Flash vs Photoshop

[Flexus]

Which one is better flash or photoshop. ie, which one has more features, a better interface and is used more commercially?

[Kel - 420]

for what??

[Kel - 420]

I use flash to design a lot of stuff. T-shirts flyers, websites… The list goes on.
I sometimes use Pshop for the above [except designing flash site.]

[gimmesomemore!!]

They are used for two different things

[lava]

Flash and Photoshop are used for different things dude. Flash is to make those little animations... Photoshop can't do that. Photoshop is used to make extremely good looking stuff, which flash can't do, because of it's limited drawing capabilities.

[gimmesomemore!!]

I think flash is better for web, and photoshop is better for print, ...............well.................I can't just lump them into two differnt catagories though....that's a broad question

[lava]

yes you can lump them into different catergories.

Flash is for creating vector based, dynamic content.
Photoshop is for creating static images.

[lostinbeta]

Originally posted by lavaboy
yes you can lump them into different catergories.

Flash is for creating vector based, dynamic content.
Photoshop is for creating static images.


Yep

Flash - Vector Based content. If you are good enough (like Kitiara) you can design extremely well in there. It is good for logos and such that need to be scaled without distortion. It is also mainly used for animation and site creation. Some actual vector design program that is meant entirely for design are Adobe Illustrator, Freehand, or Fireworks.


Photoshop - Raster based content. Use only for design and images created cannot be scaled without distortion.

[gimmesomemore!!]

I stand corrected then :crazy:

[lava]

I just wish photoshop had the ease of drawing that Flash does... meaning, I wish photoshop was vectorbased... I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't be.

it seems to me that Adobe only sees the use of vector-based drawing in printing... which would explain why Illustrator and Acrobat are vector-based. But it makes drawing a hell of a lot easier... I just love specifying the dimensions of a shape...

Maybe I should give fireworks a chance... I've never used it.

[lostinbeta]

Fireworks is both Raster and Vector based (according to Rev, I haven't really used it, but hes a Fireworks feind).

[SureShot]

photoshop isnt vector because it's not ment to be used for vector images. It's used to enhance and or create images... not drawings. I mean you can draw and such in photoshop but like you said, illustrator is way easier and better for it.

I personally like photoshop more than I do flash but only because I am pretty good with it. If I was better with AS in flash I am sure it would be close.

[hojo]

yeah, like everyones said, flash and photoshop aren't things to be used in comparison, but together to form really good stuff.

[mariofan]

both completly different / cant be compared

:m:

ps - illustrator on the other hand is the BEST PIECE OF SOFTWARE - EVER. Its my weapon of choice...

[lava]

I work with illustrator from time to time... mostly in editing kinks with PDFs.... but I dont know.. I dont like that whole page based thing...

But I need to use it more... maybe I'll like it.

[Kitiara]

I think it all depends on what you want to do.

If I want to do line art, then no question, Flash is the program for me. It does everything I want it to do, quickly and easily. I'm investigating Illustrator as well for vector art, but it's not as intuitive...

If I'm designing a screenshot though, then I'll use Photoshop. Stuff like that is better with the filters and all available.

Fireworks is great for animated gifs and optimising any web graphics. I'll always run images through that if I'm putting them on a website. Plus it can do all the funky pop up menus.

[Flexus]

Okay I haven't used photoshop before but I noticed people doing some of the same things on it as with flash (ie buttons). THanks for the info.

[Law]

I use flash more but like you say i can't really compare them. as for photoshop and fireworks i think fireworks is better for web and photoshop better for print.

[mlk]

well you've got to get the whole army of software. Combine the power of PS and flash together - and i also have Paint Shop Pro - a handy tool for pixel work... although it's true all image editing progs tend to imitate PS nowadays...

[c!rYx]

I'm doing everything in ps, I'm not really fine with drawing in flash, that's really really a big diff to ps

[reverendflash]

Originally posted by lostinbeta
Fireworks is both Raster and Vector based (according to Rev, I haven't really used it, but hes a Fireworks feind).

I think that's the first time anyone has referred to me as a "feind" ...

Don't know how to take that...

;)

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[Marz]

well... I can answer like everyone else in saying they are totally different pieces of software...

