Printable View
Wow. As much as I dislike admitting it, I suck at using the Bitmap Tracer. A client gave me a Bitmap of a hand-drawn logo. It's pretty good for hand-drawn. However, I need a vector image of it. So, I thought I would put it through the Tracer. Much to my dismay, I can't figure out HOW to use the dang thing. And I need this logo bad.
Who here knows HOW the Tracer works and how to use it to trace a logo?
Thanks for your help,
Mark
Xara's bitmap tracer is very old and unless it's a very simple image really not up to the job.
I suggest you try Vector Magic Online. I believe you can get one free go, so watch their video first.
I tend to hand trace objects. Can you attach your logo?
http://vectormagic.com/home
Here it is, Egg:
Attachment 115173
I found Vector Magic online and it is GREAT! But it does cost more than my Xara DPX software. Wow.
Vector Magic should make a good job of that, you get 2 free goes.
The font is Zapfino One that has had a hefty outline applied. Further modifications were done on the letter 'y'by connecting its tail up around to the letter 'n'. the first lowercase 's' has been modified with the lower section connecting to the letter 'i' and the letters 'H'and the last 's' have been squished a bit.
I've attached a quicky rendition for you to modify if you desire.
Mike
Attachment 115175
BTW, though some of the settings seem arcane, the free vector drawing application InkScape uses a good tracer (Potrace).
None of the tracing applications do a great job on everything. There will almost always be hand work, both in processing an image before tracing and post-trace cleanup and adjustment. I've used them all.
In your example, I would make a copy of the logo and remove the lettering on one version to just trace the shoosh. On another version I would remove the swoosh to just trace the letters.
In this case, I had the font so used it. I converted the type to curves in the above XAR file.
The lettering could be traced using the magic lasso tool and the swoosh would be easy to trace using the shape tool In this thread you will find some handy tips and a video to show you how to use the magnetic lasso tool to trace a photo and create vector shapes.
@ Mark: Don't get an inferiority complex about the Bitmap Tracer in Xara, it's a bit Heath Robinson in its method.
I know people get attached to their logos, but in a case like this, I'd be inclined to persuade the client that his logo is a bit - you know - outdated, perhaps?
Offer him something completely different that he (and you) wouldn't be ashamed of.
Attached is just a suggestion...
Bob.
Take a look at this link for xhris website for a video training on Xara. You want chapter 3 for the Bitmap tracer at the 1:53:17 mark.
[URL="http://xhris.digitalred.net/"]
He use to have a write up of the Bitmap tracer but he has replaced this with the video training.
Ray
Xara's tracer does a great job with simple flat-coloured logos like this as evidenced by the attached mini tutorial. In fairness, it is absolutely not intuitive how to achieve this quality of result and it could be argued that many of these steps could be effectively performed automatically and intelligently by the Xara tracer in future updates.
IMHO this is one of my biggest gripes. Features like this are added, and that is the end of it. The bitmap tracer to my knowledge has not changed at all since it was added. And there is such a demand for this and so many improvements that could be made. None the least of which is to make the process more intuitive.Quote:
many of these steps could be effectively performed automatically and intelligently by the Xara tracer in future updates.
Thank you Xhris, very good instructions and excellent results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xhris
Ciao
Roly
No matter what the bitmap tracer does, even a good one that's high priced or is made by an army of eggheads...it'll never look as good as tracing it yourself. I've tried them all. They all kinda suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark321
yes... bitmap tracing can be a great time saver...Quote:
Thank you Xhris, very good instructions and excellent results
Does it really save time "handrawn"? I've never found any bitmap tracer on the market at this time to save time if it has to be placed in a doc. which has a background which differs from the background in the bitmap. I include Vector Magic, Inkscape and Illy CS5 and above they all make you have to work to get a trace which is acceptable to a professional standard. Like most folk here I think it is much more important to develop your vector drawing skills than have to rely on crappy auto-trace features.
Think of the time that you spend on preparation of the bitmap before tracing: knocking out the background, increasing the Threshold values, having the right resolution, colour sampling. conversion to grayscale/LAB, using Levels. This all adds time because you have got to place a clean doc. into your auto-trace programme.
Then you have all the hassle once you done your trace to tidy that up too: Path Fitting, stray points, too many control points, Corner Angle, converting trace for Live Paint groups and so on, and so on.
