-
What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
I want a discussion:
What can bitmap editing software (like Photoshop) do that vector software (in principle) can’t?
(This question should not be read as “what can Photoshop currently do that vector software can’t currently do”, or “please discuss the obvious distinction between bitmaps and vectors”, or “what would you change about Xara to stop it becoming a bitmap program”, and nor should this spiral into a Xara wish list or go off topic. Sorry for the strictness, but I want to say right from the off that I want it to be focussed and on topic and independent of Xara – Xara will not be mentioned again. I'm hoping for an earnest discussion.)
I’ve never really used bitmap editing software, and I’ve been flicking around on YouTube and the web etc. to see what typical uses people have for bitmap editing. I typically see photo-retouching, and changing the colour of objects such as hair etc. I see selection methods used, as well as warping/moulding of a selection, and the ‘healing’ of images. In principle, I can see all these functions being possible in a vector package, and all independently of resolution. I notice that the typical use of these editors is very object-oriented anyway through use of layers etc, but just being done at a fixed resolution.
Being more specific about the above uses I saw being used and how they could be applied (in principle) in a vector package: firstly, perhaps the most significant difference is the method of selection; a variety of tools/methods are employed to select regions of similar colour in bitmap editors. These range from magic wands, and other similar smart selection methods, to more sophisticated methods used when selecting objects with complex edges – such as fur. These methods could conceivably be applied to bitmaps and/or a collection of vector objects while in a vector package to select regions of similar colour.
Secondly, once regions are selected/masked; changing the colour properties (hue/sat/val etc) of the selection is done using a number of tools. Again all this could be done in a vector package – and to an extent, already is. Warping/moulding of selections using a variety of tools could be achieved in vector packages too; in the case of moulds: this is already capable to a certain extent. With tools like smudge etc, this again is also done to an extent in some vector packages (on vectors in this case – by pushing nodes around etc).
It recently occurred to me how ‘resolution independent’ operations could be performed on any bitmap and vector selections. A selection could be mapped to a high resolution matrix, and warping operations, for example, are simulated by manipulating colours on the vertices of the grid. This ultra-fine grid increases the effective resolution, allowing for such fancy features. In a vector package, any traditional “bitmap” tool could work in the same way; the selection is mapped to a high resolution matrix (with resolution determined by the internal maximum resolution of the product), and the transform operations are performed on that matrix (at the resolution being viewed at – i.e. the zoom factor/export resolution etc).
This would allow all effects to be produced in a vector manner; take ‘healing’ tools for example: the region to be healed is typically regenerated from an interpolation of the region surrounding the active region.
Objects would not even necessarily need to be selected to be operated on; imagine a collection of unselected objects in a vector package, and you dragged across them with a smudge/smear tool. It could apply a quasi-object over the drag region, and within the bounds of that quasi-object, apply all the effects desired given the information underneath using the method discussed above.
I like to think I see a future where only vector packages exist; I suspect that the reason why bitmap editors are still around, is that all these typical “bitmap” features are together already in one place within them. No one vector package has such tools that can be performed on both bitmap and/or vector groups as seen in these bitmap programs. In the long term, I just can’t see a future where there is a distinction between the two types of graphics package. I suspect (in an ideal world) future advanced vector products will incorporate all the tools (i.e. tool functionality) currently found bitmap editors, and become the dominant graphics-package-form.
But are there any (specifically) advanced tools/features/actions that are only possible to be performed in bitmap editors (i.e. to bitmaps only)? I can’t think of any given the method discussed above.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
With the feathering tool, it's hard to think of anything that couldn't be done.
I would not include the plug-ins as I think most all are for bitmap effects.
I also would not include the brushes tool as I think it is a bitmap effect.
All one has to do is watch one of Bob's videos on cartoon drawing, to understand why vector can be easier and more powerful than bitmaps.
