 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg
This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
source" either...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg
> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
> source" either...)
In theory any vector graphic can be converted into an SVG.
And if you want to create an SVG yourself, try eg. Inkscape.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:12:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg
>
> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
> source" either...)
Loaded just fine here in Chrome. Nice pic. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/09/2010 04:29 PM, Warp wrote:
> In theory any vector graphic can be converted into an SVG.
Yes. But the question is: would you want to?
This page is a perfect example of something which can probably be
represented *far* more efficiently and accurately by the original bitmap
than by a vector tracing of it.
There are scenarios for which vector graphics is a clear win.
Photographs is definitely not one of them.
> And if you want to create an SVG yourself, try eg. Inkscape.
Yeah, I recently used this to draw some maps. It's infuriatingly fiddly
to use though.
(E.g., from time to time it will just randomly stop responding to
certain drawing properties. Every single God damned text box you insert
uses the default font rather than you one you just selected 80,000 times
previously. As far as I can tell, there's no way of making it so that
several objects remain exactly the same colour [other than copy-pasting
the hex numbers from one to the other by hand]. It's all just so much
*effort*.)
Still, probably easier than writing SVG by hand...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/09/2010 04:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
>> source" either...)
>
> Loaded just fine here in Chrome. Nice pic. :-)
Oh, it *loaded*. I mean, it took 25 seconds to load, but it did do it
eventually. (Ate quite a bit of CPU power too...) Getting the page to
repaint was even slower.
I found one website that used SVG for the background. Unfortunately that
means scrolling slows to a crawl. And it wasn't exactly a complex
background.
I wanted to see if I could use SVG to generate gradient backgrounds. But
unfortunately, it seems this is currently unsupported. You'd *think* you
could just make your image tags and CSS point to SVG files instead of
PNG or JPEG, but apparently that doesn't work. You have to insert the
XML into your XHTML (with the correct 3-page xmlns references and so
forth) or it doesn't work.
I'm *so* not bothering...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> On 21/09/2010 04:29 PM, Warp wrote:
>
>> In theory any vector graphic can be converted into an SVG.
>
> Yes. But the question is: would you want to?
>
> This page is a perfect example of something which can probably be
> represented *far* more efficiently and accurately by the original bitmap
> than by a vector tracing of it.
>
> There are scenarios for which vector graphics is a clear win.
> Photographs is definitely not one of them.
how about being able to freely zoom in and out of a vectorization
without image degration?
not the case here, though...
>> And if you want to create an SVG yourself, try eg. Inkscape.
>
> Yeah, I recently used this to draw some maps. It's infuriatingly fiddly
> to use though.
>
> (E.g., from time to time it will just randomly stop responding to
> certain drawing properties. Every single God damned text box you insert
> uses the default font rather than you one you just selected 80,000 times
> previously. As far as I can tell, there's no way of making it so that
> several objects remain exactly the same colour [other than copy-pasting
> the hex numbers from one to the other by hand]. It's all just so much
> *effort*.)
sometimes fiddling with the User Preferences dialog may save lots of effort.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> how about being able to freely zoom in and out of a vectorization
> without image degration?
Or being able to print at any DPI resolution you want, at any size?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:46:38 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 21/09/2010 04:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
>>> source" either...)
>>
>> Loaded just fine here in Chrome. Nice pic. :-)
>
> Oh, it *loaded*. I mean, it took 25 seconds to load, but it did do it
> eventually. (Ate quite a bit of CPU power too...) Getting the page to
> repaint was even slower.
True. :-) "Loaded" to me, though, implies "didn't melt the browser". :-)
> I found one website that used SVG for the background. Unfortunately that
> means scrolling slows to a crawl. And it wasn't exactly a complex
> background.
>
> I wanted to see if I could use SVG to generate gradient backgrounds. But
> unfortunately, it seems this is currently unsupported. You'd *think* you
> could just make your image tags and CSS point to SVG files instead of
> PNG or JPEG, but apparently that doesn't work. You have to insert the
> XML into your XHTML (with the correct 3-page xmlns references and so
> forth) or it doesn't work.
>
> I'm *so* not bothering...
I don't know that all browsers support SVG, do they?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson escreveu:
> I don't know that all browsers support SVG, do they?
IE doesn't as always. They are far less interested in a uniform
cross-platform web and much more interested in things like allowing web
pages with multimedia content being controlled directly by desktop
controls in IE9 -- as long as your page is IE9-only, of course... how
cool is that to click on a play button in the taskbar rather than in the
video window in the page? :p
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> how about being able to freely zoom in and out of a vectorization
>> without image degration?
>
> Or being able to print at any DPI resolution you want, at any size?
I'm not arguing that vector graphics isn't useful. I'm arguing that it's
not useful *for photographs*.
Now, if you were trying to present a Dilbert strip, a vector tracing of
it would probably 1) take up a fraction of the bandwidth, and 2) look
great at any possible resolution (if it's been traced well). Vector
graphics is fantastic for stuff like that.
But for a photograph... well, see for yourself. The image quality is
nowhere near what the original photograph was, and that's *before* you
try to change size...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