Best to just practice your speed in hand tracing using your "Shape Editor" F4. My opinion here is from experience because most of my drawings start as a sketch are scanned then brought in to Xara/Illustrator as a bitmap and I didn't want to draw the shapes out twice so I trialled out all vector auto-trace featured programmes.
there again we could say it's even quicker to draw freehand in one go, with a brush tool, than it is to waste half your life pushing nodes and handles around with a shape tool - of course you will have to have spent a year or five practicing how to do this in one go, but all things require practice
I'm an artist, not a designer; it is wholly unfair to label auto-trace 'crappy' or 'sucks' just because it is not suitable for what you do, in your estimation - it saves me loads of time [but has to be said xara is not my favourite] in vectorising line art alone which is much easier to draw first in raster - in fact, drawing freehand in raster and then vectorising is way quicker than even the xara freehand drawing tools, which have a mind of their own unless you draw really slowly, and even then they still want to offer me directional options I don't need [aka wobble]
I know only too well what saves me time and I was simply thanking Xhris
Autotrace can generally work very well if used properly.
There is no point to trace invidual pixels, as the file will be huge and there is no real advantage anymore for using vectors. Might just as well use bitmap program at that point. For tracing outlines autotracing works very well, and is lot faster for logos and similar than tracing those by hand.
Sorry, what's autotrace?
Hi Egg: http://autotrace.sourceforge.net/Quote:
Originally Posted by Egg Bramhill
Quote:
Originally Posted by theinonen
In this case only a word to differentiate using software to automatically trace an image, instead of manually tracing by drawing curves on top of image. (English is different than my native language, as the same word can actually mean different things when used in different context. Just "trace" does not take into account, is it a man or machine doing the work.)
Does it realy? The result is more faulty then well. I took Your result and compare it with the result from Potracer in Inkscape. See for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xhris
It would be down to the individual to decide whether a particular result is good enough for them. You can use the retroactive smoothing slider in the shape editor tool to remove some of the rough edges in the Xara traces, but that's more work. I am interested in the Inkscape tracer now you've brought it to my attention. I wasn't able to reproduce your result however. To help me, please could you attach the exact image file you used for the trace above along with screenshots of the settings used in Inkscape's tracer? Thanks.
Hi Xhris,Quote:
Originally Posted by Xhris
sorry I answer late but the last few days where very busy. I made a little video on how I did the trace in Inkscape. The voice quality isn't good because my microfon is defect. At the end, when I zoom in with the mousewheel the screen recorder zoomed in too and the edges arent sharp like in 100% view. I was lazy to record it again. I think You Xhris and everybody else can figure out how it work.
Here ist the link to the video: http://www.franta-net.de/xara/trace/
Servus Ernie
Thanks for doing that Ernie. Great video.
aye thanks ernie :)
Thank you Ernie, great explanation.
Ciao
Roly
Thanks for the video showing how you reproduced your result. As I suspected, my inability to reproduce the same trace result was because the final image posted was post-edited and not representative of the tracer’s raw output. As such, it’s probably not meaningful to conclude much about the tracers based on a comparison of the earlier images because post editing and corrections will always improve the final result.
In general, higher resolution images will always produce considerably better results due to the increased amount of information available for the tracer. Having played a bit more, both tracers seem to produce comparable levels of accuracy in their raw output relative to the original source image (in this example at least) as the attached file shows; the traces are overlaid on the original bitmap set to be all red pixels (can turn antialiasing off for clarity). I would argue that, at least in this case, the Inkscape tracer is easier to produce a final result given that it cuts out holes automatically. This is not surprising though given that Potrace is many years newer. Given that Inkscape is free and you can export to PDF, it’s probably the tracer of choice for this kind of usage as of Feb 2017.
Attachment 116265
Hi Xhris,Quote:
Originally Posted by Xhris
I dont agree with You. The poor quality output of Xara's tracer is not comparable to Potracer's output and is unacceptable for me as a professional graphic designer and printer..
Attachment 116268
You can see how jiggy the trace from Xara is.
I don't know when Xara build in the tracer but potrace was written by Peter Selinger and the initial release was 2001. More information about potrace you can find here: http://potrace.sourceforge.net/
I attached an other example of a tracing job I got often to do. To trace a handdrawn logo from a customer like this one is a job for a tracer. Not so good idea to redraw it into Xara.
Feel free to play arround with it. Maybe You got better results in Xara then my but I don't think You got a better result then with Inkscape/Potrace.