For the accomplished artist (no offense to any meant) a bitmap program may be what they are used to doing. You would have to ask the Corel Paint folks about that.
Where bitmap programs come into play imo, is that when you want to do some pre-packaged effects that most vector editors do not have even in plug-ins.
These things include effects like pallet knife, oil brush and other effects on the ready, that one would have to make from scratch in a vector editor.
So, what it boils down to is imo, technique, skill and convenience.
It takes different skills to be a vector artist than it does a bitmap artist.
I use Xara Xtreme 3.2 and Corel PSP XI. That's about all the power I can handle with my current level of artistry (cough.) :D
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xhris
What can bitmap editing software (like Photoshop) do that vector software (in principle) can’t?
Select all of the pixels in a drawing of a certain color value, with or without a tolerance, and change all of them in one fell swoop to another color.
I did not spend much time reading your essay, but it seems to me that if you are going to make a matrix out of a bitmap, you really have a bitmap under another name, so you would have a bitmap editor in the end, that claims to be a vector editor, but is not really. Anyway, Xara's bitmap tracer almost gives you the 'matrix' you are talking about. So now you have ten million 'objects' rather than ten million 'pixels' when your trace gets accurate enough. Is that really what you want? What has it gained? When you have to magnify the drawing 1000 times to place your drawing on a wall rather than a sheet of paper, all of a sudden you have huge square 'blocks' in your printed output which used to be individual pixels in the original bitmap.
I might be wrong, as I might not understand your concept correctly.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xhris
I want a discussion:
What can bitmap editing software (like Photoshop) do that vector software (in principle) can’t?
What's the next Q? Should digital cameras capture as vector based images?
Come on - horses for courses Xhris.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Scanning? ;)
They are very different techniques raster and vector - love james quote from another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
Me? I'm a hammer, saw and ruler type of guy - vector graphics suit me. Some artists are a pallet knife, brush, chalk, pencil, spray paint, masking kind of person.
I use both programs and wouldn't ever change it.
Exactly.
Oh and anyone about to give up filling shapes with bitmap textures etc anytime soon :D ?
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Speed and simplicity perhaps?
You could emulate most bitmap editing methods with vectors, but it's a more involved process than when done with a bitmap editor, at least for me. And if you're up against a deadline, which method would you choose?
Also, bitmap brushes. I don't think vector brushes have the ability to pick up and smudge underlying colors. Even smoothing and smudging. You could emulate them if you're patient enough, but it's just not the same thing.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
(All my responses to debates are typically strident, but said in the nicest, loving tone. :) )
The comments so far are of the type I was fearfully expecting, but tried hard to avoid when starting this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David O'Neil
Select all of the pixels in a drawing of a certain color value, with or without a tolerance, and change all of them in one fell swoop to another color.
I did not spend much time reading your essay...
Oh dear...you can stop right there... I don't think I could ever comment on something I hadn't even read.
All vector graphics are rasterised at some point. E.g. at display or export time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sledger
Come on - horses for courses Xhris.
This line of thinking is actually not so. "Electricity and magnetism...the same thing? Go burn some witches!" "space curvature?! get this guy a straight jacket" "small particles are waves?! no PhD for you de Broglie, you nutcase".
With a bit of thought, it's fairly easy to see there need be no necessary distinction between bitmap and vector operations. And the idea of vector capture by cameras (i.e. a 'smart' tracer) I came up with a long time ago. It would require stupendous levels of research to emulate AI recognition techniques, but is easily conceivable.
Anyway, back to the question: What could bitmap editing software (like Photoshop) do that vector software (in principle) couldn’t?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grafixman
Speed and simplicity perhaps?
You could emulate most bitmap editing methods with vectors, but it's a more involved process than when done with a bitmap editor, at least for me. And if you're up against a deadline, which method would you choose?
This perhaps goes back to the point I was making about the typical bitmap tools not currently being in a vector package. Understandably, given how the two packages evolved and why, but I see convergence eventually - which is essentially what this discussion is supposed to be about.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xhris
Oh dear...you can stop right there... I don't think I could ever comment on something I hadn't even read.
All vector graphics are rasterised at some point. E.g. at display or export time.
I never said I hadn't read it--I had. It just wasn't very clear, and I wasn't going to spend another hour rereading your essay.
From the understanding I got, it seems that your 'rasterization' process is not truly vector--it is bitmap in disguise. I pointed out that when scaled, you don't have the same thing as a true vector drawing, and you will therefore see artifacts of that process.
[humorous tone] Is that clear now, Mr. Loving Snip? [/humorous tone]
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David O'Neil
...when scaled, you don't have the same thing as a true vector drawing, and you will therefore see artifacts of that process.
This assumes that the effect isn't reprocessed (like all vector effects are - e.g. feathering) when the object is scaled, or effectively-scaled in the case of a change in zoom factor. Therefore, it is possible to have vector-like bitmap effects. This is the consciousness-raising issue I'm highlighting, the distinction is arbitrary between the two graphics types - one is just effectively resolution independent. An understanding of what vector means in graphics software maybe needs highlighting too. Mathematically, vectors represent direction and magnitude, but when displayed on screen, a representation of that is presented in a fixed-resolution, pixel form. This is recalculated for any change in the perceived resolution. In effect, all vector output is bitmap. With vector software however, the resolution can be changed to suit.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Find a 100x100 pixel thumbnail anywhere on the net. Now, using any pixel editor, increase that to a 5000x5000 graphic without doing any touch-up painting. Even using smoothing algorithms, the big version will never look as good as if you increased a true vector illustration's output size from 100x100 to 5000x5000. The two types of drawings are inherently different. (The 'outputs' are not different, the 'types' are different.) That is what you are overlooking. Vectorizing the bitmap will only enable you to get as good of output as the smoothing algorithms that already exist for bitmaps.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Must confess - I'm a bit confused here too Xhris.
If I understand correctly, what you propose is not so much an all vector program, as an amalgamation of the two approaches.
Like David, I can't really see that working, the way you describe it, sorry.
So as the given method is in question, I think the argument is currently moot.
More clarification might help the argument progress?
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
This is where I was leading really: an amalgamation of the two. Bitmap editing is like a limited subset of vector editing in principle. You’re just working at fixed, relatively low resolution. In principle, everything could be done in vector packages. My points were that all traditional ‘bitmap’ tools are, in principle, possible in vector programs; there's nothing that could only be done in a bitmap editor. I outlined the main differences in tool set in my first post – namely selection methods of similar colour etc., and then how to perform high resolution pixel effects on vector/bitmap objects (high resolution, on the fly, hence vector like – independent of resolution to a limit). I also wanted to raise people's consciousness to the fact that 'horses are not for courses' as someone above said.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
I think this may make my points more clear. Hope it helps:
Perhaps the term ‘vector’ art is misleading, and a more explicit title could be ‘processed-effects’ or ‘variable rasterisation’ or something. All operations in a vector package are rasterised at display time, whereas a bitmap is just a pre-rendered, fixed-resolution image. Bitmap editing programs perform operations on these fixed rasterised images only, whereas the vector programs use algorithms to both generate the (bitmap) image and apply effects. Vector processes generate effective bitmaps that are reprocessed for every change in view; take feathering for example: the feathering algorithm is applied on an object for a given view, and the output is essentially a screen resolution rasterised image (bitmap) – but one that is regenerated with each new view. The same applies to drawing Bezier curves; an algorithm is used to determine the output for the view, and once it is determined, the equivalent to a screen resolution bitmap (rasterised image) is generated.
I think I need to make a better distinction between what I mean with:-
1. dealing with bitmaps;
2. dealing with ‘vectors’; and
3. applying effects to both vectors and bitmaps
1. As has been rightly mentioned in responses above, you could include bitmap editing tools in vector packages that work on bitmap objects (objects with a fixed, predetermined rasterisation). These include all the tools to select pixels of similar colour, warp, smudge, and alter hues etc. that are typically found in bitmap editors.
2. This is in addition to all the tools to process ‘vector’ effects on vector (variable resolution) objects that are found in vector packages.
3. But the idea that I poorly conveyed in my first post is that you could conceivably draw/paint etc. objects on top of other objects (vector or bitmap) which applied further ‘vector’ processing (i.e. generate bitmapped effects for the view you are at). An example of this would be to have a collection of bitmap and vector objects on a page, draw over them with, say, the same smudge tool you use on bitmaps, and all objects underneath smudge – including the vector objects. The method I discussed in my first post would allow this (or any equivalent method that is used – say, for generating vector feathers etc).
An example of this is already available: consider the vector feathering of, not a traditional vector object, but of a bitmap. You are applying a vector process to a pre-determined rasterised image. How? By post-processing that bitmap in a way that is independent of its fixed resolution. Hence why you can zoom in to this bitmap, see its pixelation, but not see any pixelation from the feathering processing. In this case, the processing is limited to edges – by definition of feathering, but there’s no reason, in principle, why you couldn’t draw this effect freely with an appropriate tool.
So in general, why couldn’t any effect be simultaneously applied to bitmap and vector (varying, screen resolution bitmap) objects, and all done from a vector package, which, by definition, and unlike bitmap packages, is not limited to working only with fixed resolution objects? This is what I wanted to discuss. I'm sure a certain company (who’s name I said I wouldn’t mention again in this post), is planning on heading more distantly down this road, as they have eluded.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aridzone
Script recorders:(
What?
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly, but the picture forming in my mind is exactly the opposite... doing away with vectors and creating an infinite resolution bitmap instead!
Like fractals which you could zoom in indefinitely so that details are revealed. It would be interesting if such a method could be created whereby details are stored and called up dynamically only if zoomed in. So bitmaps can overcome the fixed resolution limit.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grafixman
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly, but the picture forming in my mind is exactly the opposite... doing away with vectors and creating an infinite resolution bitmap instead!
Like fractals which you could zoom in indefinitely so that details are revealed. It would be interesting if such a method could be created whereby details are stored and called up dynamically only if zoomed in. So bitmaps can overcome the fixed resolution limit.
What you speak of is what vector graphics are.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
I think I got my head round what your saying Xhris.
Its perhaps a tad theoretical, but I can see the mathematics there in principle having thought it through.
I'm not technical enough however to know if theory can be transformed into practice, but it would make sense to try if experts think it feasible.
What matters most though I would venture is that we have the right tools to do the job[s], whatever their basis in code.
:)
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
handrawn
I think I got my head round what your saying Xhris.
Its perhaps a tad theoretical, but I can see the mathematics there in principle having thought it through.
I'm not technical enough however to know if theory can be transformed into practice, but it would make sense to try if experts think it feasible.
What matters most though I would venture is that we have the right tools to do the job[s], whatever their basis in code.
:)
You're right there. Since I wrote my last larger post in this thread, I can't help but admire what (in principle) feathering a bitmap is actually doing. It's (hopefully) like looking into future possibilities.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Xhris
You posed this question for discussion::p
What can bitmap editing software (like Photoshop) do that vector software (in principle) can’t?
My answer is script recording.
Like corel photo paint offers, which are saved as .csc files
See sample
This tool is so useful but cant be done in vector programs I believe:eek:
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aridzone
Xhris
You posed this question for discussion::p
What can bitmap editing software (like Photoshop) do that vector software (in principle) can’t?
My answer is script recording.
Like corel photo paint offers, which are saved as .csc files
See sample
This tool is so useful but cant be done in vector programs I believe:eek:
This is interesting, but too vague for me to comment. What about it makes you think it can't be done in a vector program? (And I should probably say that this question was referring to the artistic output of the package, not some explicit methodology).
