Whats keeping all digitally recorded videos and pictures (i.e

>>59654664
lazy programmers

>>59654664
conversion into vector formats really doesn't work any better, of course there's almost no support for SVG fucking anywhere also cause >>59654683

I'm going to take a rough guess but there is a fucking shitload of videos and pictures that exist. To process all this would be a global economic crisis, all that energy being translated into computing power...

For animations at least, surely vector graphics are superior? Every line is crisp and clean no matter how high resolution screen you have, whereas upscaling makes bitmaps look disgusting.

I get the >>59654683 excuse but you would think there would be some market for theoretically infinitely high resolution graphics

>>59654736
I should have rephrased the question: what is keeping all *future* videos and pictures from being produced using vector graphics?

>>59654737
Vector graphics are superior for a lot of reasons, not just the scale. There's other transforms you can do on them. But if you're starting from BMP, you will always have that BMP.

>>59654754
Yes, they really should be done in vector graphics.

In the end not everything can be vectorized.

What we need is very advanced upscale filters that make small images look as nice as possible in larger displays.

>>59654664
>ice cream bottle
what in the flying fuck

>>59654664
It doesn't make sense for live footage, but any cartoons could benefit a lot from this.

>>59654783
No you fucking idiot
Just about anything can be vectorized and nobody cares about making low res images look better on higher res screens

Fucking trip fags man

>>59654839
shit lmao didn't notice that
what the fuck

>>59654839
>>59654892
I just assumed it was a Jones thing.

>>59654890
never reply to red_retard. he's mentally ill.

go to settings and ignore him.

File: kirinowins_zps4d049b9f.png (751KB, 1024x575px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 1024x575px

>>59654890
vectorize this entire image perfectly then, you dumb fuck.

>>59654737
You're forgetting that it looks soulless and dead.

Compare old Simpsons to new digital Simpsons

I can't watch any anime made in this century for the same reason; it all looks like garbage you'd find on somebody's Newgrounds account

>>59654939
Might as well, only kept him unfiltered go so long because his autism is funny to laugh at but it's getting sad

File: vectorized.png (2MB, 1024x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1024x1536px

>>59654664
Because vectorizing images and working with vector graphics needs a lot of performance. Software isn't optimized and the average PC is too weak to effectively work with vectors.

For example, vectorizing this photo in Inkscape with 64 samples, which isn't nearly enough to match the quality of raster graphics, took my i5 4690k 5 seconds and moving the result around is kind of laggy.

>>59654961
BTW the original photo was 800x600. Now imagine how much computing power a 1080p image would need.

>>59654664
computing power

>>59654890
>Just about anything can be vectorized
Fully vectorizing most photos and recording makes no sense.
You're literally just approximating an image using geometric shapes.

It may work for gook cartoons, but it won't work well on a recording of flopping tranny dong.

>>59654664
do you have any idea how many paths it would take to vectorize a movie, jesus christ stop triggering me.

>>59654991
I'm aware, just correcting the stupid tripfag

>>59654999
>stupid tripfag
Is there any other kind?

>>59654957
when mental illness goes untreated for so long, you get red_1337. just ignore.

>>59654996
>>59654977
>>59654973
Alright that answer is pretty straight forward. I do not know much about how vector-graphics works, but i would imagine that it would run about as fast as vidya if done correctly. Conversion is perhaps not the best idea, but production is viable, correct?

>>59655012
Nope

>>59655022
Literally no it is not, look up how vectors work faggot.

>>59655052
Alright thanks for the straight-forward answer. Will do.

>>59655022
>Conversion is perhaps not the best idea, but production is viable, correct?
Depends.
Gook cartoons made mostly out of geometric shapes yes, but if you tried to vectorize 3D graphics with shading, it would be barely easier than vectorizing a photo.

>>59654961
>vectorizing this photo
We're talking digitally created videos and pictures.
>>59654991
You think some 40s cartoons of Mickey Mouse would look good today if they were made in vector. I know there was no such technology back then but still, will it be good at preventing aging?

>>59654664

Analog pellicule footage is naturally vectorised.

That's how studio's are able to release FHD BR of super old movies.

>>59655088
That's what i would think too. Gook-cartoons and other shit with really simple geometric shapes and no gradients should vectorise rather easily. Especially if it is not converted, but made directly into a vector using some form of software. There is not currently a platform for doing so, but i would think it is at least possible.

I am probably not the first one to come up with the idea though, so there are likely limitations i have not taken into account.

