/loomis/ - Art Gains

Art, Animation, Etcetera!

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh

Max message length: 8000


Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 2.0.

/vhs/ ATOMIC Movie Night, Part 2
Dr. Strangelove - The Children - Six String Samurai
5pm PDT - 7pm CDT - 8pm EDT
Watch Here

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

We're All Gonna Make It! While the board has seen better days, you can keep in touch with your pal, Loomis (that's me!) at loomisadmin@protonmail.com

(57.19 KB 1652x928 vectorvsraster.jpg)

Vector vs Raster Anonymous 02/07/2021 (Sun) 22:10:31 No. 1660
So I'm relatively new to digital art, and I was wondering what the differences between Vector and Raster format is? I've been watching some videos on the subject, and from a brainlet's point of view, one would wonder why anyone would draw in raster over vector? With that being said, (knowing that I'm a brainlet) surely vector art isn't some kind of end all be all format and that it is a tool with specific purposes and disadvantages compared to raster? I guess what I'm trying to say is that the videos and information I've looked up don't really say any advantages and disadvantages, or why/when you should use one over the other, just the key differences.
Vector art is more shit like company logos or perfectly repeating patterns. If you look up vector art you will notice that everything is flat blocks of color with perfect curves and no blending or texture. That’s not just a stylistic choice, vector art is limited. There isn’t really freehand drawing, drawing lines is more like an advanced version of mspaint’s curved line or polygon tools. Most people do vector art with a mouse instead of a stylus.
>>1660 The way I'd put it is that you don't have the facilities for the same kind of control over texture and happy accidents when working in vector. Everything has to be precise and mathematically representable, making it difficult to work with textures and fine, arbitrary haphazard details. You know that touch of rough linework or weird crust in textures? Fuck you, vectors are clean and infinitely perfect. If you want rough linework in vectors, you have to describe said roughness in detail. Even if you zoom in to an absurd amount, it will always look clean. They're infinitely scalable, always as sharp or smooth as intended. There is no set size at which it looks best, so you, as the artist, have to provide that detail. This can be tricky, as you can't just paint on top of it. That's raster stuff, with discrete detail. You need mathematically representable results. Vector programs in general don't support this kind of on-the-fly editing, and if they do, they're almost always flawed in how they describe your very specific brush strokes to an infinitely expandable texture applied to an infinitely precise shape. Raster is exactly what it is. It's a discrete grid of discrete pixels, and what you see is what you get. You can't get more precision by zooming in closer. Then again, if that's what you get, you can just slap in arbitrary detail wherever. Got some wack-ass brush with a wack-ass texture, want to hand-render gradients, do some very subtle hue shifts or just capture your organic inaccuracies? You can do that. Do that without having to have the computer interpolate and artificially smooth out your imperfections. Vectors might take over completely one of these days, as tools to convert user input into readable details at specific zoom levels, but right now, vectors can't do arbitrary detail too well, and always look sterile. If you're working in something with clear linework, flat or minimally changing colorwork, vectors are good. If not, stick with raster. Up the resolution if you have to. tl;dr vectors suck at textures and anything messy
>>1660 Vector is not very good for images with complex gradient and shapes variations. Rendering and loading a vector version of an impressionist painting, or autistically detailed WH40K fan art would take a long time in vector format. Same goes for complex textures. I found that out the hard way when I thought that drawing very detailed map using vectors would be a good idea. It was 12 years ago so tech might have gotten a bit better since then. Another factor is that vector images end up converted to raster images in order to show them on conventional displays anyway. That can make vector images vary based on the device and software it is viewed on. Uniformity and full details would be preserved on vector displays, but they are very limited right now. Last one is support. There is less of it for vector images, a lot of people associate vector graphics with flash, it took a while for standard formats to emerge, etc. etc. In raster format, you do not have to worry about that at all. If you are concerned about scaleability, just draw big and scale down if needed. Not many people will view your stuff in 8K anyway, and scaling down is not an issue. No matter how much blur, texture, gradients, or fine details you add in, your image will still be a matrix of colored pixels. File sizes are the only limitations really, an you do not need to sacrifice real world fidelity. As long as you are not a retard and draw small or use a shitty format, vectors offer little advantage outside of text, graphs, and logos.
(13.66 KB 368x231 raster.png)

It sounds like OP doesn't know wtf vector and raster are, so here's the basics. Raster is a grid that represents the pixels on your computer screen. It's the final product, basically. Vector art is a set of instructions. Draw a line from here to there using this color. The computer then paints it on your screen. The great advantage of vector art is that you can upscale it. If you try to make a raster bigger, you end up with big blocks. So if you're working in raster, start with a big canvas size. You can always scale it down if you want the final image to be smaller. So work in whatever your favorite art program uses. Save your work files on your computer in your art program's format, and export it to raster format (jpg usually, webp is getting more popular) for sharing online.
How the FUCK do I use Illustrator bros!?
>>1819 I uh...actually found a really good video shortly after making this statement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib8UBwu3yGA
>>1682 webp isn't actually popular, Google has contracts for websites to convert uploaded shit to webp to make it appeal more popular than it is.
>>3733 I hate that webp sh*t so goshdarn much.
>>3733 Fuck webp
>>3733 >>3735 >>3736 use of webp has increased extremely slowly since it was created, mostly by large technology companies who care about bandwidth. since nobody in real life has heard of it and some other big companies don't care e.g. microsoft (windows) and adobe (photoshop) lots of normalfags can't view or edit webp without using a web browser, if they even know to do that. this lack of support and "brand awareness" for has caused the adverse reaction seen in this thread to be extremely common. e.g. "what is this gay webp shit that i can't open in photoshop?" the situation would probably be the same for webm but it isn't because imo of 4chan starting to accept webm in ~2014. the video formats webm supports, vp8 and vp9 (and av1 now) have no hardware encoding/decoding support (meaning they're very slow) and it took years for windows to support it and idk if adobe has yet still. all these things would lead to webm being hated by normalfags, but the name is well known so it isn't. by normalfags i mean everyone who isn't into this stuff and uses videos/images purely pragmatically. no offense to the normalfags itt.
>>3741 I don't like it because I have to save it as a different format if I were to upload it to a site. Simple as

Quick Reply