Or are you really just being sarcastic that you want it in your favourite vector package? :)
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
As far as I understand script recorders a based on bitmap pixels and cant be done with vectors.
And I think this has to do with artistic output not just methodology.
Done in 18 seconds:
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aridzone
As far as I understand script recorders a based on bitmap pixels and cant be done with vectors.
And I think this has to do with artistic output not just methodology.
Done in 18 seconds:
It's easy to imagine the equivalent being applied to:
1. vectors
2. bitmaps in vector (or bitmap) programs (the equivalent to your example above)
3. the application of effects to both vectors and bitmaps.
All scripting is, is a series of hand produced actions done automatically in sequence. It certainly could be done in ANY piece of software, in any discipline (e.g. macros).
Oh, I like my picture. :)
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Yeah, scripting in vector, I think they call that Flash. :D
or more specifically, action script.
Isn't part of it already in Xara Xtreme and Pro? :)
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
No, scripting means automation of a graphics editor. Inkscape is able to do that, Corel Draw and Adobe Illustrator also....
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
remi
No, scripting means automation of a graphics editor. Inkscape is able to do that, Corel Draw and Adobe Illustrator also....
Ah yeah. That is just a use of a script type language like python etc.
You end up making a bunch of macros really.
This is the one in PSP XI
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Well, either way, we've all now identified that scripting isn't something only possible in bitmap software.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
And I return you to my very first reply. Selecting every pixel of a certain color and changing them to another would be extremely difficult to do when having vector and bitmap items together in one 'composition,' and using a quasi-vector approach.
I stick by my earlier statement--the two approaches are different at the core, and even though you can approach (and even excel) bitmap output using vector techniques, it will be very difficult to get vector quality from bitmap objects, and there are some big gotchas in the mess, such as the 'color selection' example I am trying to get you to think about.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David O'Neil
And I return you to my very first reply. Selecting every pixel of a certain color and changing them to another would be extremely difficult to do when having vector and bitmap items together in one 'composition,' and using a quasi-vector approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David O'Neil
...and there are some big gotchas in the mess, such as the 'color selection' example I am trying to get you to think about.
(Just to be clear, this isn’t indented to be a bashing response; just thorough.)
I now appreciate what you are saying; to be more explicit and lucid: consider the case where a ‘quasi object’ was used to say smudge a vector and bitmap group using, say, the method proposed above. How do you select regions of similar colour if the result is 'independent' of resolution? Regions of similar colour could still conceivably be selected down to the internal resolution of the software – if that’s how it would work. How CPU intensive this would be is debatable, but it’s nevertheless conceivable.
But let’s just look at Live Effects for a moment. This is a more resolution dependent (i.e. not resolution ‘independent’) product of what I’m talking about. In this case, the object is given some more complex effect defined by some algorithm, e.g. mosaic, bevel, blur etc. the object instead of, say, direct-draw smudge. The output is not independent of resolution, but rasterised by an amount you specify. It’s possible that LE’s could produce explicit vector (resolution independent) output, however, remember they were designed for bitmap programs, and hence rasterise the output. After this effect is applied, another can be applied on the resulting image. You can thus have a stack of processed vector-like effects (in that they are recalculated if one in the stack is changed) on any one object. The idea of stacking processes is one additional consequential consideration to the issue you raise – namely that if underlying object(s) changes the ‘quasi-object’ reprocesses. The difference with this analogy though is that all current LE’s (except feather) are not independent of resolution as mentioned. Perhaps these quasi-objects I mention would not all necessarily be resolution ‘independent’, and be rasterised significantly. It would still be a vector process (regenerated with change by reprocessing the algorithm), but would be a relatively low resolution output. I suppose in this case, bitmap programs do some vector-like processes – in that you can use live effects (low resolution vector-like processes).
