As I understand it (which isn't a great understanding) vectors are scalable because they are math based, however, as with anything if you go smaller at some point details will be lost.
As I understand it (which isn't a great understanding) vectors are scalable because they are math based, however, as with anything if you go smaller at some point details will be lost.
“When it’s over and you look in the mirror, did you do the best that you were capable of? If so, the score does not matter. But if you find that you did your best you were capable of, you will find it to your liking.” -John Wooden
* Rivengard * My Finished Maps * My Challenge Maps * My deviantArt
Raster images are as mathematical as vector images, or anything else stored on a computer.Originally Posted by Jaxilon
It would be better to say that vector images don't suffer from data loss due to resampling when scaling. However much detail is in the file is how much will appear. It can't make new detail appear when scaling up, it just makes sure what is there looks right at any size.
I guess if you want to say it's all 1's and 0's everything is the same but somehow that doesn't seem to be the case.
I thought basically (really basically) Raster = Pixels, Vector = curves.
“When it’s over and you look in the mirror, did you do the best that you were capable of? If so, the score does not matter. But if you find that you did your best you were capable of, you will find it to your liking.” -John Wooden
Roughly speaking, yes.
Raster data consists of samples taken at regular points. In the case of raster images, the samples are some sort of quantification of colour.
Vector data consists of an abstract description of shapes and their properties. Again, in the case of the images, the primary property would be quantified colour.
"More abstract" would be a reasonable way to describe vector data, but I'm not even sure how it would be meaningful to compare "mathematicalness" as it were.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote