What if computer graphics were all vectors.

Anikom15 · 2009-10-02 22:36:47

And resolution was completely dependent on the monitor. The graphics card would communicate with vectors instead of pixels. Pts or mm would be used instead of pixels for dimensions, etc. It would be difficult for this to work, but considering more and more applications are using vectors (such as icons), I think we're going in that direction.

ZankerH · 2009-10-03 01:07:33

Something still has to convert it to a bitmap before sending it over to a monitor. Not going to happen unless you make monitors capable of interpreting vector images into bitmaps, which would essentially amount to installing a second graphics card in the monitor.

Anikom15 · 2009-10-03 01:10:21

ZankerH wrote:

Something still has to convert it to a bitmap before sending it over to a monitor. Not going to happen unless you make monitors capable of interpreting vector images into bitmaps, which would essentially amount to installing a second graphics card in the monitor.

I know this. It would best if it was in the monitor, as it would truly be "per monitor".

Trent · 2009-10-03 03:11:19

It's a nice idea, but I wonder how gracefully it could be made to degrade at lower resolutions.
I'm thinking specifically of the next generation in poor web design: the web site that was created on a 3200x2400 monitor and literally can't be viewed at anything less.

Dusty · 2009-10-03 03:31:31

It would mean more complicated scenes take more time to render. Think about 3D rendering engines -- they are basically "vector based" engines in 3D.

I've given consideration to bitmap based 3D engines and realized the aliasing would be horrid. :-D

Dusty

stefanwilkens · 2009-10-03 17:38:37

everything would need to be scaled constantly, hello system load.

things will, however, look amazing

Lich · 2009-10-03 18:13:12

Someone that atleast once in their lifetime used drop-shadows in Adobe Illustrator would ask not such a question. It's a concept that doesn't even deserve talking about for more than a thread on a forum . It's impossible at current technology levels, and vector looks like crap on small sized stuff (not talking text, I mean actual graphics). GUI's need to be crisp at times, and vector is (odd enough) not cut out to draw lots of things on a small area.

Anikom15 · 2009-10-03 19:15:47

So maybe 150 years from now?

briest · 2009-10-03 19:21:26

Display Postscript.

Xyne · 2009-10-03 19:26:19

Anikom15 wrote:

So maybe 150 years from now?

In 150 years we might have a direct computer-brain interface and not even need a screen.

zowki · 2009-10-03 19:36:31

Xyne wrote:

Anikom15 wrote:
So maybe 150 years from now?
In 150 years we might have a direct computer-brain interface and not even need a screen.

In 50 years a single $1000 computer will be equivalent to the worlds entire computing capability of today. (According to Moor's law)
Therefore in 150 years a single $1000 computer will be equivalent to 3 times of the worlds entire computing capability of today.

Last edited by zowki (2009-10-03 19:39:52)

Nezmer · 2009-10-03 20:12:04

zowki wrote:

In 50 years a single $1000 computer will be equivalent to the worlds entire computing capability of today. (According to Moor's law)
Therefore in 150 years a single $1000 computer will be equivalent to 3 times of the worlds entire computing capability of today.

What ?

Xyne · 2009-10-03 20:20:52

zowki wrote:

In 50 years a single $1000 computer will be equivalent to the worlds entire computing capability of today. (According to Moor's law)
Therefore in 150 years a single $1000 computer will be equivalent to 3 times of the worlds entire computing capability of today.

In 150 years $1000 dollars will be used to line bird cages in China.

RobbeR49 · 2009-10-05 13:40:24

Just increasing the pixel density of monitors would make everything much crisper also, even eliminating the need for stuff like anti-aliasing if it's high enough.

Of course there are probably another whole set of technological problems to overcome in this direction, but IIRC even the OLPC laptop actually has a pretty fancy LCD with a rather high pixel density.

thetrivialstuff · 2009-10-06 14:35:49

RobbeR49 wrote:

Just increasing the pixel density of monitors would make everything much crisper also, even eliminating the need for stuff like anti-aliasing if it's high enough.
Of course there are probably another whole set of technological problems to overcome in this direction, but IIRC even the OLPC laptop actually has a pretty fancy LCD with a rather high pixel density.

Yeah. I long for the day when a physical pixel is smaller than the eye can see. *Then* our graphics will be crisp. Sadly, ~0.28mm seems to be good enough dot pitch for all the monitor manufacturers to make money, so they've stopped there for now. I'm sure there are some really expensive medical imaging displays or something that have smaller pixels, but I can't afford them...

If that ever happens though, our whole set of libraries for UI elements will have to change, probably to vector-based: right now everything is built on the assumption that pixels are exactly "just as small as they need to be not to be annoyingly big and noticeable" and a lot of fonts, icons, GUI widgets, etc. are built on the assumption that dot pitch is very close to 0.28mm. A few laptops & netbooks do have noticeably smaller dot pitch, and Windows menu text is almost too small to read on them unless you turn on big fonts (X is smart enough to do some font scaling depending on the physical dimensions the monitor returns, but it can't scale things like fixed pixel size custom buttons).

Another thing I'm waiting for is the day when LCD panels have pixels that aren't separated by visible lines. When you hold a magnifying glass up to an LCD, you should see solid units of colour only, dammit, not gridlines. And it'd be great if LCD's could be produced with subpixels arranged in triangular formation (so that red/green/blue are equidistant from each other like on CRT's) -- or better yet, mix the colour by overlaying RGB so that all you have is a solid unit of the colour you want.

I'm probably dreaming

tlvb · 2009-10-06 15:32:49

zowki wrote:

Xyne wrote:
Anikom15 wrote:
So maybe 150 years from now?
In 150 years we might have a direct computer-brain interface and not even need a screen.
In 50 years a single $1000 computer will be equivalent to the worlds entire computing capability of today. (According to Moor's law)
Therefore in 150 years a single $1000 computer will be equivalent to 3 times of the worlds entire computing capability of today.

Don't you mean x^3, for x=the ratio of all computers today/one computer today? Percentual growth is described by exponential equations, not linear. (Edit: not meaning to be a smartass, just FYI.)

Last edited by tlvb (2009-10-06 15:34:21)

ngoonee · 2009-10-06 20:24:46

thetrivialstuff wrote:

Another thing I'm waiting for is the day when LCD panels have pixels that aren't separated by visible lines. When you hold a magnifying glass up to an LCD, you should see solid units of colour only, dammit, not gridlines. And it'd be great if LCD's could be produced with subpixels arranged in triangular formation (so that red/green/blue are equidistant from each other like on CRT's) -- or better yet, mix the colour by overlaying RGB so that all you have is a solid unit of the colour you want.
I'm probably dreaming

If you make a habit of holding up magnifying glasses to your LCD screens you probably need to get out a bit more =p

thetrivialstuff · 2009-10-06 21:42:48

ngoonee wrote:

thetrivialstuff wrote:
Another thing I'm waiting for is the day when LCD panels have pixels that aren't separated by visible lines. When you hold a magnifying glass up to an LCD, you should see solid units of colour only, dammit, not gridlines. And it'd be great if LCD's could be produced with subpixels arranged in triangular formation (so that red/green/blue are equidistant from each other like on CRT's) -- or better yet, mix the colour by overlaying RGB so that all you have is a solid unit of the colour you want.
I'm probably dreaming
If you make a habit of holding up magnifying glasses to your LCD screens you probably need to get out a bit more =p

I just added that bit because while I can see the lines between pixels at normal viewing distances, most people can't seem to and/or get into a "there aren't any lines!" debate.

Also, cameras can see the lines, and are somehow much more sensitive to them than human eyes. Taking a picture of an LCD screen produces a moire effect whereas a CRT doesn't (though you get flicker effects if you set your exposure time too short). Why take a picture of the screen? Because it's the fastest way to download a high-res image (like a large map) onto a cheap portable device (camera) and run out the door with it, especially if you know you're going to be somewhere with no internet access.

I use that all the time for jotting down a Google map (often with the e-mail containing the person's instructions sitting next to it) before going somewhere new. Yes, you can *maybe* rely on there being free wi-fi nearby, or if you're willing to fork out a lot more for cell phone service you can possibly use that, if there's decent coverage in the area (in many places I go there actually isn't)... but I'm a cheap bastard

thetrivialstuff · 2009-10-06 21:44:53

Also, check this page out on an LCD screen to see some of the (in my opinion) defects of the current tech:

http://www.techmind.org/lcd/

ngoonee · 2009-10-06 21:47:19

Hate to break it to you, but if you have any relatively recent phone you could just bluetooth the map over . That's what I do.

This is offtopic anyway, sorry.

Anikom15 · 2009-10-06 22:13:36

<opinion>LCD's are trash.</opinion>

Arch Linux

#1 2009-10-02 22:36:47

What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#2 2009-10-03 01:07:33

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#3 2009-10-03 01:10:21

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#4 2009-10-03 03:11:19

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#5 2009-10-03 03:31:31

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#6 2009-10-03 17:38:37

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#7 2009-10-03 18:13:12

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#8 2009-10-03 19:15:47

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#9 2009-10-03 19:21:26

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#10 2009-10-03 19:26:19

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#11 2009-10-03 19:36:31

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#12 2009-10-03 20:12:04

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#13 2009-10-03 20:20:52

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#14 2009-10-05 13:40:24

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#15 2009-10-06 14:35:49

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#16 2009-10-06 15:32:49

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#17 2009-10-06 20:24:46

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#18 2009-10-06 21:42:48

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#19 2009-10-06 21:44:53

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#20 2009-10-06 21:47:19

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

#21 2009-10-06 22:13:36

Re: What if computer graphics were all vectors.

Board footer