Chris Barker wrote:
> It's an excellent programme. The files were less than 1Mb yet they
> provided a full 3D view. Most impressive.
>
The modest file size is normal for a vector based rendering scheme. A
raster type file format, like we use for photographs, has to specify
three colour values for each pixel. A 100x100 square of one color on a
200x200 background of another color requires 120KB to describe.
A hypothetical vector language description of a black square on white
might look like this:
img(200,200,0)
sqr(50,50,100,100,256)
For 3D,
img(200,200,200,0)
sqr(50,50,50,100,100,100,256)
Under 50 bytes for the full, 3D description. Vector descriptions also
scale with no loss of detail (Within the limits of their number
precision.) and little difference in file size. Just add a zero to each
of the above numbers except the colors to describe an image with four
times the area, which would require 480KB in raster form.
That's why vector form is used for CAD and other similar applications.
Useless for photographs. For example, Adobe Illustrator is a vector
image app and PS is raster. Some overlaps have developed, but the
essential difference in nature is still there. You may embed a raster
image in Illustrator and PS can do simple vector stuff.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|