Flash has the cartoonish feel with more vidily displaying colors and a more direct line quotient.

Photoshop on the other hand is great for the visual acuity defined in a pixelated environement.

photoshop would not be a great piece of software if it was vector based...

vector is the use of calculations and math to define curves and fillt ypes all and that good stuff.. For people to make good high quality effects they would have to know really advanced mathematics for this to work out great.. And their control over single pixels is alot harder.

raster is the use of single pixels ina compressed manner to display images. I find using pixels to display an object to be incredibly simple to work with.. When working with C++ I have noticed that it was easy to bring single pixels together to make realisticand cool looking effects on screen.

I'd say just use both of these programs and transfer data between the two to work effectively in them.. I typically always have photoshop open when I'm working on a flash document.. Just in case I need something special :)

[Marz]

Ohh.. And to add a quick quote to all of this...

"It doesn't matter what you use to create the images with because in the end.. EVERYTHING is pixels when displayed on your screen." - Marz

[reverendflash]

Originally posted by playamarz
Ohh.. And to add a quick quote to all of this...

"It doesn't matter what you use to create the images with because in the end.. EVERYTHING is pixels when displayed on your screen." - Marz


Yes, but raster images don't scale and retain quality...

That... is the difference that matters. IMO

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[Marz]

Yeah but having huge images on your computervectorized can be computer intensive ;)

[lava]

Originally posted by playamarz

photoshop would not be a great piece of software if it was vector based...

vector is the use of calculations and math to define curves and fillt ypes all and that good stuff.. For people to make good high quality effects they would have to know really advanced mathematics for this to work out great.. And their control over single pixels is alot harder.


Ok, I just have to say..
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WILLIS???

Photoshop works on the basis of pixels... yes, that's right. But that doesnt mean that if Photoshop was vector based, the pixel information would be gone... EVERY program has to map out information to pixels... even flash. As a matter of fact, flash goes to GREAT LENGHTS to map out to pixels vector information that doesnt fall at integer pixels... We've all had that problem of putting a pixel font textbox at a floating point location... what does flash do? it HAS to fill the pixels... so it anti-aliases... which makes the font look crappy.

And don't tell me that this is ONE of the very reasons why photoshop shouldn't be vector-based. Flash's major bug is that it doesnt round coordinates, and there's no reason why it shouldnt do that...

Users... DON'T need to know high level mathematics do do any of the effects... Photoshop would take a vector based drawing.. map out it's pixels, and then do the effects based on the pixel information. This does not require additional computing power, since it's what it does anyways... "Well, what if you change the vector?" Photoshop is Step-based... meaning that an image is the product of compounded instructions... All photoshop would need to do is go back to the vector drawing step, change that, and then do the effects all over again... which is something it does already... (ever look at the history pallete?)

Control over single pixels would be complicated? Why can't the pencil tool work like it does now?? Photoshop would just say.. this pixel is filled, at this position relative to the vector shape... And doing that takes less memory than having to store the position of every pixel in your image..

[lostinbeta]

Originally posted by reverendflash
I think that's the first time anyone has referred to me as a "feind" ...

Don't know how to take that...

;)

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif


Its a good thing Rev :)

[Marz]

Ok, I just have to say..
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WILLIS???


First off.. Chill the **** out man.. No need to bring the level of this thread up beyond what it is suppose to be.. A normal discussion.



Photoshop works on the basis of pixels... yes, that's right. But that doesnt mean that if Photoshop was vector based, the pixel information would be gone... EVERY program has to map out information to pixels... even flash. As a matter of fact, flash goes to GREAT LENGHTS to map out to pixels vector information that doesnt fall at integer pixels... We've all had that problem of putting a pixel font textbox at a floating point location... what does flash do? it HAS to fill the pixels... so it anti-aliases... which makes the font look crappy.

And don't tell me that this is ONE of the very reasons why photoshop shouldn't be vector-based. Flash's major bug is that it doesnt round coordinates, and there's no reason why it shouldnt do that...


No you're right.. it doesn't mean the total "pixel" information would be gone but.. There is a certain reason WHY flash is based on the floating point emulation system instead of just pixel by pixel. First off.. When doing things mathematically instead of rasterising an image pixel by pixel it has to be done by floating point instead of rounding or else the desired result would look really screwed up.

