Vectors and bitmaps

[jvila]

My question is about vector argument, I've heard a lot of times that vector is better to big drawings and also the same doubt comes to my mind ...
Many and many times We have to convert shapes to bitmap due to CPU issues when We use blends, etc, that is to say, We draw vectorial but We are limited if We push xara to the limits.
The other doubt is, what happens when we use fills, for instance the ones that come with xara, aren't they bitmaps?, will they looks as sharp as We want when we use them in large drawings?.

What happens with transparencies?, are they vector?, what about shadow tool?.

Best regards

[David O'Neil]

By the nature of your question, it sounds like you know the answer Yes, many of the effects are bitmaps under the hood. The sharpness of many of the final drawings greatly depends upon the dpi of those same bitmaps. If you blow up any non-vector object large enough, 'steps' will appear. But if the color increments are small enough the problem is not worth worrying about. If they are greater, then maybe you need to think about it. For instance, if you had a 500-foot expanse you were covering, and did a blend from white to pink along it, who cares that every twenty feet contains a single continuous color that is almost the same as the one right next to it? You are going for the effect from far away under those circumstances. A jump from red to green, on the other hand, might be an issue.

Fills: I don't believe they are bitmaps the way you are thinking. The end effect is a bitmap, but the procedure under the hood is an algorithm which lays down the color via math, not pixels. I think there is a 256 step limitation to fills, I'm not sure. (When creating fills from white to black you notice that limitation at work in many circumstances.)

Transparencies: also have a 256-step limitation I think. Try creating a multi-stepped transparency on certain colored objects--under some circumstances I've seen the transparency steps appear. But then again, they are mathematical, not bitmap under the hood. Just the end effect is bitmap.

Shadow tool - definitely bitmap. I don't know if setting live effects to a different resolution will improve the output on large printouts.

David

edit - perhaps this thread helps your quest for knowledge, although I'm not certain it is relevant to the questions you are now asking.

[wizard509]

Sure sounds like a good answer David. Most of what you said makes sense but I sure don't know. Maybe one of the programmers will step in and verify what you said.
Like you I am fairly certain that shadows are bitmaps.

[David O'Neil]

I am certain a developer or Charles has confirmed that shadows and live effects are bitmaps. I'm also fairly certain someone in the know said fills are limited to a certain number of internal steps. Knowing the devs probably simply copied the same fundamental algorithm to the transparency tool, the same limitations probably apply, and explain the banding I witnessed. Could be wrong, and having said this, probably am... Like you said, maybe better confirmation will appear.

[jvila]

Hello,
Thank you very much for your replies, it brings a lot of light about it.
According to shadows, you're right, if I convert to editable shapes it appears as a bitmap.
Best regards