: Vectorizing pixels in bitmap images for infinite resizing. Possible? Just putting this out there for discussion, and because I can't currently think of why it wouldn't work... Imagine you converted

@Turnbaugh909

It wouldn't really add anything. That is what pixel images are anyway, a map of discrete colored squares, exactly the same as if you converted each pixel to a vector square.

Take this image from my answer on a previous question asking how to do exactly what you are talking about:



That is a 256 pixel square tile increased in size to 6,400 pixels square, with apparently no loss in image quality. As long as you increase the size of the image in integer multiples, you get no apparent loss in quality. What you will never get is an increase in quality (which is what people who don't understand the nature of bitmap images may expect)

The loss in quality you get from increasing the size of an image comes from anti-aliasing and interpolation... But, the important thing here is, you would also get that with your vectorized pixels!

Vector images still need to be rasterized or rendered for you to see them on your screen, which means any vector image you see has at that point been turned in to a pixel based image. Your screen is made up of pixels after all. And since your vector/bitmap hybrid image is basically still made up of pixels, you still get the same effects.

Here are some comparisons of images being enlarged with different methods:



The first enlargement is with no interpolation, which preserves the sharpness. The problem with this is that the sharpness is just enlarged pixels, which is generally what people don't want. The second enlargement is done using bicubic interpolation. This gets around the pixelation problem, but the result is a distortion that most of the time looks worse. There are better algorithms and methods for enlarging images but that is a whole other subject!

Vote Up Vote Down

@Debbie163

As you put it, vectorizing every pixel makes no sense.

Imagine you vectorize every pixel and then resize it. You simply have bigger squares.

The exact same thing happens if you change the ppi on an output, you have bigger pixels. You do not need to resample it.



You want to get rid of the blurriness. That is a totally different issue. That happens when the user (or software) uses a resampling method that simply tries to guess the information that is not there, so the result can be blurry.

There is one resampling method that does not blur the image, it simply gives you bigger pixels, that is resampling at an exact proportion 2x, 3x using nearest neighbour. But this has no sense either, because you simply have a bigger file with no extra value. It is only to give an image a pixelated look.



There are some resampling algorithms that "vectorize" the bitmap (they claim that), like


Photozoom
Reshade
Alien Skin


That finds the edges of a shape, and does not blur them. But the results are not perfect, and they work in some situations, not all of them.



There is other software that guesses the pattern below an image. They work in some situations, but again not perfect.



Here is a sample image,

The first square has no blurriness, it has pixelation... bigger pixels (the exact same case as your proposal). The other 3 are different methods of resampling.


Irfanview, Lanczos Filter
PhotoZoom
Reshade

www.otake.com.mx/Foros/Zoom300.jpg

Vote Up Vote Down