Imagine the path a parabola would take if it just used pixel locations instead of an exact location as defined by Flash. It would look rather blocky and you could see the pixels depending on the area of view and zoom distance... Also.. it would look differently on everyone's screen! Having a screen at 800 x 600 would make the image look larger when compared with a screen at 1024 x 768. With Flash.. Of course this is also going to change... But with it you still have the same object.. Whether you zoom in 20000 times or zoom out 20000 times.. You won't see any pixels.. Just smoothness. Photoshop can not do that. Because it is based on singular pixelised pieces of information.



Users... DON'T need to know high level mathematics do do any of the effects... Photoshop would take a vector based drawing.. map out it's pixels, and then do the effects based on the pixel information. This does not require additional computing power, since it's what it does anyways... "Well, what if you change the vector?" Photoshop is Step-based... meaning that an image is the product of compounded instructions... All photoshop would need to do is go back to the vector drawing step, change that, and then do the effects all over again... which is something it does already... (ever look at the history pallete?)


Yeah I have looked at the history palette. Would call you a smart *** for that comment but I'll save it up for my explanations. And the fact is when you load up a .jpg it comes with a history palette that has absolutly nothing in it.. Am I correct? Taking a floating point emulated vectorized graphic from Flash and using it in a photoshop oriented environment would cause the vector image to lose all of it's floating point pixelized locations and require it be transferred over to the standard Photoshop non-vectorized locations.

Now.. If you guys are trying to tell me that a photograph (because that's the main reason photoshop is there) can be handled vectorized better than rasterized you guys are flippen crazy. Read my response below to find out why.



Control over single pixels would be complicated? Why can't the pencil tool work like it does now?? Photoshop would just say.. this pixel is filled, at this position relative to the vector shape... And doing that takes less memory than having to store the position of every pixel in your image..


I'll show you right now how much simpler it is to plot stored raster pixels than is to mathematically plot pixels for larger images. I will show you proven facts and how the computer works.

These are actual lines that a computer goes through to display a raster image on your computer. This is measured by clock ticks. Which I'll explain below this.

1. Tick 1 : The computer tells the program a graphic instruction is coming up.
2. Tick 2 : The program tells the computer a pixel dra is coming up.
3. Tick 3 : Your program tells the computer the x-coordinate of the pixel.
4. Tick 4 : Your program tells the computer the y-coordinate of the pixel.
5. Tick 5 : Your program tells the computer the color of the pixel.
6. Tick 6 : The computer rendered the pixel.
7. Ticks 7-12 : Uses overhead calculations the operating system has to perform to actually take the virtually rendeder pixel in the buffered state and throw them onto the real screen.

So.. if we had a screen at 800 x 600.. That would be 480,000 pixels. That's a grand total of 5,760,000 clock ticks to fill up the entire screen.By the time your screen is filled it has done nearly 6,000,000 clock ticks.. Now that's alot.. When running on a 600 mhz machine you will note that you can plot 600,000,000 clock ticks per second.. Technically that would leave us with 104 frame per second.. But it would actually be lowered down because of all the other applications running while your application was running...

Now that you know the set up for plotting to a screen and all the clock ticks it takes you will udnerstand why vectorized isn't always the greatest thing to use.

Now... When a vector based program plots stuff on the screen.. It first does a calculation to define where exactly the pixels are located and how they need to be viewed.

So.. let's do a small comparison.. A box that's 100 x 60.

Doing a box only would be great for vector.. Pixels it would be this... 4 bytes per pixel (red, green, blue, alpha) would make this.. 6000 x 4 or 24,000 bytes. 2.4 kb's to round it off. That's standard... Butfor vector it would tell the program firt.. Okay it's width is 100 and it's height is 60.. Just say.. 100 times 60 and then do it that way... Easy enough.. it would use the area calculation to define where to set up this place. But now.. let's take a larger example..

A photograph.. Well.. Every pixel would have to be defined by a certain formula to find it's location in vector.. But for raster.. it would all be stored.. No need to "find" where the pixel is placed.. it's already stored so I can just pull out the information and read it. With vector it would have to be like.. Okay there is a small line in this.. Let's use the line formula to figure out how this line would display itself.. let's figure out the rotation for it and everything and what color it is.. And then it'll give you maybe.. 20 pixels in that line.

