Re: converting photos to vector graphics
Posted by
caudlet
on 2005-09-16 16:45:39 UTC
--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, <davegsc@t...> wrote:
1. You need high resolution bitmaps (> 300 DPI) to get anything close
to usable. Lower resolution images generate an output that is just an
jagged as the original and take a lot of cleanup to get anywhere near
something you can use.
2. The vector output is optimized for presentation (printed) output
and the software has no problem putting in thousands of tiny closed
vector objects. Trying to cut something like that on CNC or with a
vinyl cutter is a exercise in frustration.
3. Simple artwork comes out pretty good, but you can either trace or
use Illustrator/Corel to do it from scratch almost as fast. Complex
images (photos) are laughable. Turn up the tolerance to avoid the
jagged and high number of objects, and you get stuff that resembles an
impressionist painting!
4. To get decent output it really needs to go through an editing
process in a paint program. Spending hours to edit an image in Paint
so you can scan it to get to vector then cleaning up the vector seems
redundant to me.
5. The human eye is quick to see problems with text and geometric
shapes like circles, squares and ellipses. If the scan is the
slightest skewed the results for text will stand out like a diamond in
a goat's butt. It better to use the drawing program to replace the
text by finding the font and using it's native text objects.
6. Each program has dozens of settings you can change to get
different results. Since no two images are alike there is nothing
like a "optimum" seeting you can arrive at. You can over time learn
where to start by looking at a particular image but some trial and
error is unavoidable.
After tying several autotrace programs (Corel Trace, Steamline, Algo
Labs, etc) we came to the conclusion it was faster to learn the vector
editing tools and to hand trace the images. We have done well over a
thousand "conversions" on the last two years so if there existed a
package that could do it faster than we can by hand I would use it.
That's my story and I'm stikin' to it! (:-)
> The new Illustrator CS2 can do it.Here are the problems with using ANY of the autotrace programs:
>
> http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/18132.html?cprose=3-46
>
> Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
1. You need high resolution bitmaps (> 300 DPI) to get anything close
to usable. Lower resolution images generate an output that is just an
jagged as the original and take a lot of cleanup to get anywhere near
something you can use.
2. The vector output is optimized for presentation (printed) output
and the software has no problem putting in thousands of tiny closed
vector objects. Trying to cut something like that on CNC or with a
vinyl cutter is a exercise in frustration.
3. Simple artwork comes out pretty good, but you can either trace or
use Illustrator/Corel to do it from scratch almost as fast. Complex
images (photos) are laughable. Turn up the tolerance to avoid the
jagged and high number of objects, and you get stuff that resembles an
impressionist painting!
4. To get decent output it really needs to go through an editing
process in a paint program. Spending hours to edit an image in Paint
so you can scan it to get to vector then cleaning up the vector seems
redundant to me.
5. The human eye is quick to see problems with text and geometric
shapes like circles, squares and ellipses. If the scan is the
slightest skewed the results for text will stand out like a diamond in
a goat's butt. It better to use the drawing program to replace the
text by finding the font and using it's native text objects.
6. Each program has dozens of settings you can change to get
different results. Since no two images are alike there is nothing
like a "optimum" seeting you can arrive at. You can over time learn
where to start by looking at a particular image but some trial and
error is unavoidable.
After tying several autotrace programs (Corel Trace, Steamline, Algo
Labs, etc) we came to the conclusion it was faster to learn the vector
editing tools and to hand trace the images. We have done well over a
thousand "conversions" on the last two years so if there existed a
package that could do it faster than we can by hand I would use it.
That's my story and I'm stikin' to it! (:-)
Discussion Thread
martinkorson
2005-09-16 10:23:49 UTC
converting photos to vector graphics
R Rogers
2005-09-16 10:30:13 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] converting photos to vector graphics
caudlet
2005-09-16 10:33:38 UTC
Re: converting photos to vector graphics
Rod Richeson
2005-09-16 10:38:05 UTC
Re: converting photos to vector graphics
davegsc@t...
2005-09-16 10:38:34 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] converting photos to vector graphics
Peter Stempel
2005-09-16 11:26:10 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] converting photos to vector graphics
caudlet
2005-09-16 16:45:39 UTC
Re: converting photos to vector graphics
Fred Smith
2005-09-17 07:47:14 UTC
Re: converting photos to vector graphics
umee
2005-09-19 01:08:08 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] converting photos to vector graphics
beau korson
2005-09-21 07:56:14 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] converting photos to vector graphics
whelenremington
2005-09-22 06:45:06 UTC
Re: converting photos to vector graphics
Chris Duzak
2005-09-22 16:39:49 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: converting photos to vector graphics
Chris Duzak
2005-09-22 19:06:17 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: converting photos to vector graphics