Seeing Logan's post about "Favorite Image Editors" got me thinking...
Now, for the record I admit that beside being illustratively-impaired I may just be incredibly ignorant on the subject, and I welcome anyone to correct me on the following matter.
Raster Vs. Vector Graphics. Which is better? Which can we do without?
For the uninformed (and to state my own knowledge on the subject)...
Raster images are based off individual colored pixels. Raster image files are lines and lines of these pixels, and attempts to, say, enlarge the images spreads these pixels apart. Consequently, the larger a picture gets, the fuzzier it becomes. High resolution images have more pixels per area, so they require a lot more enlargement before the fuzziness becomes apparent.
Also, these pixels are why drawing curved lines will sometimes result in "boxyness" along the edges. Anyone can see this effect clearly in MS Paint, or any lo.w-res images.
Meanwhile vector images do not use pixels. Whereas pixel image data refers to "this many pixels at these coordinates at these colors" vector image data refers to only "Point A here, Point B there, and this color in-between." Basically a vector is just Point A and Point B; the computer virtually connects the points and fills in the color in-between. The end result is smaller in data size, and because it's only two points on a map, they can be scaled proportionally upwards and downwards. The overall image is kept sharp without fuzziness or loss of quality.
Now, as anyone who's used Photoshop (raster) and Illustrator (vector) can attest to, the two image types are very different beasts. Each has their own quirks and techniques and issues.
But...as resolutions become bigger, monitors become sharper (HD and beyond), and visuals become increasingly important do you think eventually it'll pay to just have vector graphics? Converters already exist for taking a preexisting image, like a photograph, and drawing vectors out of it.
Is Photoshop only truly useful for dealing with what raster images that remain? Or would it be better if Photoshop's abilities were retooled for vector graphics, or simply merged into Illustrator?
Can vector replace raster, is what I'm saying.
Posted by: Vince Ginsburg
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Vector programs may become more popular, but they will never replace raster programs. Photographs have pixels that are all different colors which makes them a bad candidate for vector. Changing the pixels into shapes would decrease quality and only distort the image in the case of photographs. Linear (meaning with a line like quality) images translate well into vector images. It’s possible that programs in the future may be hybrids between vector and raster and allow extensive editing of both inside them.
In a way 3-D computer graphics is a hybrid of vector and raster. The shapes are constructed of a series of points with x, y, z coordinates. They also use texture on each surface of the shape and these are raster images. If you have seen 3-D graphics without the textures you notice that they look ugly without them. If the 3-D shapes are too blocky it can also ruin 3-D images as well regardless of what texture is used. To make 3-D look alive and realistic, textures and shapes are used together.
Edward Perkins, Art 402
Post a Comment