Now.. if you have the computer to do this.. It would still be the same.. But that's just a line ina photograph.. Imagine the rest of them.. A small pixel would have to be found by using locations theories instead of formulas.

I admit.. vector makes it look better... And with the speed computers have now we can afford to waste a couple of extra clock ticks here and there... But the fact still stands that it's better to handle photographs pixel by pixel instead of figuring out where the pixels are before placing them.

[lava]

Originally posted by playamarz
First off.. Chill the **** out man.. No need to bring the level of this thread up beyond what it is suppose to be.. A normal discussion.
Let's answer to this first. My expression of "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WILLIS?" was intended as a facetious remark. Ever seen the show Different Strokes? If you haven't, I'm sorry you thought I meant this as an attack. But I've written many posts on this precise matter - the need to focus on the topic at hand and the detriment personal attacks cause. And you've read them... so you know I didn't mean it like that.



No you're right.. it doesn't mean the total "pixel" information would be gone but.. There is a certain reason WHY flash is based on the floating point emulation system instead of just pixel by pixel. First off.. When doing things mathematically instead of rasterising an image pixel by pixel it has to be done by floating point instead of rounding or else the desired result would look really screwed up.
Maybe I should have been more clear on this point. I'm not talking about rounding the position information.. of course, that always needs to be kept. But I'm talking about drawing at whole pixels.. then antialiasing if necessary. Not antialiasing to resolve some of these issues. When this happens, there's a loss of definition, which is what I meant to convey with my example of pixeltext. Yes, it's not entirely accurate, but I doubt anyone can notice a margin of error of half a pixel, even at 640 by 480.



Imagine the path a parabola would take if it just used pixel locations instead of an exact location as defined by Flash. It would look rather blocky and you could see the pixels depending on the area of view and zoom distance... Also.. it would look differently on everyone's screen! Having a screen at 800 x 600 would make the image look larger when compared with a screen at 1024 x 768. With Flash.. Of course this is also going to change... But with it you still have the same object.. Whether you zoom in 20000 times or zoom out 20000 times.. You won't see any pixels.. Just smoothness. Photoshop can not do that. Because it is based on singular pixelised pieces of information.
I don't really understand why you wrote this. If anything, it proves my position that photoshop should be vector based.. Images would look as good as possible at different resolutions.



Yeah I have looked at the history palette. Would call you a smart *** for that comment but I'll save it up for my explanations. And the fact is when you load up a .jpg it comes with a history palette that has absolutly nothing in it.. Am I correct? Taking a floating point emulated vectorized graphic from Flash and using it in a photoshop oriented environment would cause the vector image to lose all of it's floating point pixelized locations and require it be transferred over to the standard Photoshop non-vectorized locations.
The argument is not for taking vector information and putting into a pixelized environment. The argument is for photoshop to work in vector form. This doesnt mean that EVERYTHING needs to be vector-based. After all... flash handles gifs, jpgs, bmps, etc. pretty well. So does Illustrator... I'll continue my response below...



Now.. If you guys are trying to tell me that a photograph (because that's the main reason photoshop is there) can be handled vectorized better than rasterized you guys are flippen crazy. Read my response below to find out why.

I'll show you right now how much simpler it is to plot stored raster pixels than is to mathematically plot pixels for larger images. I will show you proven facts and how the computer works.

These are actual lines that a computer goes through to display a raster image on your computer. This is measured by clock ticks. Which I'll explain below this.

1. Tick 1 : The computer tells the program a graphic instruction is coming up.
2. Tick 2 : The program tells the computer a pixel dra is coming up.
3. Tick 3 : Your program tells the computer the x-coordinate of the pixel.
4. Tick 4 : Your program tells the computer the y-coordinate of the pixel.
5. Tick 5 : Your program tells the computer the color of the pixel.
6. Tick 6 : The computer rendered the pixel.
7. Ticks 7-12 : Uses overhead calculations the operating system has to perform to actually take the virtually rendeder pixel in the buffered state and throw them onto the real screen.