Let’s also look at the first party bump map live effect. By definition, its output has to be a bitmap, as the effect is designed to work on bitmaps – to simulate 3D surface depth. The true vector equivalent would require 3D processing, so that lights could be shined on surfaces – this is what we see in Xara3D for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David O'Neil
I stick by my earlier statement--the two approaches are different at the core.
Yes, there's no dispute here, but the point being made is that all these bitmap operations can be done in a vector package with the right tools, which needn't not be there (this is the amalgamation of the two software types that was mentioned). I highlight again the three distinct points I made in my second longer post: 1. dealing with bitmaps; 2. dealing with ‘vectors’; and 3. applying effects to both vectors and bitmaps. All three can be done in a single (vector orientated) package. Xara actually already does all 3 – if proof were required of what I’m theorising about in practice – but doesn't have the tools found in bitmap editing software...yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David O'Neil
...it will be very difficult to get vector quality from bitmap objects...
I'm not quite sure what you are meaning by this, but bitmaps are frequently used in vector packages. Feathering a photo in the CatWoman example demonstrates this clearly. The whole point of using bitmaps in vector packages is that they can be rescaled, i.e. the resolution varied from its fixed value without the information being lost on re-sampling to the bitmap resolution as happens in bitmap programs (of course you can't add information that isn't there in the bitmap itself).
I predict a vector-orientated future (the timescales of which is anyone’s guess), with tools found in bitmap software combined into the vector software, and it being implemented in such a way that these bitmap tools can effectively be used on both traditional vector objects (those independent of resolution), and plain bitmaps. Xara have hinted they are heading in this direction, if not using the suggestions I proposed above.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
You are not seeing a bigger picture.
Let us say that you have a 1500x1500 pixel 'bitmap/vector' combination. At one step you select all pixels colored 0xBABABA (or whatever color) and change them to another color, and do some processing on them. (Maybe you give them a starburst effect.)
Now, let us assume that some of those 'pixels' were the result of overlaid transparencies of various colors/transparency percentages, whereas others were not. Let us say that 500 pixels were affected.
Then, down the road, the designer changed some of the base hues in some of those transparencies, or he changed the transparency percentages, so that the final blended color on 122 of those resultant pixels are no longer 0xBABABA. Does the software package all of a sudden throw the processing on the pixels away? Does it keep it? There is no way for it to know what the designer wants in such a situation.
In addition, if you have vector objects that are 20 times more detailed than the 'bitmap' graphic, it is very likely that the final graphic would look low resolution because the bitmap portion is making it look washed out, just as my earlier 'thumbnail example' was trying to point out to you.
The previous scenario is extremely likely to occur when you scale your final output drawing.
The previous logic leads to the conclusion that you will always have to design your graphics, whether they are vector or bitmap, to at least the final resolution that you want your final product to have.
I think that what we will end up with is packages that integrate bitmap and vector into a usable amalgam that is quite powerful. They may primarily be vector, but bitmap operations will always continue to be used on bitmap objects--all objects will not necessarily be vectors.
For fun, wrap your head around what it would take to make a program like ArtRage into a pure vector package. It is not an easy task, due to the extreme amount of processing that would be involved. I will not argue that it is possible, but feasible? You might quickly get into logic like the first example I discussed, making it a bugger to get it intuitive to use.
Best wishes,
David
ps - So the 'absolute relevance of bitmap editors' is that they are, and will continue to be good at what they do, and there will always be some need for them.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Thanks guys for clearing that up about script recorders for vector programs.
I have renewed hope that Xara will implement one in a coming version:D
-
2 Attachment(s)
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David O'Neil
You are not seeing a bigger picture.
Let us say that you have a 1500x1500 pixel 'bitmap/vector' combination. At one step you select all pixels colored 0xBABABA (or whatever color) and change them to another color, and do some processing on them. (Maybe you give them a starburst effect.)
