Vector vs Raster, Resolution, and Scaling

[RocketBanner]

I get a lot of clients sending really bad artwork so I try and clear up the confusion about vector vs raster graphics as well as how resolution relates graphics files, and I talk about scaling an image.

[video=youtube_share;A1-oW3Ws1vk]http://youtu.be/A1-oW3Ws1vk[/video]

 

[GAC05]

I think the average sign maker will be able to grasp just about everything you put up there.
A minute or two into your video I think the average client's eyes will roll back into their head they will start to drool just a bit & then ask you to print their PowerPoint slides at billboard size.

Good effort in putting it up.

wayne k
guam usa

 

[Z SIGNS]

Very nice vid and effort.

But who do you think is going to really watch the whole 15 minutes and absorb it.

Personally I think it would be more effective if you could dumb it down to about 30 seconds.

 

[RocketBanner]

short version

Very nice vid and effort.

But who do you think is going to really watch the whole 15 minutes and absorb it.

Personally I think it would be more effective if you could dumb it down to about 30 seconds.

Thanks for the input

Yes, it's long but my goal was to give a comprehensive definition, I used to display a short version for 5 years I ran this one,

http://www.rocketbanner.com/raster-vector.htm


at 2 minutes it goes fast but left a whole lot of unanswered questions.

 

[bob]

After watching the entire excruciating 15 minutes I offer the following...

This is, at best, raster vice vector as seen by the Marin county housewives or some other coven of dilettantes. The knowledge and, more importantly, the understanding of the material as demonstrated in the explanations offered seemed woefully limited. There were many areas where the material was simply wrong. Either factually or philosophically. The areas that were at least somewhat correct were, unfortunately, incredibly long winded and not fundamental to the subject matter.

Moreover, if you can't sum up a subject in a simple paragraph or two, any subject from quantum physics to the meaning of life, then perhaps you aren't as familiar with the material as you'd like to think you might be.

 

[Fred Weiss]

First of all, thank you for sharing the video with us.

Personally, I think you missed a great opportunity to break it down into a few shorter videos. For example, one of the near universal issues facing our members in their dealings with clients is making it clear to them why a vector image is preferable to a raster image when appropriate or when a high resolution image is needed when all they are supplying is a low resolution one.

 

[RocketBanner]

After watching the entire excruciating 15 minutes I offer the following...

This is, at best, raster vice vector as seen by the Marin county housewives or some other coven of dilettantes. The knowledge and, more importantly, the understanding of the material as demonstrated in the explanations offered seemed woefully limited. There were many areas where the material was simply wrong. Either factually or philosophically. The areas that were at least somewhat correct were, unfortunately, incredibly long winded and not fundamental to the subject matter.

Moreover, if you can't sum up a subject in a simple paragraph or two, any subject from quantum physics to the meaning of life, then perhaps you aren't as familiar with the material as you'd like to think you might be.

I'd like to know what is factually wrong, just so I can be correct going forward.

 

[RocketBanner]

First of all, thank you for sharing the video with us.

Personally, I think you missed a great opportunity to break it down into a few shorter videos. For example, one of the near universal issues facing our members in their dealings with clients is making it clear to them why a vector image is preferable to a raster image when appropriate or when a high resolution image is needed when all they are supplying is a low resolution one.

Too long, I get the point. It was originally 4 short videos I think you can tell by the breaks. I think I should revisit post and break them up.

Thanks for the input

 

[bob]

I'd like to know what is factually wrong, just so I can be correct going forward.

Without watching the entire thing again and taking copious notes, here's a few observations in no particular order...

'Raster' is a digital display technology, not a type of image. The type of image to which you refer is popularly called a 'bitmap'. Even that is a misnomer, it should really be called a 'pixel map'.

File types are only coincidentally related to the type of image they might contain. Certainly jpg, gif, tif, etc. virtually always contain bitmaps. Other types do not. Specifically pdf and, in a limited fashion, eps files contain collections of objects. Vector and/or bitmap. There is no standard file type for vector objects. Pdf and eps etc. might contain vector objects. then again, they might not.

Vector images are a collection of Cartesian co-ordinates and curve parameters. color and fill information can also be kept. Strokes/outlines/contours/etc are implicit and just the parameters for such are stored. Saying 'points' is rather an oversimplification.

All logos are not vector objects.

All bitmaps are not captured.

'Fill' and 'Stroke' are provincial terms. Other software, yes Virginia there is other software, use other terms.