So.. if we had a screen at 800 x 600.. That would be 480,000 pixels. That's a grand total of 5,760,000 clock ticks to fill up the entire screen.By the time your screen is filled it has done nearly 6,000,000 clock ticks.. Now that's alot.. When running on a 600 mhz machine you will note that you can plot 600,000,000 clock ticks per second.. Technically that would leave us with 104 frame per second.. But it would actually be lowered down because of all the other applications running while your application was running...

Now that you know the set up for plotting to a screen and all the clock ticks it takes you will udnerstand why vectorized isn't always the greatest thing to use.

Now... When a vector based program plots stuff on the screen.. It first does a calculation to define where exactly the pixels are located and how they need to be viewed.

So.. let's do a small comparison.. A box that's 100 x 60.

Doing a box only would be great for vector.. Pixels it would be this... 4 bytes per pixel (red, green, blue, alpha) would make this.. 6000 x 4 or 24,000 bytes. 2.4 kb's to round it off. That's standard... Butfor vector it would tell the program firt.. Okay it's width is 100 and it's height is 60.. Just say.. 100 times 60 and then do it that way... Easy enough.. it would use the area calculation to define where to set up this place. But now.. let's take a larger example..

A photograph.. Well.. Every pixel would have to be defined by a certain formula to find it's location in vector.. But for raster.. it would all be stored.. No need to "find" where the pixel is placed.. it's already stored so I can just pull out the information and read it. With vector it would have to be like.. Okay there is a small line in this.. Let's use the line formula to figure out how this line would display itself.. let's figure out the rotation for it and everything and what color it is.. And then it'll give you maybe.. 20 pixels in that line.

Now.. if you have the computer to do this.. It would still be the same.. But that's just a line ina photograph.. Imagine the rest of them.. A small pixel would have to be found by using locations theories instead of formulas.
I never said photographs should be handled as vectors. And anyone who endorses that idea has lost his head. Precisely because of your argument. CLEARLY there is a dividing line for when vectors are better for drawing (which would be the realm for of gifs) and for when pixel-based drawing is better (the realm of jpegs). Saying that a program should be vector based does not imply that EVERYTHING should be handled vector based. After all... flash and illustrator are vector based... yet they dont convert jpegs into path info. And to tell you the truth, I feel kinda insulted that you should imply that I think describing a photograph with path info is better.
Plus, you use a jpeg as an example. But they don't apply at all to what we're talking about. Jpegs are analogous to vector drawings in that they are made up of formulas for drawing. JPEG is a standard that uses a compression method that uses the color information one pixel to determine the color of the adjacent 8 (that is not entirely right, but I really don't want to get into it). Jpegs are used for permanent storage, and what we're talking about is the ability of photoshop to create effects based on pixels. Photoshop doesn't compress the information it works with. So jpeg should have never come up in this conversation.


I admit.. vector makes it look better... And with the speed computers have now we can afford to waste a couple of extra clock ticks here and there... But the fact still stands that it's better to handle photographs pixel by pixel instead of figuring out where the pixels are before placing them. yeah, and I never said that photographs shouldn't be drawn pixel by pixel.

And I never mentioned anything about Photoshop saving images with embedded vector information. Photoshop could save files as jpegs or bitmaps for all I care. But the advantage of Photoshop being vector based would be that everything would be easier to handle.... you could specify the size of a new object, or the position of a photograph, to the pixel. Plus, it would take less memory.

You have to make sure to recognize the difference in these two topics. One is Photoshop working vector based. The other, which you were mostly talking about, was a file format with vector based information. The first one was what I was talking about... And everyone can recognize that it's easier to manipulate the size and position of objects in flash than in photoshop, and that flash working files take less memory space (the reasons why I want photoshop to be vector based). As for the second topic... that would be the best format EVER!

Come on... let's have a beer.

[vts31]

here comes edwin to the rescue: (some of this crap has been said before but i dont care).

1. FLASH and Photoshop cannot be compared, like apples and oranges, Sure they are both fruits (graphic applications), and they both get put into fruit salads (web/print) BUT they are two very seperate and different THINGS!