>>59655022
partially, since rendering requires a lot of computing power as well
Remember when you could switch the quality in Flash animations?
Upscaling this to photorealism and todays resolutions is impossible and probably will be.

>>59655088
there's lossless formats that are fine for preservation, upscaling with vectors might be a decent solution in the super long term but not that much better practically than upscaling.

>>59655022
It can't run as fast as raster graphics currently because all the information in the image has to be converted into paths (vectors) that can be described my equasions. A simple example would be (duh) Y=X^2 for a Parabola. The more detail the more vectors are needed and the more complex these vectors need to be.

>>59655088
>digitally created videos and pictures.
The same thing. Vectorizing is only part of it. Your computer also has to be able to display these vector images at a certain rate. The average desktop computer currently is just not capable of displaying 60 high detail vector images per second or even more. Of course, if the images only include simple shapes like rectangles and circles it wouldn't be a problem but as soon as you try to display anthing even remotely as detailed as a photo your computer would be overwhelmed by the complexity.

>>59654949
OP wasn't talking about conversion you tard why would anyone fucking convert to vectors from a PNG
god tripfags are moronic

>>59654950
Vectors give more freedom to artists allowing things to look exactly as they want, if Simpsons look soulless it's because artists didn't put any into it.

File: 7g02-roughs.jpg (26KB, 1022x441px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1022x441px

>>59654950
Digital does look sterile next to cells, but zombie-simpsons looks as bad as it does mostly because the animators keep aggressively on model and stick to simple, flat scenes (and probably recycle assets). Compare this old sketch by one of the original animators to a modern episode and it becomes obvious the problem is not the tool but the user.

>>59655170
its literally in the OP

>>59655178
This. Vecotr graphics is just another way of creating the same thing.

>>59654950
You can't blame technology for what creators use it for.

>>59654664

Storage space.

>>59655088
>I know there was no such technology back then but still, will it be good at preventing aging?
Nope
There is more to be gained from interpretation of low quality media than from producing new, vectorized ones.

For example, software to interpret low quality security camera feed by integrating temporal data could effectively do what vectorization would do, but without the explicit vectorization.

One problem with vectors is that you need to cover everything you want to show with a restricted set of tools.
Those tools are always enough to do the job, but usually not enough to do it effectively.
So in the end, if you can't draw a specific kind of object, you have to break it up into smaller ones. They are often small enough that you could just be using pixels instead.

That is, unless you only want cartoons created in cartoon-specific software what doesn't allow using more complex things.
I'm not an animator, but I'd expect animators to use tools that do the job, not tools that are future-proof.

>>59655218
Yes. And after seeing i was wrong, i added another question >>59654754
, and the discussion moved on.

>>59655218
He is saying we should convert to vectorizing images, not convert images to vectorized

>>59655230
looks aliased now lol, 4chan doesn't support vector graphics anyway

>>59655249
Sure, show me the vectorizing hardware that compares to other cameras and shit.

>>59655230
>dat color banding
It looks like absolute dogshit

>>59655260
Vectorizing cameras? Don't think there are any

File: 1298854558107.jpg (644KB, 1369x1493px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 1369x1493px

>>59655198

Space and bit loss

the world is raster

>>59655274
:(

>>59655267
>Something can't be vectorized
>Yeah they can
>show me then
>provides best result from a shitty res png on an anime grill on a website that doesn't support vectors so I have to convert it back
>l-looks like shit
got a warning for that image for some reason so fuck this

>>59655287
Really propagates signals in my deep-learned network

>>59655298
its gook moot's fault anyway, should just support svg

>>59655298
>got a warning for that image
Some /a/utist mod got mad at the travesty of upscaling the "art" of gook cartoons for manchildren.

>>59654664
Incredible complexity and retard huge file size and computational power required assuming it were even possible to do.

>>59655022
>Conversion is perhaps not the best idea, but production is viable, correct?
You can produce all-digital media, like cartoons, in vectors; this is basically what Flash does, and some modern cartoons are indeed made in Flash. But anything captured with a camera --photos and film-- are fundamentally bitmaps.

>>59655435
Really? Cool

Good to know my ideas are not totally retarded, albeit already imagined and implemented

File: MLPscreenshot-998x625.jpg (71KB, 998x625px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 998x625px

>>59655446
My Little Pony is made in flash, for example, leading to a recognizable vector-like style.

It is released as a normal video though, which means pixels. The flash vector version is used in the studio only. But the fact that it was originally vectors means that people can transform it back to vectors again afterwards, and do a good job.

