Fred C.
2008-10-30 12:24:28 UTC
Hi Andrew,
Your results are looking good. Are you going to make something available
for tryout on your site?
http://www.smartfills.com/ Keep us posted.
Regards,
Fred
Your results are looking good. Are you going to make something available
for tryout on your site?
http://www.smartfills.com/ Keep us posted.
Regards,
Fred
People, I'm just trying to evolve a method for raster to vector
conversion, what will be able produce as small vectors as possible. To
realize a continuous row images from a snapshot to picture with few
details, but similar to its raster prototype. I dare to say, some
intermediate results looks rather promising. Compare Win1 and Win2.
Gradient fills is suppressed at both of them, but at Win1 much more. Thus,
to save Win1 as a vector one needs less info than for Win2. I was asked by
one of my site's visitors about such a filter, what will be able to
convert a photo to stylized picture and resize obtained image. This just
same case, where my methods will be used for. Course, to enlarge an image
and preserve its sharpness one needn't to convert it to vector- this op
can be performed without it. Look at Win3. Simple, but rather efficient
filter (for its simplicity, course). But, conversion will be useful, if
one wants to make some edition- vectors offer lots of ops, what hardly
could be realized with rasters. I think, within few days I'll put
corresponding prog to my site. Now it produces only grayscales.
conversion, what will be able produce as small vectors as possible. To
realize a continuous row images from a snapshot to picture with few
details, but similar to its raster prototype. I dare to say, some
intermediate results looks rather promising. Compare Win1 and Win2.
Gradient fills is suppressed at both of them, but at Win1 much more. Thus,
to save Win1 as a vector one needs less info than for Win2. I was asked by
one of my site's visitors about such a filter, what will be able to
convert a photo to stylized picture and resize obtained image. This just
same case, where my methods will be used for. Course, to enlarge an image
and preserve its sharpness one needn't to convert it to vector- this op
can be performed without it. Look at Win3. Simple, but rather efficient
filter (for its simplicity, course). But, conversion will be useful, if
one wants to make some edition- vectors offer lots of ops, what hardly
could be realized with rasters. I think, within few days I'll put
corresponding prog to my site. Now it produces only grayscales.