2. FLASH: is a vector based graphics program. Its purpose is to deliver INTERACTIVE CONTENT to the WEB. The fact that Flash uses Mathematical formulas to determine shape,location,fill gives FLASH the ABILITY to serve its purpose. VECTOR graphic programs are MADE specifically for CREATING content that can be easily edited, scaled and moved. Its made to be very flexible and "light". If FLash used some crazy raster technology it would prolly just be called quicktime.(joke).

2. PHOTOSHOP! is a RASTER program. Its purpose is to mess with raster images, not vector, but raster. Photoshop uses a totaly different system of displaying info on your screen. It uses PIXEL information.!!

3. Imagine you are stuck on an island. you need to get the attention of a plane passing overhead. Photoshop is the equivilant of gathering ROCKS and spelling out HELP with the rocks. FLash would be like grabbing a bunch of ROPE and bending it here and there untill it spells out HELP.


4. STOP fighitng over STUPID *** CRAP like this. Its like me arguing which is better 3ds max or my right Big toe. USE each software for whatever you need. If you cant understand the difference between the two LEARN. If you're still arguing, u get banned. haha jk...or am I :pirate: :chinaman: :evil:

[lava]

um... are you talking about me and playa? Cause you said things that we both know already. We're debating whether photoshop would be better if it was vector based.

[lostinbeta]

But thats the thing..... Photoshop is not MEANT to be Vector based because Vector is used for completely different things.

If Photoshop were Vector based we would be stuck with crappy Paint Shop Pro.

There are programs such as Illustrator, Freehand, and Fireworks that act like Vector Photoshops that you can use. So Photoshop is better the way it is now.

[vts31]

Originally posted by lavaboy
um... are you talking about me and playa? Cause you said things that we both know already. We're debating whether photoshop would be better if it was vector based.

it would be POINTLESS!!!!

[.soulty]

lol, go edwin! i like number 3 :)

Everyone is right though in their own way. I use all 3 that are mentioned , Illustrator , flash and photoshop.

Illustrator to draw something out such as layouts, logos. Photoshop for images, jpegs thats will be included in the site, sometime use the layout or logos i created in illustrator to photoshop to add filters and other raster related effects. And all this goes into flash which I use each individual object to create a website.

:: by the way you can draw in photoshop like you can in illustrator, simply use paths. saving a path , then using the pen tool to create the drawing, this can be used for selections and drawing curves and other shapes. I use it all the time.

:smirk:

[lava]

Sorry, but I dont see it as pointless. Converting photoshop to using vector based drawing would in no way limit it's capabilities, and I explained why. I'm not talking about designing for print (which is why Illustrator is vector based). I'm talking about that drawing in a vector based system is easier than the current way that photoshop works. Illustrator doesnt have the photo editing capabilities that photoshop has.

My point is that if photoshop was vector based, if you decide to change a rectagle or a shape you drew, you woulnd't have to say "Oh crap, I have to draw another one." You could just easily edit its properties. You could easily treat a photograph as a drawing object, and modify it's size, shape, orientation, etc, without having to use the transform tools, or having to duplicate the layer.

I want to be able to specify properties like I do with flash... basically, without having to switch from program to program.

[lostinbeta]

Originally posted by lavaboy
Illustrator doesnt have the photo editing capabilities that photoshop has.

That's because you can't edit images in Vector like you can in Photoshop, so that would limit its capabilities a ton. Hence making it useless if it were Vector based. If it were vector based it would be just like Illustrator, Freehand, or Fireworks.

[lava]

I never said that you had to edit images (especially applying photoshop effects) in vector base. Of course that's going to limit it's capabilities! I have already addressed this... of course photos are going to have to be processed pixel by pixel.

but having vector defined objects doesnt mean you can't apply effects to them. why? because photoshop always has the pixel by pixel information of the image... it has to display it on the screen.

[.soulty]

raf are you asking for a wish list?? because there is no point for you to argue which is better, photoshop is what is it , and illustrator is what is it. nothing more to it

[lostinbeta]

Well you're talking about Photoshop being better if it were Vector based. But Photoshop is a photo editing and graphic design program, so turning it into a Vector based program would be pointless because its just like turning it into all the other programs like that. And being that Photoshop is the best raster based program, that would leave the raster world with nothing.

If you noticed, Illustrator has certain filters and other effects that can be done to a Vector file, while Photoshop has even more you can do because it involves more than what vector can do.

