What's new
By:
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Photoshop's "imitation" vectors...


theKeeper

theKeeper

Guru
Messages
2,313
Likes
63
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...
 
Interesting, I never new that.

I don't fully understand vector image. How is it that they are not based on pixels? how does this work?

Sanby
 
I tried the vector tools myself. And I got the same result you have. So I still do my stuff in other vector programs and export them to PS.

I doubt whether Adobe can incorporate vector capabilities in PS. A bitmap will always be a bitmap unlike a vector which you can export as a bitmap.

vee
 
wow that Xarax looks like great stuff.......... got a link for the software anyone? [:I
is it hard to use?
sfm
 
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.

vee
 
[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!
 
Mark, you're comparing apples with oranges :\

Here, do a test;

- 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.

vee
 
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. :D
 
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!
 
theKeeper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ;\
 
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. :D
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.
  • 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 ;)
 
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 ;)
 
Ahhhhhh..... beautiful explanation Mark! :righton: :)
 
Back
Top