Does the edit- transform function do anything like the effect you want?
As Photoshop is a 2D application, it only has 2D Cartesian coordinates, the Z axis can be simulated, as Donald said, by using the various Transform options.
I beg to differ. There is a z-stack in most applications that use layers and it is the ordering of layers itself.
For example:
1 – open an image in Photoshop
2 – create a new layer
3 – insert any filled object into the new layer and notice that it obscures part or parts of the background layer.
Hence in an application with layer X-Y positioning seems common knowledge but ordering in the layer stack does not?
Ordering in the layer stack corresponds to a discrete Z axis of sorts.
Projective 3D into 2D space is sort of a different thing altogether.
A simple example is that projective 3D can have triangles that interior angles sum to more that 180 degrees and that, of corse, happens in a 2D plane.
Deebs
How on earth does your interpretation of z axis relate to the original poster’s question, where he wants to rotate something on the z-axis. How do layers help this?
Overlaying a bunch of 2d images(layers) over one another does not constitute a Z axis.
There used to be a Filter>Render>3D filter that does an OK job of emulating a Z axis. It doesnt install by default anymore, but it should be in the Goodies folder on the install disc.
Ok – just imagine that there is no implicit z-axis at all if you wish.
Now, where is this mythical z-axis that has ceased to exist in your imaginings?
The effect described by the OP is or seems to be a perspective effect (3D perspective onto or into a 2D plane is quite a well defined mathematical thing. Where is Gernot when he is required?)
It can even be a pseudo-perspective effect in the sense that it does not need to be mathematically robust as, for example, navigational aids may need to be precise and accurate. In digital imagery provided it looks right it probably is right.
(Maybe more of a philosophical observation)
Anything that is viewed in print, video, or just about anything else that isnt real life or hologram is going to be 2D. You cant just take a image of something, turn it on it’s side and actually see the sides of the image.
You can take the subject, turn it on it’s side, and take a new image. Or do the same in software that truly recognize the Z axis, with decent modeling.
In Photoshop, the free transform can accomplish the illusion of depth. You wont instantly see the ‘sides’ of the transformed image, unless you use 3D software…or fake it (read: photoshopping)
If all that the OP needs is the *illusion* of depth (w/o actually adding depth of field), then PS’s free transform is the quickest way.
Still not 3D.
Vague illusion of, yes.
Does Adobe do a proper 3D application?
Illustrator has some 3D-ish components and they are rather pleasant but a full blown 3D application may need different engines to what Photoshop has?
They used to make Adobe Elements (If I remember correctly). It was a fairly basic 3D app, but useful for some things. <br><br>There are some 3rd party photoshop plug-ins that can do a decent job of 3D’ing for most simple tasks. <br><br>Heck, even illustrator now has an extrude feature that introduces a Z axis.
OK loosing my mind here (hectic work week(s) – obviously it wasnt called Elements – I should know that with all the Elements questions we see here.
It was called Dimensions.
<
http://www.adobe.com/products/dimensions/index.html>
I actually liked the software, it was fairly limited but very easy to learn, and a good entry level start for someone not familiar with 3d software.
OK loosing my mind here
That’s okay, you found it again within 7 hours. I have to admit I said "whaaaat" when told there was 3D in Elements. But I’ve never used Elements, so I couldn’t dispute it.
