Talk:Vector graphics

message: Added an illustration showing the effect of scaling on vector and bitmap images; this illustration demonstrates a key advantage of vector-based graphics (the ability to scale them to any size without degradation).
Agateller 06:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scaling Illustration

message: Someone make a vector equivalent of this:
Show that it still holds the same shape at larger sizes, and somehow demonstrate the presence of discrete objects instead of pixels. - Omegatron 00:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Why do you want this done? --InvaderJim42 00:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Omegatron, judging by your user page. I'm completely convinced that this is something you're capable of doing yourself. So, what's this about? Whether you've posted this comment rhetorically or not, your point is impenetrable either way. 198.49.180.40 21:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree more examples like this one should be used. Making vector graphics out of photos is mostly pretty useless (it isn't done in Wikipedia for example), but for smilies, arrows, flags and stuff like that, it's very useful (and this is done in Wikipedia). Cristan 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Useless? See the caption on the photo. Oicumayberight 17:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image! 

message: The second paragraph relates vector/bitmap graphics to the way a human "brain" or "eye" works. Is there any source for this information? It certainly seems intriguing but I wonder exactly how much solid research it's based on. Especially when it refers to ""recent studies," which I don't see any link to.--Eraboin 03:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The human eye works as a bitmap picture: it catches the image in a mosaic raster of photon recipient nerves, a pixel image. But the brain — according to recent studies — handles it as a vector image. Perhaps because — like in computers — this is easier to store. It explains why humans can recognize simple drawings like cartoons with just outlines because this is so close to what the human brain makes of the visual world anyway. It also serves as an explanation for the fact that logos and signs with easy and geometric shapes are more easily remembered and recognized.
Naturally it could be restored to the article if citations are provided for these claims. I would note that should this occur, it should be placed in a subsection, not put back in the article introduction, which is supposed to be a basic overview of the article's subject, not a dumping ground for tangential issues (the nature of human vision is not a fundamental aspect of the nature of vector graphics). — Haeleth Talk 10:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the "brain" and "eye" work? 

message: I think replacing hyphens with dashes in the second paragraph would be fair.Vadik wiki 00:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. You can retrieve what was once there from the page history. Oicumayberight 03:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation 

message: I have removed the external links section. Originally I had intended merely to clean it up by removing the spammier links, but when I looked more closely, I discovered that it contained only three types of link:
# Advertising for commercial software (AmanithVG, Raster-To-Vector)
# Links to sites providing "free" vector graphics files
# Links to open-source programs and libraries that handle vector graphics (Inkscape, Cairo)
(1) is classic linkspam, to be scourged with fire wherever encountered. (2) is less offensive, but still advertising; this is an encyclopedia, not a link directory, and our mission in this article is to help people understand vector graphics as such, not to help people find free clipart. (3) then falls to the same issue. Moreover, the internal links to pages like List of vector graphics editors already provide better and more complete information about what software is available to edit vector graphics; it is useless to duplicate this effort badly with an incomplete set of external links.
Since therefore none of the links in the article actually fall into the scope for external links defined in our guidelines, I think we are better off without the section. It can be recreated easily enough if anybody finds a link that is actually appropriate for inclusion. — Haeleth Talk 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: This page IS about vector graphics, right? Then, should there not be more than one ACTUAL vector graphic on it? 84.70.112.198 17:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SVG is the only vector graphic format that can be displayed in wikipedia. There only needs to be one example of a vector graphic per format. Unless you are looking for downloadable links or links on external HTML pages, the other vector formats (PDF, EPS, Flash, WMF, DXF, X3D, etc) cannot be displayed without converting them to a bitmap on this page. Oicumayberight 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More than one vector graphic example

message: Vector display redirects here, but unless I'm much mistaken, nothing on this page discusses vector displays. What's with that? Rawling4851 00:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What were you expecting besides this? Oicumayberight 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... ok, shoot me. How dumb do I feel right now? Rawling4851 10:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vector display 

message: I thought the original camera example showed a better contrast of pixelation than the bottle.
	
The bottle only shows a good contrast of the difference when the user looks at the larger version. The thumbnail is only "7x magnified" at the full 1000 × 1125 pixel size. If nobody bothers to click and enlarge the image, the point gets lost. Oicumayberight 03:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I can make it more obvious smaller - soon. But the pixelation is still very obvious even as a thumbnail. The reason for the replacement is two-fold: One, the example with the camera is in jpeg, and that is not a good format for this type of picture. Two, the camera picture is fair use, and should not be used when there is a free alternative. Althepal 05:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Oicumayberight 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the file with a smaller one, showing more magnification, and added text for detail. Althepal 05:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know if you think the magnification is too high, and if the sample area is too small, to show the raster up-sizing. Althepal 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Get's the point across. Oicumayberight 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the bottle the best, but there is a problem with it, the black and white label elements aren't placed correctly, vector is only as good as the placement of the nodes, zoom in far enough with incorrectly placed nodes like in that picture and you see how it's off a little.  Gigith (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: yuawi. 161.132.108.73 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: What was wrong with the original camera example?