Now, let us assume that some of those 'pixels' were the result of overlaid transparencies of various colors/transparency percentages, whereas others were not. Let us say that 500 pixels were affected.
Then, down the road, the designer changed some of the base hues in some of those transparencies, or he changed the transparency percentages, so that the final blended color on 122 of those resultant pixels are no longer 0xBABABA. Does the software package all of a sudden throw the processing on the pixels away? Does it keep it? There is no way for it to know what the designer wants in such a situation.
This is interesting, as we are now exploring the specifics of the three general points I made above, and you are highlighting interesting subsets of them.
What you are specifically highlighting here is that some combination of vector effects may not be able to be re-processed if certain changes are applied to mid-stack operations. There thus may be limitations to applying vector effects to vector/bitmap combination objects as discussed in my point 3 – namely (and only) when applying vector-effects to selected regions of similar colour (it was good thinking of you to highlight this). In this case, you may very well have to rasterise and produce a bitmap to work with. But this is covered in point 2 and can still be done in a vector program (e.g. lock live effect). A vector program is everything (in principle) that a bitmap program is, and considerably more. This is why I’m sure they’ll be less dominant in the long term future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David O'Neil
In addition, if you have vector objects that are 20 times more detailed than the 'bitmap' graphic, it is very likely that the final graphic would look low resolution because the bitmap portion is making it look washed out, just as my earlier 'thumbnail example' was trying to point out to you.
The previous scenario is extremely likely to occur when you scale your final output drawing.
The previous logic leads to the conclusion that you will always have to design your graphics, whether they are vector or bitmap, to at least the final resolution that you want your final product to have.
Now this is a different point entirely, and not really relating to anything I’m talking about. Here you are highlighting the limitations of bitmaps; they contain only a fixed amount of information, and thus when scaled up, no additional information is provided. This results in obvious pixelation, in contrast to vectors which are redrawn from their algorithms at the new desired effective resolution. In your thumbnail example, you seemed to imply that you would use a vector package to somehow add more information to a bitmap that isn’t actually there so that the bitmap somehow became truly vector-like and independent of resolution. This is not related to any of the three points I've discussed above, and I agree it’s nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David O'Neil
I think that what we will end up with is packages that integrate bitmap and vector into a usable amalgam that is quite powerful. They may primarily be vector, but bitmap operations will always continue to be used on bitmap objects--all objects will not necessarily be vectors.
Yes, we agree here, bitmap operations will continue to be used on bitmaps. But I was trying to introduce the idea that they not necessarily need to do so for some types of operation, e.g. vector eraser, smudge, etc. Vector feathering of bitmaps is one excellent example that proves the point I'm making.
I also remembered I've sort of discussed this idea before, but less in depth here:
“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.”
This idea is slightly different to what I propose here, but is an alternative approach. The idea here was inspired by the second picture: performing a blur on a bitmap (but it not need be) with the result appearing to be higher resolution. The ‘object as a canvas’ idea is actually less flexible than the quasi-object that performs operations on the underneath image.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xhris
...There thus may be limitations to applying vector effects to vector/bitmap combination objects as discussed in my point 3 – namely (and only) when applying vector-effects to selected regions of similar colour...
There may be more instances with limitations of this nature. Until you program such a beast, you will probably not know.
Quote:
...Here you are highlighting the limitations of bitmaps; they contain only a fixed amount of information, and thus when scaled up, no additional information is provided.
To an extent, I was also trying to point out that vectors are also limited to what the designer designed it for. You have to create enough information in your vector picture to obtain good results at 300dpi, 600dpi, or whatever dpi you are working with. If you double the scale of your drawing, chances are, you need four times the amount of vector information to make the new drawing look just as good as the old drawing at the same dpi. Otherwise, the scaled picture will only have 1/4 of the texture that the non-scaled one has if you are still outputting at the same dpi. Feathering may make it look smoother, but the density of features will be lacking. (I hope that was clear.)
