"Vector" photos?

[keith204]

It sounds strange to me, but a guy at work who knows a little bit of everything (he really does) is saying Kodak is working towards a type of vector photograph that can be scaled to unreasonable amounts. He will probably get on here soon to join in this discussion.

I can think of several reasons this won't work out...at least for years and years. What do you think? Do you think we're headed towards a type of non-pixel vector photograph?

 

[Atropine]

It's true that you can scale a vector image to the size you please, but I really don't think we are there yet for many years to come. The simple reason is that it would need some serious computing power to capture images in vectors with satisfying amount of details and colours. And the files will be huge. Normally vector graphics creates small files, but files containing massive amounts of curves tend to grow a lot.

You might be able to cut the amount of data if you could use some kind of mixed technology with curves to describe detailed shapes and gradient mesh for the colour representation, but yet again, I think that would require a lot from the camera.

I've been experimenting with Adobe Streamline and Illustrator a lot earlier.

 

[Arch]

Its very difficult to imagine a vector photograph at this stage. In future i say it would be entirely possible for a camera to be developed that can somehow automatically convert the data from its sensor to (very) fine vectors. However i don't think we are near that stage now, we simply cannot get enough detail information from a vector image.

I actually don't think file size would be too much of an issue if it were possible to capture a vector image. Bitmap is usually larger in file size than vectors, and im sure they would find ways of compressing vector information even further.

I wouldn't start saving yet tho peeps.

 

[Battou]

I too am not seeing this for a few years to come, but if any one is going to do it it's going to be Kodak. Innovation seems to be the only thing keeping them alive anymore.

 

[Slaphead]

Interesting, but the way I see it is that the vector image could only be formed from the information that the sensor (and lens combined) can provide. In other words the vector image would have to be formed from a bitmap - which means in my opinion that any large scaling would have pretty much the the same effect as increasing the size in photoshop.

So yes you could have highly scaleable images in a potentially smaller file format, but it wouldn't be able to produce extra detail that was not present in the original bitmap.

 

[Atropine]

You could also think of it like this. As long as sensor resolution is an issue, bitmap sounds like the most logic solution. If Kodak or some other company invents a completely new "organic" resolution free sensor technology in the future, vectors would probably be the smartest way to save the image data.

 

[Bifurcator]

Yeah it's pretty much what Atropine is saying. I for example, know that the technology for doing this has "been there" for about 10 years now. But unless Kodak is developing a custom IC optimized specifically for the process it's just too slow to use in-camera. Fractal algorithms can be used to speed things up considerably but now you're talking about huge ROM images and that increases production costs too much I think.

Yeah, probably not yet. But this is a technology I've been keeping my eyes opened for over the past eight or ten years now - so ya never know... maybe.

BTW, do you have any links to the rumors? What are the origins of this rumor (above and besides your friend I mean)?

 

[THORHAMMER]

Ok, I had coffee that explains my rant....



Will it be SVG format I really wonder about that... hmmm

I dont think its for printing, or normal web based photography needs

I can see archeological and advertising applications But it will end up as more processing time and less studio time for commercial advertising , Not a good tradeoff for the craft. Personally I like to know when I see an AD of something expensive that at least the object itself it real. Not some 70% real thing thats been CG enhanced to death that doesnt exist in that way at that angle , basically its not really what it looks like in real life. Thats a whole different argument.

I guess you could automate things to a point where any color looks real, and moving objects around in a room would be as simple as dragging and dropping and the program makes the scaling and shadows match automatically, paving the way towards 3D simulations and ray-tracing abilities. But why do it in the camera, why not see if theres a market for this with normal files first, convert afterwards.

This could just be to make pictures for advertising operatble across platforms and easy to send our for cell phone use, or on line use for quicker loading.

Theres some interesting ideas you could automate from government angle. .This is what came to mind that got me interested when I saw this thread.

Imagine the millitary using that software engine to finally use with those infrared and through walls cameras to have that Knight Rider see through - floor plans in real time thing.... Scary huh.