Servus Ernie
if you go back to around 2007/2008 you will find a whole series of threads on TG about using bitmap tracers, often relating to the creation of vector for the dreaded spinning logos in xara3D, and the subject of which was best between xara and inscape was thrashed to death
I use tracers a lot - the default settings on inscape/potrace make it easier to get a smooth egde than do the default settings in xara.. but smooth edges mean the edge deviates from it's original path more than if the edges are jagged with xara
look at the attached file - I have highlighted where your inkscape trace has simplified the outline - I have also traced in xara and you will see how the outline follows the original more closely - I have also included the xara tracer settings that I used in the xar file
Sorry maybe I'm blind? Or You?
Did You realy think the jigged trace from Xara will be better? If I tracing a logo i will have smooth but detailrich pathes with a minimum on nodes and not the sawtooth effect what Xara tracer made. That what You postet as an example is so terrible I wouldn't sell it to a client or let it plot for vehicle labeling.
That is a no go!
Xaras tracer is a piece of crap. I You are happy with it, o.k. For my purposes it's not suitable.
Servus Ernie
did I say it was better? - my point is that it is different
sure I understand that - but it does not make it a piece of crap; nor is anyone 'blind' :rolleyes:Quote:
For my purposes it's not suitable
back in the day I used to think the inkscape tracer was better because it produced smoother outlines and that was what I needed; but I reckon now that it is horses for courses - for example if you are doing poster work for walls would the jaggies matter if you could not see them unless you came so close you couldn't see the picture anyway - this is an argument that has been thrashed out before as well ;)
in any case given the choice I would these days prefer to use illustrator for the sort of work the OP posted
a quick example [very quick :)]
and again in colour - photographic 10 pass
you can see a bit of banding - but again only if you are up close - there is some tweaking needed on the beak - but that is tweaking of the source, not the trace
personally I don't think the xara tracer was ever meant to convert raster into perfect vector, not sure any tracer can be that accurate, but the xara tracer can do a very good job of converting raster 'pencil and paint' effects into a vector format and that is what I think it was originally meant for....
But is there really anything to be gained doing pixel level tracing as you lose every advantage of using vectors in first place? Your vectorized bitmap image will be huge, usually many times as large as the original bitmap file. Also it will not really scale any better, as vector version will get blocky as well.
I did quick test using excellent Image Outliner on RISC OS and the vector version is 9 kB, when the original enlarged bitmap was 550 kB. This makes sense, but tracing something and getting 2 times or more larger file in return makes very little.
O.K. handrawn,
I see we got difference purposes. Why I need a tracer? To trace outlines or shapes converted to vectors. Where I need vectors? In all printing jobs, for logos, for vehicle labeling, for screen print, laser cutting, CNC etc. I need perfect pathes with a minimum nodes.
I don't need to trace gardients because this is silly. Even I don't need to trace colors because I need CMYK or HKS and sometimes PMS. So the traced colors are obsolete. Tracing rasters are silly too because if you scale them the raster will be scaled too.
So for what is Xaras tracer (for me) helpfull? …
Xaras trace modul has in the time I work with Xara, this is now 10 Years, never got an update. Potrace has from 2003 to 2017, 4 updates and Peter is still working on it to improve the tracer. And Xara? 365!
Servus Ernie
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by ernie-f
I agree, an overhaul to the xara tracer is long overdue - but then so are so many other things on the drawing side :(
Yes - you get to create things in seconds that take a lot longer in vector - for example I dare say you could do it all in xara with art brushes, but they are a pain to use, so fiddly compared to raster brushes [floating windows would help here too if xara is listening]Quote:
Originally Posted by theinonen
not so in the examples I postedQuote:
Your vectorized bitmap image will be huge, usually many times as large as the original bitmap file.
fair point - but if you were doing this as part of an artistic process, as opposed to a design process, the line art and colouring could be exported separately and the lineart trace in greyscale and the colouring in photographic - the greyscale will not block like the photographicQuote:
Also it will not really scale any better, as vector version will get blocky as well.
and indeed, folowing on from what ernie said about colour trace being obsolete, in this case it may be better to create the gradients in xara after tracing the lineart in greyscale, but it was only a quick example - if the colouring were done in 'digital pencil' effect like the line art then it would be worthwhile tracing - but again maybe in greyscale adding the hues in xara
as I say, this is an artistic process, not a design one