How to get panel to display thumbnails sized to layer bounds instead of relative toentire document??

Question

There is an option for this, but it only partially works...and was wondering if there is something else I'm supposed to know about to make the feature work as described...?
I can turn on the option to display thumbnails .. bit in only works for bitmapped stuff.  None of my vector masks are shown at the size of their layer.  (Note -- I have layer shaped by transparency set to off -- meaning the layer is shaped by the vector mask and not any content.  This is confirmable by turning on the option to show layer bounds).
Yet, when I do this, it's obvious on the larger screen (if layer bounds are showing), that the vector takes up the full layer.  But in the thumbnail, I often can't even the shape at all -- not very helpful. 
So what am I missing?  How do I get the vector thumbnails to display the size of their layer?
Thanks!

Answer 1

That's definitely NOT the case in Photoshop...
If you use the 'move tool', and you have "show transform controls turned on', it will show you the
corners of the layer -- the actual size of the layer...
You can verify this by going in and and creating a paint layer, say 1000x1000.
Now create a shape some small fraction of that... Any closed vector and attach it to the
layer, with Layer->Mask->Vector.
now check out the size in 'move tool' -- it will be 1000x1000.
Now go into image blending options and uncheck 'transparency shapes layer'.
Now, the layer is shaped by the vector -- not the transparent edges where your canvas ended.
Now, if you use move tool, you will find the 'corner' of the layer positioned around the vector, not
around the 1000x1000 layer you just created.
To round out the demo, save a copy of your mask if you want, and go into the mask panel
and select 'vector'.  At the bottom, of the panel there is a tiny graphic of an arrow pointing down
onto a 'plane', (or layer).  indicating to apply the vector mask to the layer.  Do so.
Now go into blending options and recheck the 'transparency shapes layer.'
Try move again... Now note the bounding box is the SAME size as it was with the vector
attached... because you truncated the rest of the layer with the mask.  You now have a smaller
object... that is that size...  (I know... all this is very basic to a community professional), BUT
my point now, is that if the outline box that small bitmaped shape w/o the vector mask is only
say 100x100 (vs. before it was 1000x1000... and if it's the same size as BEFORE you
applied the mask WITH the vector there (but shaped/w/transparency off).  Then I would assert
that the since the outline box is showing the size of the layer -- the size of the layers are the same.
Therefore, the vector takes up the full size of a layer that is shaped by that vector mask.
p.s. has Mylène put out any hits since your pseudo?