Blinky2004

Ya i know what you mean too vee.
With Photoshop, vectors CAN get a little messy... what with the extra crap on the layer... plus... you can't really DO anything to a vector layer unless you Rasterize it first...!!!??? Except apply the Layer Styles to it.

I prefer XaraX for vectors... no contest.

celldss

This thread brings me to a question I've had for a while.

Is it possible to break down the pixel into smaller portions to edit or is the pixel the "lowest common denominator"? I ask because I am having issues getting tiny objects to look good in PS. I'm thinking about porting my work over to Illustrator for a bit to get the level of detail that I'm after without the jaggies of PS. If my hunch is correct, each pixel has to be a single color and can't be broken down (I'm assuming that's a limitation of the pixel size of the monitor). However - why then would you be able to zoom in 300x on a vector graphic & still have perfect edges? My guess is that when you soom in on, say, Illustrator, the pixels are displayed on your monitor the same way they are in a high res rasterized image. Can anyone shed some more light on this?

Take care!

First of all, I do all my vector work in Xara X and sometimes in Illustrator, so it's not that I think I need to defend Photoshop in any way when it comes to vectors

You said that resolution has nothing to do with this, yes, I agree with what you see on the screen, but I don't agree with the final output, because that's what?s most important or not? The main argument to use vectors is that they are scalable and that?s what they are in both Photoshop and any dedicated vector program. Isn?t that all what counts? The zoom function in Photoshop is based on pixels, but that?s very obvious knowing the nature of Photoshop.

Again, take my example, a 20x20 pixels image with a vector shape on it. You zoom in 1600% and it has blurry edges. Even at a resolution of 10,000x10,000 pixels you will see those blurry edges at 1600%.
Can I use a 20x20 raster image and resize it to 10,000x10,000 and still have the same quality...no.
Can I resize a 20x20 pixels shape to that high resolution or even a complex vector drawing and still have the same quality?yes.
And that?s all what counts and that?s the way Adobe thinks and not only they, but all manufacturers image editors who use the term "vectors" (Jasc, Ulead, Mediachance, etc)

You said that vectors is the best choice for Web graphics. You have to explain this to me, because I don?t understand this. All static images on the web are pixel based and focused on 72 dpi. I don?t understand why vector programs have an advantage when all you need for example is a 100x100 pixels image?

Can you now understand why I don't understand your words; "the truth that Photoshop vectors are imitation vectors".
Vectors graphics are scalable graphics and they still are in Photoimpact, Paintshop pro, Real Draw Pro, Photoshop, etc. so that's the only truth in honest opinion.

That's all I had to add I'm sorry if I have to disagree with you on this one ;\

jpfitness

dahhhhhh :B I'm getting confused he he he
sfm

Blinky2004

hahaha aaa ok, this is cool now guys let's dig deep on this topic, so those not in the know about this subject might better understand it.
Cool! [righton]

Oh and hey G?... agree to disagree is fine with me.
But i'd like to try and make my point as to why i prefer vector for Web graphics. Hopefully i can do that here. [honesty]
BTW... with regard to your comment about 'final output', i'm referring to the monitor, not print. I think i stated that.

In retrospect...
I should've put a question mark after the "Imitation Vectors" in that image above (i've changed that now). I think it would've made my point a lot more precise.
Last night i gave this subject more indepth thought, and i've come to realize that Gaussian, we're making the same points here. The fact that PS is pixel based so it's zoom function is also pixel based, is a given. And that was never in question actually. I just should have made a point of that difference between XaraX & PS.
But i never intended this topic to go in the direction it has now.

For those that don't know much about this subject, here's just a brief explanation of what separates Raster images from Vectors images...

First off, these are just 2 different types of graphic formats.

Raster images are based on pixels. Pixels are minute squares that your monitor uses to render data in a visual format.

Vector images are made up of lines and curves, and are rendered visually through mathematical calculations. When vector images are saved in a raster format -- Gif/Jpg/Bmp/Tiff/etc. -- they are converted to pixels and are there-after subject to the same limitations as Raster images are. They only remain 'flawless' while in their native format.

Both Raster and Vector images get rendered by your monitor, which can only display these images using pixels -- which are square. So when scaling a Raster image larger or smaller, it's pixels will get stretched out or separated by the process.
When doing the same to a Vector image, it's lines and curves will remain intact, and it's appearance will be of a higher quality than that of the Raster image.[list]NOTE: Because your monitor only displays "squares", the Vector image can have some slightly jagged looking edges, in certain areas -- but only with low-res graphics, not hi-res. (hi-res being of much larger size) And even then, usually once anti-aliasing is applied, lines become clean again.[/list:u] When scaling pixel based images, the software you use will have to "guess" (aka "interpolation") where each pixel should now be located when the image is scaled. A Vector image however is based on lines/curves that are put in place via a number crunching process by your cpu. Thus, when scaled up or down, your cpu can very easily recalculate the placement of the lines/curves -- i.e. there's no 'guessing' involved.

And that's why Vectors are the optimal choice for graphics that are to be viewed on a monitor -- which leads naturally into Web graphics.

One important point to make here too guys is that i will not use a vector app like XaraX to create "warm" or "natural" looking graphics. It's hard, clean lines/edges are not good for that type of visual effect. I'll use a raster app like PS for this type of image, because the anti-aliasing done to pixels creates a much more natural looking effect than vector images can produce. It's a difficult process to try and make pixels look 'randomly' blended in a vector application.

So each type of format can have it's own specialized use then. [righton]

As usual a great explanation Mark [righton]

And about preferring vectors for web graphics; I have to agree that vectors are more suited when you plan to resize, no question about that

Blinky2004

Thx G.

But you do understand what i mean by resizing in this case, right?
As is often the case with site design, things can get quite minute and detailed. In which case, it's not uncommon to created graphics and other design elements at a larger size, because it's easier to work on them, and afterward scale them down to their final output size.

That's what i'm referring to in this case.

Oh yes, now it makes more sense and now I understand why there can be a preference for vectors in web graphics, you're right

wbiss

Ahhhhhh..... beautiful explanation Mark! [righton]