My point is that raster and vector as Edwin said are two different worlds, turning Photoshop into vector based completely removes the purpose of Photoshop. Think about it, saying Photoshop would be better as Vector is like saying 3D Studio Max would be better as Vector. It makes no sense.

Im done arguing on the subject. If what I said still makes no sense to you, then it never will. Its almost 2am here, I gotta get up early, so yeah. Have fun.

[vts31]

if photoshop was vector based it would weaken the program. it would be a step backwards.

[.soulty]

i would rather photoshop expand on its raster capabilities than trying to make it more "vector" . We will see what will happen with the release of version 8 soon.

[lava]

I'm done with this too... I'm tired, and soulty's 11:42 post kinda pissed me off... it's off the topic. And it doesnt contribute to any of the arguments.

My position is that photoshop doesn't lose it's rastering abilities if it supports vector based objects. Why? because the pixel information exists, no matter what. Any vector based program has to convert vectors to pixels.

as long as the pixels exist, photoshop can do its work. It doesn't matter how the pixels got there.. whether they were drawn with the pencil tool, or whether they were drawn using vector information.

goodnight.

[.soulty]

whys is it off the topic??

[lostinbeta]

Originally posted by lavaboy
I'm done with this too... I'm tired, and soulty's 11:42 post kinda pissed me off... it's off the topic. And it doesnt contribute to any of the arguments.

My position is that photoshop doesn't lose it's rastering abilities if it supports vector based objects. Why? because the pixel information exists, no matter what. Any vector based program has to convert vectors to pixels.

as long as the pixels exist, photoshop can do its work. It doesn't matter how the pixels got there.. whether they were drawn with the pencil tool, or whether they were drawn using vector information.

goodnight.

As a side note to this, not an argument, I always though the information contained within a Vector pixel and a Raster pixel were different. Vector is different because the information changes according to the resizing no? I could be wrong.

[.soulty]

Raf all i was saying before, is that with each release of photoshop there are more features added to it, this version 7 included vector shapes, which is great , because creating rounded rectangles in photoshop need 3 or 4 task before , and now its available there with a click of a butt. Now there was not much too the version 6 to 7 release, and i was just saying i would rather if adobe would expand on the raster side of things more than adding vector capabilities.

Not intended to piss you off mate, just wanted to add my opinion.
:smirk:

[.soulty]

and if you meant about the post previous to that, well yeah your right, shouldn't of said that, lol, ah bugger you gotta act quick in these threads, and iam kinda slow today. sorry bud.

ill shout ya a beer or something :smirk:

[vts31]

lavaboy, in order to do what u ask, every "pixel" from raster would have to become vector. so basically u have the same thing. vectors the size of pixels. excpt now u need a super comuter to do anything with it.

[Kitiara]

Hmmm, a raging thread full of testosterone. :)

I'm going to repeat my previous statement I think. It all depends on what you want to produce, as to which program you use, and which is better for the job.

None of them is 'better' than the other anyway. They all have good and bad points. I think it's best to become a jack of all trades, and get familiar with them all. :)

[lava]

Originally posted by lostinbeta
As a side note to this, not an argument, I always though the information contained within a Vector pixel and a Raster pixel were different. Vector is different because the information changes according to the resizing no? I could be wrong.

that's one of the points that I've been talking about. Yes the pixel information is going to change if you resize a vector shape, however... Photoshop is step-based. If you change a vector shape, Photoshop would have to redo all the effects that have been done on that shape. Just like it does now.

I mean, yeah, to a point, photoshop supports vector based stuff. After all you have vector masks when you draw shapes. But it's so freaking annoying to work with them, because you can't get into the nitty gritty of stuff... you have to work with the mouse.

Soulty: it's cool...

[lava]

Originally posted by vts31
lavaboy, in order to do what u ask, every "pixel" from raster would have to become vector. so basically u have the same thing. vectors the size of pixels. excpt now u need a super comuter to do anything with it.
I've talked about this twice already. Playa and Lost said that this is what i implied. This does not need to happen. Read my previous posts as to why.

[Lynx]

Flash, I dont use Photoshop.
(actually I've used once two or three yrs ago)