File: Comb30032017105319.jpg (394KB, 2048x1725px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 2048x1725px

Oh, here's one of the the upscaling filters I was talking about. pic related is waifu2x. Someday this will be applied to chinese cartoons in real time.

http://waifu2x.udp.jp

>>59655579
that looks like dogshit you retard

>>59655583
>>59655579
Yeah upscaling's pretty cheap and looks fine.

File: Mona_Lisa.jpg (195KB, 687x1024px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 687x1024px

>>59654664
convert this into vector

File: owFHHwO.jpg (287KB, 1920x912px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1920x912px

>>59655526
The reason that is so easy is because pathfinding those models is so easy.

You can literally image trace that screenshot in Illustrator and poke the settings a bit and then bam, vector.

Try that with this image though and it doesn't work at all. Not everything can be a vector, OP needs to understand this is why his idea is stupid. Don't give him hope.

>>59655612
>convert hand painting into vector
why

>>59655619
Hold on, ill give it a fair try.

File: Untitled.png (16KB, 379x162px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 379x162px

>>59655627
>>59655612
:^)

File: 1796f687-f04e-43f3-9c3e-3d7db7a996e9.png (4MB, 1374x2048px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1374x2048px

>>59655583
Not nearly as dogshit as vectorization, call me when they fix the color banding, 100MB+ image file size issue, and slow rendering performance on most computers.

>>59655612
here's waifu2x's attempt at 2X scaling

File: Comb30032017110855.jpg (328KB, 1440x1280px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1440x1280px

here's a comparison of her face

File: 1490886098017.jpg (197KB, 1920x912px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1920x912px

>>59655640
ok heres what a vector would look like

try not to have an orgasm because of those smooth fucking graphics you fags.

>>59655723
Shit, i forgot half the picture

Oh well, 9001 hours in paint.

>>59655619
>You can literally image trace that screenshot in Illustrator and poke the settings a bit and then bam, vector.
Aye, and people do exactly that! The reason it is so easy is that the image was in fact originally a vector, and a simple one at that. You can effectively vectorize the raster because you are vectorizing a rasterized vector.

>Try that with this image though and it doesn't work at all. Not everything can be a vector,
Very true.

File: Well, shit.png (2MB, 2500x3725px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2500x3725px

Not gonna lie, I thought it would be worse.

File: Comb30032017111424.jpg (995KB, 3840x2736px) Image search: [Google]

995KB, 3840x2736px

>>59655619
holy shit, waifu2x works on everything...

>>59655795
thats really good actually, damn. last time i tried it EVERYTHING came out fuzzy.

It turns out that digital is actually quite a poor storage medium. Who would have guessed?

If you want to vectorize photos and keep the quality, you are not creating shapes that are more than a few pixels in size to any direction. And when you blow them up, you're not exactly creating high-quality graphics.

>>59655866
you can approximate scale easier but still has to look good at any scale.

>>59655686
Nobody cares about your opinion on vectorization when your upscaling looks like shit bud
>>59655818
Don't reply that shit is just sad, we know its you whether your posting from your phone or just turning off your trip

File: 62008143.jpg (389KB, 1800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1800x1000px

>>59655851
It seems to have gotten better over time. It still isn't good with paintings/other non-flat color illustrations (this one looks like shit when you zoom in on the enlarged product) but maybe it'll get there eventually.

>>59656063
Oops, sorry. Meant to quote >>59655818

>>59655178
Vectors are a pain to work with and promote simplified artstyle.

File: Comb30032017113940.jpg (481KB, 2542x2160px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 2542x2160px

Here's another waifu2x upscale

>>59656101
whoops, I just realized image combiner fucked it up...

File: Capture d’écran 2017-03-30 à 17.45.47.jpg (108KB, 918x445px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 918x445px

>>59654949
Not that bad ay ?

Tho I don't think vectorial videos would usefull or even possible to make.
Leave vector to graphics

>>59656183
This is 10 times worse than the one I got warned for
turn your trip back on and stop being a retard

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/205091

there, much better

>>59656101
I think we all know that it works well with simple images. >>59655686 looks like complete shit and >>59656063 looks incredibly bad when ran through waifu2x.

File: Export.png (1MB, 5000x2808px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5000x2808px

>>59656101
If you are just trying to upscale then just use nearest neighbor resampling.

You're making this harder than it needs to be.

>>59656220
that looks like a mario game now lmao. Also ignore that post, my image combiner app fucked up the quality of the entire image

>>59654664
It's already been invented. Welcome to HTML5/CSS3 animation.

