Pixelization in a vector drawing program?

[Beeej21]

Hey all,
I am a new ( trial ) user to Xara Xtreme Pro user. I don't know how I've managed to not hear about or find about this software. I've been an avid Adobe Illustrator user for years. So last night I download my trial version of the software, install it, run through all the online video tutorials I can find ( even some on YouTube), and then jump in to see how I like the program.
My first impression is a great one. I love the ease by which I can create and manipulate the vector art. It reminds me a lot of Flash drawing in some ways ( in a good way ).
However, as I began to dabble in adding effects such as bevels, shadows, and gradients, I noticed that as I zoomed in, I got severe bitmapping. Wait! That's not supposed to happen in a vector program!! Accroding to one of the training online videos, the nice lady told me I could zoom in and zoom in and Xara would keep my drawing "tack sharp". Mind you, I was just playing around too, nothing serious. Literally seconds into placing shapes here and there and I started seeing this problem.
I was really discouraged because I really wanted Xara to be the "saviour" from those long tedious Illustrator projects. I was so utterly impressed with the gallery of art I've seen in the examples section.
Is it my system? ( AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 2.21 GHz with 4GB RAM and ATI X800XT 512MB VRAM ). Maybe the settings in my Xara trial software is not set correctly?
I outputted to a .pdf file, and first of all it took ages for the file to render to a .pdf file. Once it rendered out, it was very pixelated. Whenever I "print" out to a .pdf file from Illustrator I get no pixelization even when I zoom in using my Adobe Acrobat software!
What is going on? I am lost. It doesn't make any sense to me. Has anyone experienced this same problem? Is there a solution to this? How do I get my Xara drawings to look like perfect .pdf files? Attached are some screenshots of my initial fumbling around in this software.

at 100%:
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j3...enshot_100.jpg

at 500% ( it's hard to see here in this .jpg, but there's already bitmapping apparant in my program by this point):
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j3...enshot_500.jpg

at 2000%:
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j3...nshot_2000.jpg

[raynerj1]

under utilities=>options and the effects and plugins tab there is a section called effects which controls the default resolution of the "bitmapped effects" select 300DPI and you should see pretty clean exports. If you just use pure vector shapes and no bitmap fills/effects You can zoom into 25601%... Almost CAD accuracy without the CAD overhead...

If you open The microscope drawing from the example #1 in the clipart gallery and zoom all the in on the slide under the microscope you can see what pure vectors can do... The lady in the tub is worth taking a peek of...

[Beeej21]

Hey John, thanks for the reply. I used only pure vector shapes in my examples, so I am wondering why my little work-up doesn't look as tack sharp as does that Microscope piece ( which, by the way, is absolutely sensational!!!!! ). The lady in the tub, is fantastic.. according to one of the videos, she takes up less space than a pixel! Wow.

So am I supposed to understand from your reply that bevels, shades, and the such, are effects that are rendered out as bitmapped effects... therefore you have to set the resolution higher? Well, even 300 DPI, you can only zoom in so far before you notice pixelization. Try zooming in on a .pdf file exported from Illustrator. Clean all the way down to 4000%+ many times, Bro. I am having a hard time believing that Xara is incapable of exporting the same or better.

[David O'Neil]

I believe the problem has to do with the way Xara applies conical fills, especially when it is stepping between very dissimilar colors. It doesn't recalculate them based upon screen zoom. I've seen it before.

The workaround is to use other types of fills, and figure out ways to achieve the same thing using a high number of blend steps. But trying this gives other problems, and I cannot quickly figure out how to overcome them.

You can see this same bad effect in the "Using linear, circular, elliptical and conical fills" movie that comes with Xara (or at least I can).

[steve.ledger]

Hey John, thanks for the reply. ..Well, even 300 DPI, you can only zoom in so far before you notice pixelization. .

This is because 300dpi is for print output (dots per inch). Your screen will always show the equivelant of 96dpi because that's how monitors work. You can't actually 'see' 300/600/1200 dpi on your screen.

At 100% your drawing appears quite small (350px or so) - draw a much larger image then scale it down for web. This helps with any live effect pixelation.

[Beeej21]

This is because 300dpi is for print output (dots per inch). Your screen will always show the equivelant of 96dpi because that's how monitors work. You can't actually 'see' 300/600/1200 dpi on your screen.

At 100% your drawing appears quite small (350px or so) - draw a much larger image then scale it down for web. This helps with any live effect pixelation.

Thanks Sledger! I was actually making your point, not exactly in those words though. Why am I making changes to a DPI setting to view a .pdf file on my monitor as an end result? That's my whole quirk. It has to do with having pixelization at the monitor level itself, which I shouldn't be be having in a vector based program. That's why I talked about Illustrator's .pdf file being zoomed in so far with no bitmapping. I should be able to do the reverse of what your suggestion is, draw at 100% and then scale up to 350% and see no difference! It must be the live effects that are killing it, or the conical fills as David pointed out.

By the way, I was taught in school that 72dpi was the max output of any monitor resuloution or tv? But that was a long time ago, . I'm still outputting all my web images at a resolution of 72dpi.

[Beeej21]

I believe the problem has to do with the way Xara applies conical fills, especially when it is stepping between very dissimilar colors. It doesn't recalculate them based upon screen zoom. I've seen it before.

The workaround is to use other types of fills, and figure out ways to achieve the same thing using a high number of blend steps. But trying this gives other problems, and I cannot quickly figure out how to overcome them.

You can see this same bad effect in the "Using linear, circular, elliptical and conical fills" movie that comes with Xara (or at least I can).

Thanks for the input, David! At least I now know I am not the only one having this issue.

[raynerj1]

Take a look in the Pdf export dialog... I am pretty sure there are settings for the DPI when you export. I just can't remember where at the moment. I know I have exported as high as 1200 DPI with no problem as a tiff or a jpg... So the settings have to be there for a PDF.

[David O'Neil]

It appears to happen with almost every type of fill. I wonder if there is a registry setting or something to change the fill step size in any manner, and make it smaller.

This higher-zoom pixelation is probably one of the trade-offs that Charles and team made in order to get the speed Xtreme is renowned for. Sledger's approach may be the best for you.

Another approach is to composite your object using transparencies. Here's an example using your central elliptical beveled object. It takes a lot more planning, and is not nearly as easy as just using the bevel tool, but it can be done. Pull it apart to see what I did.

[David O'Neil]

ps - I forgot to mention that it has something to do with the total 'length' of the fill. If you have a linear fill, say, 500 pixels long, if it is only two colors, the blend will be beautiful. If you place two distinct color handles 1 pixel apart from each other on that same linear fill, you will see pixelation between those fill handles, whereas you won't on the other parts of the fill because there are many more subdivisions in those 'longer' parts. Evidently, each fill type uses the same number of subdivisions from end-to-end. Maybe knowing that helps you in some manner.