Oil Paint Feature Request: Preview / No Preview Capability

Question

A feature notably absent from the Oil Paint filter is any way to temporarily disable the effect (e.g., not preview it).
I happen to like using Oil Paint to make refllections in the surface of water smoother and more "liquid" (which involves turning off the "Shine"), and it would really be nice if I could easily gauge the amount of the effect easily by blinking back and forth between original and processed image with a quick "disable preview" functionality.
With most standard filters, one can either uncheck a [ ] Preview box, and/or click the mouse button down on the image to temporarily show what the image is like without the effect.
Yes, I know I can turn the Stylization down to 0.1 and see how a very minimal amount of the effect can be  applied.  And I can look at the original image in Photoshop proper, but of course that can't be zoomed while the Oil Paint filter is active.
Also, the zooming / panning seems kind of stiffly implemented.
In summary, the more or less standard and expected filter features I'd like to see added to this (new class of) GPU-accelerated filters are:
Preview/No Preview capability.  It doesn't have to update Photoshop, just the preview display in the filter itself.  I suggest a [  ] Preview checkbox and/or an on-mouse-click temporary effect disable.
Modal click and drag Zooming vs. Panning - i.e., based on a Zoom or Pan function selected (e.g., via an icon along the left) vs. having to hold modifier keys down.  I personally would want it set to Zoom by default, not Pan.  Since the filter has scroll bars (a Good Thing), I would have thought Zoom would have been a better default as it is.
I have implemented these things in my own GPU-accelerated plug-ins, so I know that all the infrastructure Adobe needs to support them is already in there.  These changes are controls only and should be trivial to implement.
P.S., There may be well-meaning folks amongst you who will want to suggest I post this over on Photoshop.com.  Not going to happen.  That forum is even more irritating than this one, and frankly I want little to do with it.  I think the concept of public voting on features is ridiculous.  If Adobe sees this here and chooses to consider it, fine.  If not, fine.
-Noel

Answer 1

c.pfaffenbichler wrote:
While I can’t find the thread currently I think Mr.Cox commented on one occasion that the expenditure of updating the older filters’ (like Radial Blur) interface would have to be justified with (extensive) documentation of advantages and/or what-not.
As a user it just seems clear that Filters should appear homogenous, but the persons holding the purse strings seem to have another take on the issue.
TRUE!  I have long been critical of Adobe's reluctance to revisit older parts of their software and bring them up to date, so as a result we users have to live with a hodge-podge of variations on the UI - and also more importantly in functionality.  Why, for example, doesn't someone think it's important to fund development to bring all the older artistic filters up to date so they work on 16 bit data?  There really is an obvious downside to Adobe having no competition.  The product has gotten damned sloppy as a result.  For example, an engineer developing a new feature can pick and choose from any number of other features already in existence (however outdated) and make the new one work the same way, claiming compatibility with something already there, and thus "good enough".
-Noel