If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Hey guys i was just helping someone with something and this kind of slapped me in the face. I think it warrants some attention so people are fully aware of what's going on with Photoshop's "vector" shape abilities.
I believe that Adobe is only half implying the PS has vector capabilities -- the half that makes it possible to automatically mask out a Path so your object gets created, and is completely editable at any time.
But as for PS's vector shapes being "true" vectors... i think they're missing something there... Photoshop's "vectors" are still based on the rules of pixels...
Sanby, you create and scale a vector to any size you wish and will always stay the same (resolution independent). Whereas a bitmap will lose data as you re-size it.
For instance, open any image in PS. Resize it without changing the resolution and you'll notice the pixelation. With the transform tool, make it smaller, commit it, then transform it big again, you'll see a difference.
In Corel Draw, regardless whether you resize a clipart to the tiniest you can go or resize it to Godzilla proportions, it'll stay the same.
Sue, I think there's Xara in the link I posted at Gare's 3d thread. You gotta search for it though.
[confused] If you're using a screen resolution of 72 ppi, yes, you're going to get a very pronounced pixelation thing happening! Try the same test, this time setting your resolution to 300...
[confused] And I still don't know what the "big deal" is, 'cause you'd have to get out a "magnifying glass" to see a visual difference. A printer can only print so many dots per inch and a computer screen can only display so many pixels per inch!
- Create a 20x20 pixels document
- Add a filled shape, a circle for example.
- resize your document to 500x500 pixels
...guess what, your shape is still sharp
The zoom tool is based on pixels, not on vectors.
I can resize an image in PS that contains only vectors to any size without losing quality. It's a myth that one has to use a dedicated vector program to obtain the best quality for a single vector.
The only thing that you have to take in account is, just like Wendy says, the resolution.
Well actually G it's not apples and oranges... it's granny smith and macintosh... but they're both apples. i.e. "vectors".
I think though that my point was not clearerly made for this subject... let me rephrase it:
As it pertains to a raster based graphics program such as Photoshop is, the term "vector" is used loosely, not literally.
Whereas the same term applied in a vector based program, such as XaraX or Illustrator, is used in a literal sense.
And this is evidenced by the zoomed-in screenshots taken from both apps, using the same conditions. (at least conditions native to each app)
Better? :B
Again... i'm not making this observation to dog Photoshop... only to bring this fact to the attention of the vector fans in the house.
And none of this has anything to do with resolution guys. The zoom function being based on pixels only supports my obsevation of PS's vector behaviour. I zoomed in on the object in XaraX and it had no effect at all on the quality of the edges.
One last point to make is that none of this has any bearing on print applications, but is more so targeted at those people wanting to work in Web graphics. Vector is, IMHO, the best choice for that environment.
True, you'll only see it when you zoom into it. But at normal view its crisp. As for vector programs, I do objects faster on it. Never had the chance to practice on PS. But right now its produce, production, output at work.
Photoshop's "imitation" vectors... 
Linear Mode