Also, a realtime vector producing engine hooked up with a motion camera makes all sorts of things possible.
Realtime 3D HUD/GPS on your sunglasses ? just revieve the signal from your bluetooth enabled cell in your pocket. All this is a compressable xml file. The applications for millitary are immense.

They could do a lot of this allready back in the 90's as the air traffic control system turned planes flights into vectors, but its not nearly as detailed as photo-realism. Just blips and trajectories.

Think of what they could do with video games ?

I guess in an online/photosynth/gps enabled world, you could take flickrs weekly uploads and pretty much vector map half the planet in no time. !!

Also your car could sense the trajectory and path of an errent object or another car possibly even allowing a sort of traction control for steering wheel rotation, cool huh ? Vectors are all math based, in time its possible.

I think the engine will be way more important for motion capture then still photography.

COFFEEEEEEEEEEE

 

[Garbz]

Find edges, do math between edges to keep them constant, find a mathematical formula to describe what happens between edges.

I can see the backlash from the people complaining that their photos have no detail

 

[brileyphotog]

I never felt like an idiot on TPF before reading this thread...I'm probably going to cry myself to sleep tonight.

I prefer to live with the delusion that teams of Keebler elves are inside my camera tripping the shutter

 

[Drake]

I am very sceptcal about this whole vector-photos thing. I just can't imagine how a camera with one specific lens could do truly vector based photos. It's just as real as saying you will be able to zoom-in on your photos to infinity. Imagine how many details there are in the world. And then, when you do, you've got to remember there's even more. And more, things we can't even see. This is what a vector photo would mean, a photo you can magnify as much as you want preserving all the details. It's not just about the edges, it's probably possible right now to make a vector from hard edges in your photos. But as long as we can't reproduce the texture between the edges, it will be well... useless... and not a vector photo.

And even if we, in a distant future, will get the technology to do it, I don't thing we will use the word 'camera' and 'photo' anymore.

 

[Alpha]

Once the vector shape and size approach pixel shape and size, the vector starts to become useless. In the way that we use vector now, either drawing from scratch or converting from raster images, you'd need a vector image of resolution many times higher than a comparable raster image to avoid that problem.

 

[THORHAMMER]

I am very sceptcal about this whole vector-photos thing. I just can't imagine how a camera with one specific lens could do truly vector based photos. It's just as real as saying you will be able to zoom-in on your photos to infinity. Imagine how many details there are in the world. And then, when you do, you've got to remember there's even more. And more, things we can't even see. This is what a vector photo would mean, a photo you can magnify as much as you want preserving all the details. It's not just about the edges, it's probably possible right now to make a vector from hard edges in your photos. But as long as we can't reproduce the texture between the edges, it will be well... useless... and not a vector photo.

And even if we, in a distant future, will get the technology to do it, I don't thing we will use the word 'camera' and 'photo' anymore.

dont lose sleep, they cant pull off any real detail, its like turning the world into southpark like details once you zoom in a few hundred percent

 

[Atropine]

...This is what a vector photo would mean, a photo you can magnify as much as you want preserving all the details...

Not really true. Yes, the objects/details reproduced in the vector photo will be scalable, but you would have to limit the level of detail also in vector photos. Simply because of traditional photographic limitations as the optical quality of the lenses, blur and so on. The files would also become huge and very difficult to process with that kind of level of detail. Vector photography would be a great leap in the evolution of photography, but not a shoot-once-capture-all solution. There will definitely still be a lot of limitiations.

 

[Drake]

you would have to limit the level of detail also in vector photos. Simply because of traditional photographic limitations as the optical quality of the lenses, blur and so on

Does it really meet the requitements to call it a vector then? Forgive me if I am wrong, but for me you can call an image a vector when you can upscale it to infinity. Or at least close to it. I know there are limitations, but I don't think we should call something a vector if it really isn't. 'We came up with this new technology, we have limitations but it's the best we can do, so let's call it a vector photo anyway, ok? We hope you don't mind.'