We got vectorised versions of photos but what about videos made from those vectorised photos? Can we have good vectorised movies? Cartoon/anime are not as complex as that.

>>59655198
>>59655274
The rough, old version of Some Enchanted Evening is what the Simpsons should have looked like.

>>59656436
>We got vectorised versions of photos
No you dont, there is not a single vector in this thread. These are all rasterized vectors exported as PNGs which are not vectors.

Once again, you cannot make vectors into video frames, they are not still images.
Google it.

>>59655293
Right?

If you want to perfectly recreate an image with vectors, you will end up with one square per pixel, and if you upscale that you might as well just upscale a bitmap.
It only works with flat colors and gradients, not everything can be made out of that. Try making a realistic-looking tree out of vectors, you can't do it.
Also, when you convert a photo to svg, not only will you lose a ton of quality, the photo will also become 50MB+.

>>59656238
Mario game?
Are you retarded it looks better than your shitty upscaler

>>59656579
I think he's implying that since the hard edges of the image are better preserved that it looks blocky because the image is scaled much more than his was so actual size is zoomed quite close.

Either way it's not an argument.

>>59656618
Stupid tripfags

>>59656579
see >>59656209

>>59656685
Looks like shit, what's your point bud?
Re sampling is better than upscaling

File: compare.png (858KB, 1955x1029px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 1955x1029px

>>59656685
How about a real comparison.

See all that blurry shit?
You've lost detail.

it's difficult to vectorize a detailed image

I think the next step for image/video compression is to move away from blocking towards curves and parameterizing those.

Also breaking the image into major sections (brick wall, face, water, etc) and creating a base pattern to replicate across the section with +- mostly zeros I hope. Think about games taking a few patterns and repeating them to make a wall or other model.

it'll probably work well for the namefag's anime

>>59654664
because vector conversions never resolve any more detail than rasters and raster storage is much more efficient for many use cases (i.e. high frequency and noisy images)

>>59655012
yes, but the other kind uses the trip for one thread and helps people out

>>59655526
why are you posting such low-rest images of vectors? isn't the point that they can be huge?

>>59654664
If we had CCTV with vectors then we'd have "CSI enhance image bullshit" be real. And programmers don't want that because they are bad people scared of the technology being used to curb white and cybercrime in addition to street crime.

File: BURY_NICE_GRILL.png (322KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 680x680px

>>59657242
10/10

Because in order to capture an image, you use a grid of photosensors. You don't capture vector data.

/thread

Seriously, /g/, kill yourselves.

>>59657372
And why can't we capture vector data?

>>59657466
vectors are a mathematical concept and not measurable units. what you would gain from storing in a vector format directly out of the camera's sensors would be non-lossy, same as a lossless image format would.

>>59654664
>Whats keeping all digitally recorded videos and pictures
cameras?

>>59657494
I bet there are people out there that think that the raw files stored from cameras are the same as storing vectors.

>>59654664
>ensure compatibility with all current and future resolutions

That's why I convert all my photographs to .DNG

>>59657494
Why can't we have cameras with multiple sensors that overlay images at slightly different angles on top of each other and coax out a vector in real time based on the combined images? Sort of like our eyes do?

File: finepix-3d-w3.jpg (67KB, 645x465px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 645x465px

>>59657706

File: fig-1-lv2.gif (21KB, 475x450px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 475x450px

>>59657242
>If we had CCTV with vectors then we'd have "CSI enhance image bullshit" be real.

No, the laws of physics don't allow it.

Even a perfect optical system has a limited maximum resolution due to diffraction.

File: lytro-light-field-array-example-o.jpg (72KB, 684x456px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 684x456px

>>59657706

We do.

results are meh.

>>59657267
Fuck off retard

File: 00107what.png (415KB, 700x621px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 700x621px

Because you're trying to convert something finite and discrete like a pixel into something infinite and continuous like a line segment in a vector image. You can't just magically make a photo into a vector, you're either going to end up with the same amount of detail as you began with or lose detail in converting it.
The answers in these threads show /g/ really is full of idiots who have no fucking clue.

>>59655526
Flash is utter garbage and so is that gay ass show.

>>59657925
What, you thought he was serious? Are you high?

>>59654754
I'll tell you when I get back from the future.... retard.

>>59658030
Not even OP but you're the retarded one. It was clear to anyone who even has a grade school level understanding of English that he was asking why we can't produce media, for the future, that is vector. Please stop doing these cringeposts, no one cares how smart you think you are.

