-
1. Re: automatic photorealistic vectorization in Illustrator
Monika Gause Apr 26, 2011 10:16 AM (in response to plutonak)You mean like this?
http://www.adobe.com/technology/graphics/diffusion_curves.html
Don't know if that will make its way into Illustrator anytime soon. Why do you need this stuff? I mean it's really nice technology and I guess it was some work to to come up with an implementation, but if anyone can do photorealistic vector with the click of a mouse, the magic will be gone and no client wants to see it anymore.
-
2. Re: automatic photorealistic vectorization in Illustrator
Mylenium Apr 26, 2011 10:35 AM (in response to plutonak)I wouldn't hold my breath.... Coming from MS, chances are better it one day appears in Expression Design, if ever.
Mylenium
-
3. Re: automatic photorealistic vectorization in Illustrator
Mylenium Apr 26, 2011 10:45 AM (in response to Monika Gause)if anyone can do photorealistic vector with the click of a mouse, the magic will be gone and no client wants to see it anymore.
I humbly disagree. There will always be room for artistic interpretation and ways of taking this to a different level with your skills. Sure, it will be a little less exciting and you won't be able to charge as much for your work perhaps, but even with such a technology, something unique will always stand out. Such tools are for grunt work and give you a good start, but it will still be up to the artist to make it real great. and your analogy doesn't fit in that even in the creative industry there are "cycles" every 5 or so years. Lens flares for motion graphics have been declared dead at least just as often in the last 10 years, yet they are used everywhere still. Same for abstract swirls, vines, grunge stuff - they's all come back eventuall yor never go away in the first place. So there is probably nothing to fear that this will go out of fashion any tiem soon, even if a chimp could create it just by clicking on an image....
Mylenium
-
4. Re: automatic photorealistic vectorization in Illustrator
JETalmage Apr 26, 2011 11:27 AM (in response to Monika Gause)the magic will be gone
Was the "magic gone" when the airbrush appeared? When digital photography became mainstream?
No. The "magic" is always missing when tools are used by unskilled and aesthetically undiscerning hands. The "magic" comes from one in possession of both artistic ability and understanding of the tool.
The "magic is gone" when someone devises ridiculous workflows like the pointless practice of:
1. Create a grad mesh object.
2. Tediously sample colors from the underlying raster image, as closely together as possible, just to put a kazillion meshpoints in the mesh grad object, without regard for the shapes of the mesh patches.
3. Get tired of that silly routine and then start posting questions in the scripting forum in hopes of automating that absurd process.
That kind of thing is just the mesh grad equivalent of auto-tracing, (which is just the digital equivalent of paint-by-number). The end benefit is nill if all you want is a vector file, the goal of which is to "perfectly-match-the-original-raster." By that criteria and goal, the most "perfect" auto-trace algorithm would simply draw a vector square for each pixel. The net advantage would be zero; you might as well just use the raster image. That's what so many AI newcommers who hear about auto-tracing as some kind of "magic bullet" for creation of vector artwork fail to understand.
The improved Mesh Gradient functionality shown in the Microsoft link, and the (more exciting) Diffusion Curves in the Adobe link are not like that. Both demos clearly suggest that their goal is properly elegant and economical use of mathematical grads that can be of any shape, by users with discernment, not blunderbuss and brainless automation. The Microsoft preview strikes me as closer to what Mesh Grads should have been from the start, and the Diffusion Curves preview may proove more versatile, controllable, and intuitive than Mesh Grads are altogether.
That won't, of course, prevent their being misused as stupidly as the "mesh-point-for-every-other-pixel" or the all-too-common "instant vector artwork!" pipedreams of those who don't really understand the purpose and advantages of vector graphics to begin with. But in the right hands, both could be powerful creative tools. I, for one, would love to be playing with Diffusion Curves.
JET
-
5. Re: automatic photorealistic vectorization in Illustrator
Frank Heller Apr 26, 2011 12:15 PM (in response to Monika Gause) -
6. Re: automatic photorealistic vectorization in Illustrator
plutonak Apr 26, 2011 6:27 PM (in response to Frank Heller)I agree with Franck. When I posted the link, I had in my a tool that could help me get a vector-based version of a raster image from 3D studio Max for instance. For technical explanations it may sometimes help to have a photorealistic vector-based version of the initial image. As for people happy to get a photorealsitic tomato in Illustrator, I'm fine with it.
-
7. Re: automatic photorealistic vectorization in Illustrator
CarlosCanto Apr 26, 2011 8:34 PM (in response to Mylenium)even if a chimp could create it just by clicking on an image....
are you talking about me? that's a tool I could use
-
8. Re: automatic photorealistic vectorization in Illustrator
Mylenium Apr 27, 2011 1:02 AM (in response to CarlosCanto)are you talking about me? that's a tool I could use
Nope, definitely not! I was completely oblivious of your avatar, but I think you still got my meaning without taking it personalyl...
Mylenium
-
9. Re: automatic photorealistic vectorization in Illustrator
Monika Gause Apr 27, 2011 2:07 AM (in response to plutonak)plutonak wrote:
I agree with Franck. When I posted the link, I had in my a tool that could help me get a vector-based version of a raster image from 3D studio Max for instance. For technical explanations it may sometimes help to have a photorealistic vector-based version of the initial image.
If you already have a 3D model, you can render it at any resolution you like. You can even rotate it in 3D-space and render a different version. Why do you then need a vector model? I'd really like to understand this need. Most manuals I have seen reduce the technical object to show only the parts of it that are relevant for the explanation. Even when they show it in a shaded mode.
As for the conical gradient in Franks post: if Illustrator could do this kind of gradient, you wouldn't even have to open Photoshop to create one. To my mind this would make more sense than asking for the ability to autotrace images of conical gradients you would first have to draw in Photoshop.
Diffusion curves themselves are a great technique and would definitely offer advantages for photorealistic drawings. But I still doubt about the autotrace ability.
And to make this clear: I don't do photorealistic drawings. I have tried about 3 times on simple subjects out of curiosity and to get a feeling for it. I know how I would have to do it and therefore I admire people who do this stuff.
-
10. Re: automatic photorealistic vectorization in Illustrator
Frank Heller Apr 27, 2011 2:02 PM (in response to Monika Gause)As for the conical gradient in Franks post: if Illustrator could do this kind of gradient, you wouldn't even have to open Photoshop to create one. To my mind this would make more sense than asking for the ability to autotrace images of conical gradients you would first have to draw in Photoshop.
Well…sure. When I wrote that, I assumed (in typical Adobe development fashion) they'd eventually implement this technology and leave the Gradient editor to languish with the same two modes it's been saddled with for well over a decade.