While a vector object can be converted to a bitmap, it is impossible to 'convert' a bitmap into a corresponding vector object. Much like unscrambling an egg, the information does not exist do to so. All that can be done is to recreate a vector facsimile of a bitmap. If a bitmap were created from a vector object it is not possible to reproduce the original vector object. You might come close but it's doubtful that you'll hit it exactly.

Unless you're using an analog stroke writer, either as a display [something I haven't seen in 30-40 years] or a pen plotter, all objects, vector and bitmap, are displayed in raster form.

There's more but I'm far too lazy to watch the video again.

 

[RocketBanner]

Without watching the entire thing again and taking copious notes, here's a few observations in no particular order...

'Raster' is a digital display technology, not a type of image. The type of image to which you refer is popularly called a 'bitmap'. Even that is a misnomer, it should really be called a 'pixel map'.

File types are only coincidentally related to the type of image they might contain. Certainly jpg, gif, tif, etc. virtually always contain bitmaps. Other types do not. Specifically pdf and, in a limited fashion, eps files contain collections of objects. Vector and/or bitmap. There is no standard file type for vector objects. Pdf and eps etc. might contain vector objects. then again, they might not.

Vector images are a collection of Cartesian co-ordinates and curve parameters. color and fill information can also be kept. Strokes/outlines/contours/etc are implicit and just the parameters for such are stored. Saying 'points' is rather an oversimplification.

All logos are not vector objects.

All bitmaps are not captured.

'Fill' and 'Stroke' are provincial terms. Other software, yes Virginia there is other software, use other terms.

While a vector object can be converted to a bitmap, it is impossible to 'convert' a bitmap into a corresponding vector object. Much like unscrambling an egg, the information does not exist do to so. All that can be done is to recreate a vector facsimile of a bitmap. If a bitmap were created from a vector object it is not possible to reproduce the original vector object. You might come close but it's doubtful that you'll hit it exactly.

Unless you're using an analog stroke writer, either as a display [something I haven't seen in 30-40 years] or a pen plotter, all objects, vector and bitmap, are displayed in raster form.

There's more but I'm far too lazy to watch the video again.

Very impressive, but in a word "goobledegook", I'm sure the lay person would find my explanation more useful, and it's accurate, not precise but for practical purposes completely accurate, and I stand by it.

Your goal seems less to be helpful and more to try and humiliate. Enjoy Yourself.

 

[bob]

Very impressive, but in a word "goobledegook", I'm sure the lay person would find my explanation more useful, and it's accurate, not precise but for practical purposes completely accurate, and I stand by it.

Your goal seems less to be helpful and more to try and humiliate. Enjoy Yourself.

Helpful? Perhaps I should have been more to the point. That would be that knowing, and using, the correct nomenclature is at least half of all wisdom.

The other half would be in knowing and expressing in the simplest terms possible a correct description of the mechanism at work. Merely describing some of the effects of a mechanism can be misleading. The difference is being definitive rather than merely descriptive. The former is far more useful than the latter.

 

[bomaboat]

Bob is blunt, but not malicious or wrong. You took the time to post this and ask for input, now accept it.

If you are to try and teach something you must be precise with your words and concepts. It is also important to be concise.

I think this would do better as a series of 30 second videos. You could send your flailing customers a link to video 3 or 4 and let them navigate to video 1 and 2 naturally if they are interested still.

• what are pixels? show how they relate to screen resolution and color
• what are vectors? mathematical lines and curves which can be scaled.
• compare and contrast scaling a raster circle versus scaling a vector circle. show pixelation. how does this relate to printing?
• reinforce lesson 3: show why a high resolution raster image is better than a low resolution raster image.

 

[RocketBanner]

Bob is blunt, but not malicious or wrong. You took the time to post this and ask for input, now accept it.

I'm sorry but I don't accept it, as a rule I try not to listen to anyone who responds in such a condescending manner, simple as that. If you think it's alright for one member to try and humiliate another then you are in good company with Bob. I also continue to wholeheartedly stand by my descriptions, and I would argue that the layperson is much more interested in a generalized description than a precise one. In fact, near daily phone conversations with customers has convinced me of it.

I accept and appreciate the civil comments from the others who offered input, I have taken them to heart and have already started work editing. The video is painfully long and needs to be shortened.

 

[Laz0924]

I thought the intent of the video was to give the lay person "customers" a better understanding of what we need and why. I think it did that, thanks for the effort