There is more variation in 3D than in 2D. But since nothing is really that black and white it's up for grabs. The easiest way to deal with this is if your central work revolves around designing pixels and modifying individual samples - then it's raster. But since most data is mixed content, it's really hard to say.ĭoes something become vector even if there is just one vector element? Or is in fact all printer output vector on account that the page description languages image placement is a vector operation in its core? From a printers point of view, anything that is not vector content in a PDF is not vector. It depends on what you want to achieve and what you do. The distinction is getting harder to make as time goes forward. So in the end it depends on who's definition you use. Does raster imply discrete data sampling? Are raster data editors truly that, if you can change the text isn't that a vector description feature? So not even in 2D is the distinction so easy. Then there is the discrete versus continuous function discussion. So the end result is not a vector for your client. This is true in most cases, but exceptions exist. So a 3D software has to output a raster image. However unlike 2D vector graphics, there is not necessarily a general re-rendering paradigm in 3D. The description language of most 3D engines resemble more a page description language of a vector graphics engine. Generally I would say that 3D the images are most likely classifiable as vector*, if by vector one means the scale-ability of the end render. Since the nuance of the definition is important, it is hard to say. It depends on exactly how you define the terms. Most 3D applications are not something one could call raster, but it does not have to be vector either. Well, the terms do not really align in 3D and in 2D they are a bit elusive too.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |