ie: As decimal is to fraction, vector is to bitmap.
A decimal number is precise in the way a vector is precise. Vectors have 'exact' coordinates and can be scaled infinitely.
Bitmaps are only an approximation of an image or a vector (shape). Sure, you could have a bitmap at 3 bazillion DPI and the approximation (turning of data into colored blocks) would never be noticeable to the naked eye, bit it's still there.
For really 'simple' math or art, bitmaps are fine. 1/4=.25, great. But for really precise math or art decimals and vectors are superior.
Lets make this into a poll. I´m with Placebo. While decimals are presice within a specific frame (the ten digit system) and not within others fractions are precise within all frames. Just as bitmap is precise if your world is corresponding to the frame set up by map.
I see where you're coming from. 1/3 is finite and the decimal equivalent is not. OK, that's in the fraction's favor.
But if we're talking about bitmaps, they can hardly ever be precise. The only time a bitmap can be accurate is in depicting a square. Vectors are more flexible and are *always* precise, by simply being nothing more than math between points.
A vector can be represented by a decimal or a fraction, since a decimal is just another way to write a fraction. In certain cases, there are only decimal approximations (1/7, for example).
But I know what you're getting at.
Unabridged Geek response:
Even so, if a raster image has no frequencies that are larger than half the sampling frequency, then it is perfectly reconstructable from the analog source, in that the analog source could be generated from the sampled image if it is passed through an ideal low pass filter.
Abridged Geek response:
A line drawing made of parametic lines (vectors-sort of) can be resized without any loss other than floating-point roundoff. But in the end it's still just a decimal approximation, just like the way a sampled, quantized (digital) image is an approximation of the real thing. The two approaches operate in thoroughly different manners, and to throw them together in an analogy is not productive.
Comments
ie: As decimal is to fraction, vector is to bitmap.
A decimal number is precise in the way a vector is precise. Vectors have 'exact' coordinates and can be scaled infinitely.
Bitmaps are only an approximation of an image or a vector (shape). Sure, you could have a bitmap at 3 bazillion DPI and the approximation (turning of data into colored blocks) would never be noticeable to the naked eye, bit it's still there.
For really 'simple' math or art, bitmaps are fine. 1/4=.25, great. But for really precise math or art decimals and vectors are superior.
Who uses 1/645955603013601560th?
Originally posted by Anders
While decimals are presice within a specific frame (the ten digit system) and not within others fractions are precise within all frames.
Not all frames, Anders.
I see where you're coming from. 1/3 is finite and the decimal equivalent is not. OK, that's in the fraction's favor.
But if we're talking about bitmaps, they can hardly ever be precise. The only time a bitmap can be accurate is in depicting a square. Vectors are more flexible and are *always* precise, by simply being nothing more than math between points.
A vector can be represented by a decimal or a fraction, since a decimal is just another way to write a fraction. In certain cases, there are only decimal approximations (1/7, for example).
But I know what you're getting at.
Unabridged Geek response:
Even so, if a raster image has no frequencies that are larger than half the sampling frequency, then it is perfectly reconstructable from the analog source, in that the analog source could be generated from the sampled image if it is passed through an ideal low pass filter.
Abridged Geek response:
A line drawing made of parametic lines (vectors-sort of) can be resized without any loss other than floating-point roundoff. But in the end it's still just a decimal approximation, just like the way a sampled, quantized (digital) image is an approximation of the real thing. The two approaches operate in thoroughly different manners, and to throw them together in an analogy is not productive.
Unless it's this one:
vectors:rasters::apples:oranges
Give me decimals and metrics any day.