Features that Expression has that Xara should have

[Xhris]

I wasn't criticising your post Xhris, just 'adding' my agreement and expanding on that.

I know

As for Xhris' line of "I don’t feel there’s a significant difference between image creation using pixels or vectors." I don't know how I could disagree more. It doesn't matter if we'd like for there to be no difference. There is a major technical chasm between the two approaches to graphics whether we like it or not.
J

I was referring to the implementation in a graphics program rather than the practical approach to creating art. Expression's approach is to make clear distinctions between pixel and vector methods. I'm thinking of new approaches to unifying the two. The Xeus plugin for example got me thinking. A (relatively simple compared to Photoshop) bitmap editor loaded and you drew on a vector object. When you closed, that object acquired the pixel editing. I imagine a situation where any object can become a canvas (that could extend beyond the object itself). Pixel based operations can be performed on that object, and the parts of it which have been pixel-edited are rasterised, whereas the rest of the object retains it's resolution independence. The image below perhaps illustrates my thinking. Live effects share some similarities to this, however the effects are applied to, and therefore pixelate the whole object as far as I've seen.

The effects may not necessarily even need to be pixelated. Take vector feathering for example; blurring the edge of a vector shape independently of resolution. If you wanted to blur only one edge of an object and had a vector blur tool analogous to a pixel based blur tool - why can't that be done? Tools that work on both vectors or bitmaps.

[tonylondon]

Xhris's original posting sums up my feelings succinctly.
I also wonder whether as a part way solution if it would be possible to add a position profile to the shape/pressure profile...
Tony

[StevenWWinters]

I, for one, agree that the ideal app would handle both vector and bitmap operations seamlessly. Charles Moir seems to agree: "We do have an integrated bitmap / photo editor, because in principle I don't believe you can or should separate the two worlds. Real users want to mix photos and vector artwork, and so it's simply more convenient to be able to do this directly from within your vector editor..."

Also, Microsoft seems to agree in that they have modified Expressions to handle both.

See this thread here for more: http://www.talkgraphics.com/showpost...39&postcount=6

[MarkMyWords]

I think vector graphics must be the way forward, but the 'big breakthrough' won't come until someone produces a vector program that makes it easy for bitmap artists to transfer their (hard-won) skills from bitmap to vector.

There is no doubting the quality and versatility (especially regarding resolution independence) of vector art. Xara have done an outstanding job in making vector tools easy and intuitive to use.

However the vast majority of illustrators and graphic artists (who work digitally) use bitmap software and until you give them a familiar set of tools and working environment, vector software will continue to be the poor relation.

The first program to really crack this problem will lead the way, maybe even take Photoshops crown.

[remi]

Go ahead and do it by yourself and you will be a millionaire.

[MarkMyWords]

LOL!

I'm only farty artist and have no idea how software works, why should I need too?

Just making an observation Remi.

[GeoBen]

Expression's STROKE features that strike me the most are its ability to control the starting/ending/grouping/spacing variables. It is there that their strokes reproduce (almost) believable art media. Most Xara brushes are not very usable. My need for a string of butterflies is infrequent.

On the broader issue, Vector and Pixel based apps each have features that complement the other. Before long, a 'side-by-side' integrated approach will be developed, I am sure (rather like Xeus or Deep Paint as Plugins); vector and bitmap 'co-apps' that can exhange material. Xara's de-rasterizing (bitmap tracing) of complex full color material is poor except for special effect (see below).

I fully expect further cooperation between the open source GIMP and INKSCAPE teams. If POTRACE can be tweaked to include gradients and the two teams can produce software that runs as sleek and fast as XARA (still its overwhelming advantage, I think) and begin integrating now, the graphics world WILL be revolutionized.

Compare the images below: One is an original photo, one an INKSCAPE/POTRACE of that photo (20 passes) and one is a Xara trace, also 20 passes (not necessarily in the order given... i will leave you to guess). The manner in which Potrace returns it's image(s) is significant too. Xara produces its output in bits. Potrace in as many layers of individually colored, same sized layers. This makes manipulating them LOTS easier. All that needs to be done is to return OBJECTS as they were sent (as XP does, sorta) and integration would be complete (aside from such small matters as memory allocation, speed and such).

the day is coming... rejoice and be ye all of good cheer.

geo.

[Xhris]

Xara's de-rasterizing (bitmap tracing) of complex full color material is poor except for special effect (see below).

Hi Geo,

This is alas a common misconception based on unawareness. I offer the following tutorial which is also available on Xara Xone and the image below to prove that Xara's ten-year-old tracer is very good, and also comparable (and in some circumstances superior) to the recent attempt by Adobe in Illustrator CS2. The results of the tracer are better for larger bitmaps which provide more data to analyse.

[GeoBen]

oh my...

it would seem that I have once again trodden the toes of the true believer.

your argument (that Xara Trace can produce high quality representational traces) is, if impolitely expressed, certainly well taken. But, i believe you may have misapprehended my intent. My posting of the Xara trace was intended to show its use as an 'effects' processor' (for which, I have found many and varied uses), not to demonstrate its inferiority to AI or any other.

I had hoped to make the point that what was needed was a 'de-rasterizer' that will produce output USABLE in a vector drawing program to facilitate the exchange of data (images) between bitmap and vector based imaging apps. If I may quote myself,... "Xara's de-rasterizing (bitmap tracing) of complex full color material is poor except for special effect (see below).". Now why would a good, loyal Xara patriot make such an scurrilous charge? Well, sir, in my defense, I will point out that my own 'high resolution trace' of that lovely victorian hotel produced well over 26,000 individual objects, many smaller than the proverbial grain of sand. The scan took seconds; it took almost a full minute to ungroup. Whether or not that is more 'editable' than the pixel based version is arguable, but not very. I would consider such a conglomeration of bits useless. The Potrace version consists of, get ready, 20 objects, each of the same size stacked on on the other, making the layering of them rather easy which makes the manipulation of them rather easty. Ideal? no. Better? Maybe, maybe not. I use 3 different tracers (Corel trace includes an inlne facility that i find very useful). But, yes, for the purpose of manipulating complex images, it is better.

Honest, i LOVE Xara. but, there are products that do some things that Xara doesn't or doesn't do as well. mea culpa.

yours in the ongoing battle 'gainst ign'rnce,

geo.

[Xhris]

what was needed was a 'de-rasterizer' that will produce output USABLE in a vector drawing program to facilitate the exchange of data (images) between bitmap and vector based imaging apps.

I've been thinking of this very feature for years now. But I would be surprised if it would happen anytime soon.

It's arguable that the Xara tracer could do with a revamp, but I suspect that isn't high on the list of priorities.