Pixel vs Vector
Monday, November 13, 2006 14:13 
And even with all the new technology we have, the basic facts about low-pixel count situations remain true: Graphics in which those few pixels are carefully and consciously placed will look better than those created from generic vector graphics. Only in a few lucky situations we will be able to get equivalent results from cool vector graphics tricks.
Sven-S clearly understands what he is writing about. It's not about the system being able to show bigger icons and interface elements, it's mainly about providing more detail in the same screen area using high density displays in the future.
While some objects such as buttons and simple graphics will indeed be good to create using vectors, creating application and toolbar icons in vector is generally speaking a bad idea. Not only because drawing vectors requires a lot of GPU cycles, but also because some things just can't be done with vector compared to pixels.
Edit: The iconfactory posted some great additional information for developers. Make sure you also read their previous post on the subject. And while you are at it don't forget to read my previous post.
10 comments Add Comment Email post Digg post
-
At 3:59 PM,
Paul Armstrong said. I disagree with your last statement, saying that some things can't be done. Instead, I would argue that it is incredibly difficult to acheive the level of perfection in details with vector graphics using software currently available.
Hopefully the day will come soon where we can meet a nice middle ground in this area.-
At 6:11 PM,
Jasper Hauser said. Paul: Fair enough, but things like textures (high quality) are near to impossible to "create" let alone render quickly using vectors.
Vector has a fair amount of limitations that will obviously disappear as time goes by. But as long as we (designers) have no control over how an illustration is rendered in context of the screen area size it will not be a good replacement for pixel art.-
At 8:40 PM, Paul Armstrong said.
Very good point back at me. I completely agree.
-
At 8:44 PM, Mischa McLachlan said.
I agree with your jasper, i think we'll have bitmap icons and such for a long time still. vector just doesn't cut it. especially at smaller sizes. perhaps there might be a way to blend between different vector art files for icons when they're shown at smaller sizes. But certainly at the moment, using one vector piece of art for an icon will look rubbish on the different sizes. either too detailed, or not detailed enough. Long live bitmap! :-)
-
At 11:11 PM, Craig Hockenberry said.
Mischa: I don't think we'll ever see a "combined format" for the icons. The basic problem is that PDF graphics with a high level of detail are HUGE:
http://iconfactory.com/home/permalink/1731
-ch-
At 1:36 AM, Damien Pollet said.
There is a limit to the definition (size in pixels) of an icon anyway. Whatever the screen resolution, an icon will stay a small image, something like 2-3 cm wide. Human vision also has its limits so when displays will reach the current resolution of quality printing it won't be necessary to upgrade icons anymore. Hmm, at 1200 dpi that would be 2-3 Mpixels per icon :)
Mischa: ideally, icons would be kinda like multiple-master fonts, they would interpolate their proportions according to their displayed size and resolution...-
At 11:51 PM, said.
I disagree. I think that vector icons will become the standard, just like how bitmap fonts aren't really used anymore. With respect to smaller sizes, I think a vector format will need to specify a low-detail version.
GPUs are best-suited to raster, but a vector format only has to be rendered once for a certain size. Then it can be cached and will be just as fast as a raster icon.
As to what can be done with vectors, I think you'll be surprised.-
At 3:12 AM, Marc Edwards said.
Hi Jasper, great post.
I've linked to this and your "Big Ass Icons" posts, as well as added some comments of my own:
http://islayer.com/blog/?p=87
Steve: Fonts are a different story. Please read the link for more info.
As convenient as they sound, vectors just don't cut it in a lot of situations.-
At 6:59 PM, chainsaw said.
Clearly pixel is still the best way to go, and vector-software ought to take this into consideration and begin to develop something better.
Vector still just doesn't cut it when it comes to quality, and this business is about quality over quantity (and should always be that way.)-
At 6:26 AM, original oil paintings said.
For years of creating icons, graphics, logos, and the likes, vectors have always been our best resort. But since it’s the best tool that we have, we have expanded its purpose and also thought of using it for creating toolbar icons for sites that we develop. Thank you for sharing this post to us. From now on we will have to think which is best for a specific purpose – vector or pixel.