message: How come Wikipedia has so many problems with vector graphics? When downsized, they are not as smooth as pngs. In , the elements don't show up when a certain size. I've also noticed that Hebrew letters don't show up unless converted to path. Althepal 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong?

message: Article needs an image of CAD software. On Autocad I can zoom in indefinitely and letters, like, symbols, arrows and other stuff are getting larger without losing detail. It's clearly vector graphics technology, if we consider a larger family. --AaThinker (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What? No one is denying CAD software uses vector graphics. Indeed the CAD article says it Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet not a single mention here. --AaThinker (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Im sure many programs use vector graphics. They dont all have to be listed. --24.247.83.244 (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAD 

message: See also includes some product names. It also includes a link to List of vector graphics editors. Rather than add further products and duplicate the list, I suggest the removal of all product names from See also (after copying any to the list, if they're missing). This proposal will improve ease of page maintenance. --trevj (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: The lead says  I can't understand this sentence...-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither can I. Can someone explain, please? Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out. Anyone who can explain what it meant is welcome to restore it. Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "more than a straight line toward align."? 

message: There has recently been a technical article in Red Shark (a video forum associated with the Lightworks Editing program) suggesting that at some future point Vector Based Video will become possible or even inevitable. The Article is; Video Without Pixels-the debate by David Shapton. URL: http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/1289-video-without-pixels-the-debate  This is Star Wars as far as current computing power is concerned but Moore's Law has held for decades now & we can anticipate that at some point the computers will be powerful enough to execute such a video technology. The primary advantage will be scalability. With Vector Based Video anything from a wristwatch screen to a giant outdoor screen could be driven by the same video file. Today's video has 2K as the standard High Definition video with 4K beginning to be used on major productions such as "Oblivion." There are usable 8K systems at the leading edge. All these are of course Raster or Bitmap based. There are some experiments in Vector Video being done now. The final point being that once the computers are powerful enough; Why bother with the limitations of the current standard. To be truly current this development in Vector Graphics should at least have a paragraph in the Vector Graphics article. Perhaps Mr Shapton would be good enough to write this for Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvsterling (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vector Based Video 

message: We need a diagram like this. JMP EAX (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  So I don't forget 

message: There is no mention here of the metadata that can (or can not) be added to vector graphics files, or how that differs from metadata for raster files, eg identification of areas that are clickable. Obviously it depends on specific file type, so I'm looking for something generic here.  This seems to be an omission.FreeFlow99 (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metadata 

message: The fourth paragraph discusses bitmap fonts and discusses hinting in detail. I don't see the relevance to vector graphics and think this paragraph should be deleted. Any objections? KenShirriff (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typography and bitmap fonts not relevant? 

message: The article uses both. 2600:1008:B062:930A:F8FA:F49A:E7A5:37FF (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general phenomenon or field of study, it's singular, but when referring to multiple images specified by means of vectors, it could be plural. AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "vector graphics" singular or plural? 

message: Taking those three points one by one:
* There is no aliasing - this could also be true of a raster image, because you can make a raster image from a vector image. Strictly speaking there's no such thing as "a vector image" on a raster display, which includes every kind of display used to display images. So as soon as you see a vector image, it has already been rendered as a raster image.
* The color gradients are all smooth - again, this is true of the equivalent raster image too.
* Resize the image without losing any quality - this is a unique feature of vector graphics, but the image doesn't display this feature, because the image doesn't change size. It will display at the default thumbnail width of 220 pixels, except for those who have chosen a different default width in their preferences, who will see it at a different fixed size and thus it still doesn't serve as a demonstration of the potential for resizing a vector graphic.
The points about anti-aliasing and smooth gradients, as well as this one about quality, are only valid in the context of resizing, which is something a single static image can't demonstrate.
There are a couple of other problems with this text as well: aliasing does not "result in" digital artifacts, because aliasing and digital artifacts are the same thing, and the user can resize the image indefinitely, not infinitely, though I wouldn't recommend using either word. In practice resizing (in MS Paint or GIMP or via CSS or in any software less than about 25 years old) uses a sampling technique that prevents aliasing (but produces blurring instead). Resizing larger is the only issue, really, since resizing a raster smaller (discarding information) produces acceptable results. And what is quality really? Can't we be specific?
So what should it say instead? Maybe "If this vector-based (SVG format) image of a round four-color swirl could be resized larger, it would display several unique features of vector graphics versus raster graphics: even at increased sizes, there would be no aliasing or blurring along the rounded edge (aliasing means digital artifacts, also known as jaggies), the color gradients would all remain smooth, and all elements such as lines and curves would remain sharply defined."
Incidentally, every browser has a zoom function, so it's possible to resize the image larger - but it would be no use suggesting to the reader that they try it, because this only demonstrates that it's been rendered as a raster. Soon (blurry) aliasing artifacts become visible around the edge. So the image displays nothing of that it's useful to observe.  Card Zero  (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  None of the text under the "four color swirl" image (in section File Formats) is true