Vector drawing programs compared
Corel Draw, Illustrator, and more!
Tuesday, August 2, 2005 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Here's a page that gives a brief run down on a whole bunch of graphics design programs that work with vectors (instead of bitmaps). Check it out.
Lantec
Reply #3 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 2:16 PM
Reply #3 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 2:16 PM
I disagree with his grouping of "High End" programs. The real "High End" programs start at around $1,300 (Microstation) and go up from there. I have three licensed versions of AutoCad 2005 and two of AutoCad 2006. Each seat is stand-alone and ran about $2900.00 Then you add to that the appropriate discipline "add ons" and you can be sitting in front of $8,000 to $10,000 dollars worth of software. It's the same for much of the high end publication graphics. Items like AutoCad LT are stripped out shadows of the real thing.
I don't consider these programs useful for the kind of applications you would normally see here. They are made for technical drawing where accuracy is paramount. I myself use Paint Shop Pro for graphics and photo manipulation. With all the power of my AutoCad setup, I would be extremely hard pressed to create anything you would consider art. Pixel based software with some Vector abilities like Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro are much better for "Art"
I don't consider these programs useful for the kind of applications you would normally see here. They are made for technical drawing where accuracy is paramount. I myself use Paint Shop Pro for graphics and photo manipulation. With all the power of my AutoCad setup, I would be extremely hard pressed to create anything you would consider art. Pixel based software with some Vector abilities like Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro are much better for "Art"
horizon
Reply #4 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 3:19 PM
Thats a little off too
Printed works are designed around a resolution of 300 "usually" where monitors generally keep to 72 or 96, both vector and raster will look like crap printed at 72, difference is you can do vector work at any size and then adjust to what you need, raster you have to start big. Although interestingly while things like magazines are made at 300 ppi, something like a billboard is done around 20 ppi, looks great from the long distance of the road, but get up close to one and they're terrible looking.
The article is nice for pointing out some things that are difficult to sometimes explain though. No matter what the project, I often end up at some point using vector graphics in it, even if it's converted in the final project. The uses are often endless, whether completely done in vector, or at some point a shape or final image brought into a raster program like photoshop, imported to a 3D modeler, typefaces even are most commonly using vector paths, people seem to overlook or not think about that one.
{/uselessrant}
Reply #4 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 3:19 PM
| When printed, a vector object looks better than a raster object |
Thats a little off too
Printed works are designed around a resolution of 300 "usually" where monitors generally keep to 72 or 96, both vector and raster will look like crap printed at 72, difference is you can do vector work at any size and then adjust to what you need, raster you have to start big. Although interestingly while things like magazines are made at 300 ppi, something like a billboard is done around 20 ppi, looks great from the long distance of the road, but get up close to one and they're terrible looking.The article is nice for pointing out some things that are difficult to sometimes explain though. No matter what the project, I often end up at some point using vector graphics in it, even if it's converted in the final project. The uses are often endless, whether completely done in vector, or at some point a shape or final image brought into a raster program like photoshop, imported to a 3D modeler, typefaces even are most commonly using vector paths, people seem to overlook or not think about that one.
{/uselessrant}
craeonics
Reply #5 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 3:53 PM
Reply #5 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 3:53 PM
Brief indeed. I must say, the more I see of InkScape, the more enticing it gets.
whoozhe
Reply #6 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 11:04 PM
Reply #6 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 11:04 PM
As long as I can draw stick men I will use anything. That is about my artistic limit 
XX
Reply #7 Wednesday, August 3, 2005 2:33 AM
Reply #7 Wednesday, August 3, 2005 2:33 AM
Personally, I use SodiPodi. Inkscape is also good, but I'm used to SodiPodi. Both has flaws, however.
http://www.sodipodi.com/
http://www.sodipodi.com/
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 11:50 AM
but I started getting lost at Fig. 4
I'm too ignert
what?...paste into Irfanview?
never thought of that..
Thanks for the link Brad!
just curious... I have Cr.H.Exprs3..If I get Acrylic do you know if it will be separate or will it replace?