File: Light l16.jpg (90KB, 1020x676px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1020x676px

>>59657706

>>59656809
His doesn't lose any detail at all. In fact it creates more detail through interpolation.
Your image is jagged as fuck.

>>59657372
almost too dumb to ignore
we are taking about digital content here dumbass
>\threading your own post
you are the one who needs to lol themselves

File: d70654fcfc20c985fd599b6e970e15fb.jpg (65KB, 500x692px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x692px

>>59654664
Try and convert this image into vector format.

Overall the more complex it becomes, the less likely vector will work for it.

>>59659178
>through interpolation
Do you even know what that word means

File: 1487635047059.jpg (43KB, 634x440px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 634x440px

>morons think you can vectorize everything

File: 1410834672832.png (30KB, 750x627px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 750x627px

>>59660216
>His PC can't play vector movies
Trash your hobostation

>>59660339
Damn thats a nice rig i didnt know 128bit os were released on the consumer market yet

>>59659829
recorded, not generated

File: images.jpg (6KB, 264x191px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 264x191px

>>59660400
>Consumer market
look again

>>59660339
>being a moron

even if you vectorize every pixel (only way your garbage will be "lossless"), it'd have the same effect as resizing raster with nearest neighbor.

my brain hurts reading this thread. is it summer already?

>>59654950
That's more on the animators than anything. https://sakugabooru.com/post/show/23126 for example was done in flash and looks incredible

It's not practical at all, right now you couldn't use them for everything because of extremely big files and lack of processing power, in the future you couldn't use them because there will be much better scaling algorithms that could do the job.

It would be cool if vectors were like the MIDI of pictures, but unfortunately the technology isn't there.

>>59654664
because we'll be able to vectorize them better in the future
why ruin the originals now?

>>59654664
vaguely related, but is collision detection easy in arbitrary vector art images?

File: cute11.jpg (107KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1080x1080px

>>59654664
Vectorize this image

Oh wait you can't

/Thread
/Thread
/Thread

File: 1489806980811.png (223KB, 389x379px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 389x379px

>>59654783
>>59654949
>>59655267
>>59655579
>>59655686
>>59655721
>>59655795
>>59656101
>>59656238
>>59657267
>>59658026

A reminder to ignore and block mouth breathing trip fags

fucking retards

File: Untitled.png (57KB, 996x1059px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 996x1059px

DONT MIND ME GUYS

JUST ENJOYING SOME SUPERIOR VECTORIZED ANIME

WOW SO GREAT I CAN ZOOM IN AND SEE ALL THE DETAIL

WOW I SURE LOVE VECTORS SO MUXH BETTER THAN PIXELS

REALLY GIVES ARTISTS ROOM TO CREATE AND CAPTURE THE MOOD

HERES A SCREENSHOY FROM THE LATEDT VECTORIZED YURI YURI

WOW ITS SO GREAT

>>59662756
>muh echo chamber

>>59656809
yea his actually looks better

>>59660339
>these RAM timings
top kek
this rig will choke on anything RAM-intensive

Zone-archive movies are released in swf :^)

>>59656220
Fun fact: nnedi3-based upscaling is literally just anti-aliased nearest neighbor scaling.

File: 1385618283418.jpg (47KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 450x600px

>>59654664
Vectors don't handle gradients well

>>59654991
>thinly veiled request for tranny videos

kek

file size limitations

>>59654890
>nobody cares about making low res images look better on higher res screens


Say that to people trying to play DVD content on a 4K panel.

>>59656220
>>59656101
>>59655579
If you upscaled this^

>>59656183
Compared to this^^^

The vector would look better at billboard size.

>>59664928
traffic wardens can give a ticket for that desu
since it is not clearly visible

>>59654949
That image was probably originally a vector before it was shown on tv.

>>59663890
Maybe take a look at some cuts that were actually produced using vector tools like flash instead of spouting retarded shit? For better or worse iirc almost everything that Science Saru is releasing is done in flash.

>>59654664
For digitally created content (animation, etc) it would be great to have a vector format that allows for proper gradients and the like.

If there were an open format that was relatively easy to use, I would use it for master copies.

>>59654754
For 2D animation, it'd be fine. For complex 3D animation or straight up video raster images contain just as much information as vector.

For reference, look up filters like HQX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hqx

Basically if we saved photos as vectors we don't actually get that much more out of them, if anything. Also because of how photos are taken, we can't get sub-pixel information. (How do you get extra information from a CCD?)