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

Whats keeping all digitally recorded videos and pictures (i.e art and animations) from being converted into vectors to ensure compatibility with all current and future resolutions?

Other urls found in this thread:

waifu2x.udp.jp
screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/205091
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

lazy programmers

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

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 excuse but you would think there would be some market for theoretically infinitely high resolution graphics

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

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.

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.

>ice cream bottle
what in the flying fuck

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

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

shit lmao didn't notice that
what the fuck

I just assumed it was a Jones thing.

never reply to red_retard. he's mentally ill.

go to settings and ignore him.

vectorize this entire image perfectly then, you dumb fuck.

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

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

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.

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

computing power

>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.

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

I'm aware, just correcting the stupid tripfag

>stupid tripfag
Is there any other kind?

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

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?

Nope

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

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

>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.

>vectorizing this photo
We're talking digitally created videos and pictures.
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?

Analog pellicule footage is naturally vectorised.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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

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.

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.

its literally in the OP

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

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

Storage space.

>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.

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

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

looks aliased now lol, Sup Forums doesn't support vector graphics anyway

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

>dat color banding
It looks like absolute dogshit

Vectorizing cameras? Don't think there are any

...

Space and bit loss

the world is raster

:(

>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

Really propagates signals in my deep-learned network

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

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

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

>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.

Really? Cool

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

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.

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.

waifu2x.udp.jp

that looks like dogshit you retard

Yeah upscaling's pretty cheap and looks fine.

convert this into vector

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.

>convert hand painting into vector
why

Hold on, ill give it a fair try.

:^)

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.

here's waifu2x's attempt at 2X scaling

here's a comparison of her face

ok heres what a vector would look like

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

Shit, i forgot half the picture

Oh well, 9001 hours in paint.

>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.

Not gonna lie, I thought it would be worse.

holy shit, waifu2x works on everything...

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.

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

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

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.

Oops, sorry. Meant to quote

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

Here's another waifu2x upscale

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

Not that bad ay ?

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

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

screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/205091

there, much better

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

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

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

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

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.

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

>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.

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+.

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

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.

Stupid tripfags

see