf, yes. Thanks!

Otterman
12-14-2016, 04:47 AM
PM'd you Sonny. I too would love that PDF. Fascinating whats inside Gerardos head

fishhead
12-14-2016, 05:04 AM
Second that! Sign me up, too!

S0nny
12-14-2016, 05:05 AM
Here's the direct link (http://tinyurl.com/gmju4eu) to dropbox.

I guess there is no problem to share it, it was meant to be public and still in the webarchive, but if Gerardo has problems with it I'll remove it.

allabulle
12-14-2016, 05:26 AM
Thanks!

Otterman
12-14-2016, 05:43 AM
Here's the direct link (http://tinyurl.com/gmju4eu) to dropbox.

I guess there is no problem to share it, it was meant to be public and still in the webarchive, but if Gerardo has problems with it I'll remove it.

Darn it...blocked as I'm at work. Have to wait till I get home. Thanks Sonny and of course Gerardo

gerardstrada
12-14-2016, 09:49 AM
SOnny, of course. Thanks for sharing!

Thomas, perhaps as m.d. is poiting out, the difference between Ps and Ae setup is the linear space. It can be solved either by using a linear colorspace (16-bpc/32-bpc) or by using Blend RGB Colors Using Gamma 1.0. This provides a more "natural" blending.

Thanks again to Igor Posavec for the initiative and so useful tool!



Gerardo

Thomas Helzle
12-14-2016, 10:14 AM
I just tried again:

A dark blue background, exactly the same numerically in PS CS6 and AE CS5.5. A blurred Text above it, copied two times with add as layer mode. Both are 8 bit.

Photoshop:
http://www.screendream.de/stuff/AddPS.jpg

AfterEffects:
http://www.screendream.de/stuff/AddAE.jpg

Note how dull the add in PS is.

This is how it always has been for me, one reason why I sometimes did still images in AE.

Cheers,

Tom

gerardstrada
12-14-2016, 10:28 AM
Thomas, probably you are not "Blending Colors using Gamma 1.0" in Ae? For getting consistent results if you use this option in Ps, same option should be enabled in Ae (Project Settings) or vice versa. It's also a good practice to promote images to higher bit-depths as possible.



Gerardo

Thomas Helzle
12-14-2016, 10:38 AM
Thomas, probably you are not "Blending Colors using Gamma 1.0" in Ae?
With Gamma 1.0 in AE I get this:
http://www.screendream.de/stuff/AddAE_Gamma1.0.jpg
Totally different again.

Sure, high colour depth is nicer but shouldn't make a difference if both are the same.
I have never been able to match the add in AE in default settings in PS. It's the most beautiful thing ever, you can literally paint with light in AE.

Cheers,

Tom

gerardstrada
12-14-2016, 10:50 AM
With Gamma 1.0 in AE I get this:
http://www.screendream.de/stuff/AddAE_Gamma1.0.jpg
Totally different again.

Sure, high colour depth is nicer but shouldn't make a difference if both are the same.
I have never been able to match the add in AE in default settings in PS. It's the most beautiful thing ever, you can literally paint with light in AE.

Cheers,

Tom

It's not surprising you are getting different results because your settings in Ae and Ps are also different. In your first sample images, you are using non-linear sRGB with colors blended at 1.0 gamma in PS, while in Ae you are using non-linear gamma space and you are not blending colors with 1.0 gamma. In your last test you are "Linearizing the Working Space" in Ae, while in Ps you are using sRGB gamma with colors blended with gamma 1.0. Not the same thing. In order to get consistent results we need to use same settings.

What I was referring you do in Ae is just to check the option "Blend Colors using 1.0 Gamma", not linearizing the working space as you did. If you linearize your working space, you'd need also to use linear space in Ps to match same results.

Then, for matching your Ps results shown in your first sample, you just need to check "Blend Colors using 1.0 Gamma" without linearizing the working space.

Hope it helps,



Gerardo

Thomas Helzle
12-14-2016, 11:22 AM
What I was referring you do in Ae is just to check the option "Blend Colors using 1.0 Gamma", not linearizing the working space as you did. If you linearize your working space, you'd need also to use linear space in Ps to match same results.

Then, for matching your Ps results shown in your first sample, you just need to check "Blend Colors using 1.0 Gamma" without linearizing the working space.
That is actually exactly what I did...
Linearize Working Space is greyed out.

But I do not try to recreate the ugly result of PS in AE, but to get the result I posted first from AE at defaults in PS. If you know a solution to that, I'm all ears ;-)

Cheers,

Tom

gerardstrada
12-14-2016, 11:33 AM
That is actually exactly what I did...
Linearize Working Space is greyed out.

But I do not try to recreate the ugly result of PS in AE, but to get the result I posted first from AE at defaults in PS. If you know a solution to that, I'm all ears ;-)

Cheers,

Tom

Are you sure Linearize Working Space is greyed out?

Anyway, send me your Ae project and matching same results in PS will be more clear :)



Gerardo

Thomas Helzle
12-14-2016, 11:44 AM
Hey Gerardo,

thanks a lot for your help, here is the file:
http://www.screendream.de/stuff/AE_Add.aep
AE CS5.5 at default settings...

I hope I don't derail the thread here...
But it may help others too.

Cheers,

Tom

gerardstrada
12-14-2016, 12:55 PM
You are totally right, Thomas. Linearize Working Space is greyed out!

I've noticed the difference between Ae in Ps is not actually the colorspace setup but instead the Gaussian Blur over the Text layer seems to be applied differently in both packages. Since I don't have the font you used in Ae and since it's easier to match the Blur scale in this way, I've exported the blurred text layer from Ae - which looked like this:

https://s27.postimg.org/505ma8rsz/Test_bw.jpg

You were not using a working space, so I used standard sRGB profile without linearizing and without blending colors with gamma 1.0. the result look like this:

https://s29.postimg.org/kotp2dj9j/Ae_Result.jpg

In Ps, used the same setup as in Ae with sRGB space and no linear blending mode (which is what you want to match), used Linear Dodge:

https://s24.postimg.org/90zn7yjud/Ps_Result.jpg

As we see, same results.

But what if we want to reproduce same thing within PS all the way? I made this with Arial font, but you get the idea... We need to group each text Ps layer with a solid (black in this case) apply the blur to this group of layers and set Linear Dodge for them in order to match the way Ae is handling text layers.

https://s29.postimg.org/6tpvm6z1x/Ps_Text.jpg

It's very understandable you have thought PS' Linear Dodge and Ae's Add blending modes were different in this context.

Greetings,



Gerardo

Thomas Helzle
12-14-2016, 01:25 PM
Wow, this is the weirdest solution ever - thanks a lot for taking the time.
I probably will still use AE for this kind of thing instead of going through all the pain in PS, but it's very interesting that it is more a problem of how PS handles transparency than of the add mode.
You unravelled one of the biggest mysteries of PS for me after about two decades of using it...

:bowdown:

Cheers!

Tom