(Stated differently, if you created a 600dpi picture via vector, and the smallest thing you designed for was a 1/100" pimple being visible (approx 6 pixel x 6 pixel area), and then doubled the scale of your drawing, the smallest 'feature' would be a 2/100" pimple, not a 1/100" pimple, so the visual information would be 1/4 what it was non-scaled. It will look clearer than if you simply scaled a bitmap, but it will also have less visual information density than the non-scaled one.)
Quote:
In your thumbnail example, you seemed to imply that you would use a vector package to somehow add more information to a bitmap that isn’t actually there so that the bitmap somehow became truly vector-like and independent of resolution.
No I didn't. You did. I pointed out that you probably could not get any better results by vectorizing a bitmap and scaling it than you could by using the best bitmap scaling techniques available.
Quote:
Yes, we agree here, bitmap operations will continue to be used on bitmaps. But I was trying to introduce the idea that they not necessarily need to do so for some types of operation, e.g. vector eraser, smudge, etc.
What I read implied that you were saying that all operations on a bitmap could be done using vector tools. You have just stated that that is not the case, and that bitmap editors will still be relevant. We agree.
Best wishes,
David
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Okay, so now the cards are on the table, we've concluded that bitmap editors are not and may never be obsolete (something I never set out to challenge really). But that vector programs are likely to become dominant on the grounds that they are (or could be in principle) everything bitmap programs are and significantly more. Namely, that vector programs can handle both vector and (in principle) all traditional bitmap operations on bitmaps (via incorporation of the bitmap editor toolset). And furthermore, with some limitations regarding multiple, stacked operations on selections of similar colour, could apply bitmap like effects to any objects. Therefore, the original question of what is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors? They are relevant in that they do something (i.e. handle bitmap operations only), but are inferior in that they are relatively limited compared to the potential of (future) vector applications.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xhris
They are relevant in that they do something (i.e. handle bitmap operations only), but are inferior in that they are relatively limited compared to the potential of (future) vector applications.
Even if this postulation is true, it does not make them inferior, that is leading the argument.
ArtRage is not for example inferior to Corel Painter, it just doesn't pretend to be something it's not. ;)
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xhris
...They are relevant in that they do something (i.e. handle bitmap operations only), but are inferior in that they are relatively limited compared to the potential of (future) vector applications.
I agree with handrawn on this one. When you can get effects every bit as good with a bitmap editor as you can with a vector editor, you cannot call the bitmap editor 'inferior.' At that point, among the only benefits a vector version of the drawing would have is the ability to scale and have your edges remain crisp, but as far as I understand, PS is fairly good at that to a certain extent.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
I was referring to the whole scope of the package rather than the resulting output. By definition that vector programs can (in principle) do everything bitmap editors do and considerably more (as we've discussed above), makes them a superior piece of software. That when dealing with bitmap operations, both could (in principle) get the same result, makes neither inferior in that respect. This was my point, for the purpose of predicting that in the long term future, vector packages may become dominant on the grounds that they do more.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xhris
I was referring to the whole scope of the package rather than the resulting output. By definition that vector programs can (in principle) do everything bitmap editors do and considerably more (as we've discussed above), makes them a superior piece of software.
:rolleyes: Greater [theoretical] ability does not necessarily mean superiority. There are other issues.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
handrawn
:rolleyes: Greater [theoretical] ability does not necessarily mean superiority.
In this context it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
handrawn
There are other issues.
Like what? That's what this thread is about.
-
Re: What is the absolute relevance of bitmap editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xhris
In this context it does.
.
No it does not. A hypothetical possibility is not superior to something that is already up and running and kicking ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xhris
Like what? That's what this thread is about.
See above.
See also price, usability, speed .......... etc
And who knows what else since its all so hypothetical?
The thread is about relevance I thought.
Artrage is far more relevant to my grandaughter than Xara.
Go figure.
:)