CS5 - Wrap label around a cylinder (like wine label or pop can)

[tomaugerdotcom]

[This is not a Windows-specific question, I hate to exclude Mac users from this answer, but there is no platform-neutral forum here]

In Photoshop CS3 and earlier, taking a layer, such as a label for a wine bottle or jar, wrapping it around a 3D cylinder and compositing it to an image (of the actual jar or bottle) was almost trivially easy.

Unfortunately, with the advanced 3D tools available in CS4+, the simplicity of the Wrap > Cylinder option seems to have been lost.

Wrapping a complex texture around a cylinder (full coverage, top to bottom) is possible, but how about wrapping a label (especially one that has a die-cut ie: not full coverage)?

A couple of quick searches have surprisingly turned up no tutorials on the subject. Has what was once such a simple technique become so technical and obscure?

Can someone point me to a tutorial (written or video), or provide a list of steps here on this forum?

Thanks!

[tomaugerdotcom]

Oh my. Give a guy a soapbox, eh? Sorry for that last post novel. One parting shot.

If Adobe wants to seriously foray into 3D, I think they should do what they've done with other segments in which they identified a shortfall or opportunity: buy out someone with an existing suite (remember a little company called "Aldus"? or a slightly larger one called "Macromedia"? hehe). There's one contender out there that has been crying out for Adobe to wrap them into the fold for over a decade now: Strata. Strata Studio Pro (now called CX) has been static, almost unchanged, since 1.75, before the turn of the century. It was then, and still is, the most Adobe-like of any 3D software on the market; the workflow is elegant, simple, and again, modeled after AI/PS; they already have significant integration with Adobe (the PS plugins, the AI Enfold plugin etc). I'm just saying - you could integrate the Strata suite beautifully with CS, fix the bugs that have made Strata CX a non-contender in the 3D marketplace (they have yet to get their viewport tumbling right, and their boolean modeling tools are skittish at best), and you'd have yourself a real winner that is aimed squarely at your Photographer, Graphic Designer, Motion Graphics Artist (thinking AE here), Package Designer, Web Designer and Flash specialist. That's a really significant demographic that all would rejoice at a simple to use, yet powerful standalone 3D package, that don't need all the advanced features of a Maya or SoftImage or (gods forbid) 3DS MAX.

Anyway, that discussion is way out of scope and probably inappropriate, but I thought I'd put my 2c in. I'd be happy to take this discussion offline any time.

Tom

[tomaugerdotcom]

Sorry for posting (again) out of turn.

Just one more thing. I wouldn't want to leave you with the impression that I didn't think 3D had any business in Photoshop. On the contrary, my original question points to a very specific need that would benefit from some clever 3D rotoscoping controls. I just don't want to create Saturn and all it's rings using Photoshop (referring here to a project on Lynda.com).

Let's look at Tessa's question as the perfect use case. Photoshop has been the workhorse of graphic designers, realistically since layers came out. 3D plays a vital role in photomontage, photo-synthesizing, packaging design, and creative layout. I won't touch some of the other disciplines such as pure play photography or forensic imaging. So we have a real need for powerful but easy to use perspective and rotoscoping tools. Planes you could always do relatively easily freehand using Free Transform in free distort mode. But my OP - wrapping an image around a cylindrical object is another pretty basic use case that is only bogged down by unnecessary features at the moment. 

Consider the following fantasy workflow for Tessa's example:

- use a grid drawing tool similar to the old Vanishing point dialog to establish your reference ground plane to match perspective in the image

- drop a normal somewhere on this ground plane: ie the axis, perpendicular to the ground plane grid, that lines up to what will be our axis of revolution when we lathe the bottle shape. We are still rotoscoping against our reference image and the objective of this step is to allow us to establish the yaw and or pitch of our scene viz the bottle we will be latheing

- use the pen tool and trace one side of the bottle. Or maybe the whole thing. Now that we have our axis Photoshop candeduce the actual (orthographic) lathe profile

- at some point in this workflow a "lathe" layer might be created (I'm fantasizing here so I'm not trying to figure out how this might integrate with the current implementation of 3d)

- we grab our label and "group" it with the lathe layer a la Clipping Group where the lathe layer is the base layer in the group and the textures are indented above it in the layers palette.  This causes the label layer to be wrapped around the shape. Now we can use the move tool or free transform tool and position the label within the surface topology of the base layer - a toggle on the layers palette a la Visibility switch allows me to see the label layer unmapped ie flat, or mapped a la 3D paint on surface.

- at my discretion I can use the default lighting and surface settings. Or I can invoke q Global Lighting setting that maps to the f/x palette's Global Light setting for drop shadow and emboss (that would be pure genius to have a global lighting palette that allows multiple ligtsources on Layer Effects as well as 3D layers (or the 2.5D layer that I am suggesting here)

- an additional callout on my label layer allows me to access advanced texture properties using an interface identical in it's implementation to the layer f/x workflow and dialog boxes.

What's compelling in this little scenario is that it all feels very Photoshop-y. I have to learn a few new things but not an entire new workflow. This approach leverages off of familiar user interfaces, is tightly related to other core Photoshop concepts and just represents an enhancement as opposed to an entirely new subsystem.

T

Message was edited by: tomaugerdotcom: came back and added returns and fixed mistakes; Jive support for iPhone is horrible.

[SG...]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for all the replies and feedback. I haven't had time to reply, but will get to it soon.

regards,

steve

[tomaugerdotcom]

No worries Steve. I thought I had scared you off - I got a little excited when it felt like someone was listening to me. Like I said, give a guy a soapbox.... Any opportunity you have to continue the dialogue will be warmly welcomed!

T