Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Re: PS: Yes, I understand that, and I'm purposefully ignoring it because that information would only help my argument. Vector drawing elements are richer than raster drawing elements and hence tend to contain more information (e.g. "exactly how sharp is that edge?).

And you will get artifacts going from raster->vector->zoom, because the raster->vector algorithm necessarily infers information that is simply not present (i.e. beyond the Nyquist boundary). While typically not apparent at 100% zoom, inaccuracies in this inference will become apparent once you zoom in (e.g. "that pixel was meant to represent a perfect square, not a circle!").

Re: PPS: I never claimed it did? Music notation is bi-level and smooth edges that makes it well-suited for vector tracing with a bi-level tracer e.g. potrace (and therefore -- again -- aiding your argument). Comparing a CCITTv4 bitmap -- a bi-level format -- to vector output from potrace -- a bi-level tracer -- would make no sense with color gradients.

In case it's not clear, I'm making the analogy CCITTv4 : potrace :: JPEG : the diffusion curve algorithm.



colanderman: Yes, I understand the analogy you're making.

Your example of a pixel "meant to represent a perfect square, not a circle" is accurate: that is one type of information that gets discarded with this approach. Another type of information that gets discarded is complex/subtle color gradients/variations.

Taken to the extreme, yes, this approach can make photos look like stylized comic-book drawings; but with sensible defaults, it produces resolution-independent images that look great (such as the example with the dolphin) even if those images actually contain LESS information than a JPEG at the same file size.

We'll have to wait and see...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: