Talk:Graphics

Revision as of 06:37, 17 December 2019

in this list (http://justsolve.archiveteam.org/index.php/Graphics) JPG is listed as a BMP format. I would argue its not a bit mapped image format. Raster yes, bmp no....

Does 'Raster' need to be a separate category then? Dan Tobias (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this distinction (which I understand from a technical point of view, I should add) really relevant enough to warrant a separate category? Perhaps the solution is to rename the whole category to raster graphics formats? --Nitro2k01 (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd support renaming category to Raster. swanQ

Done. -- Rhetoric X (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(JPEG2000 code stream)

I've moved this into 'raster' (from unclassified). Argument: if its a the graphics aspect we care about its a raster image, if its the code stream, it might actually be a data object, not graphics.

Container formats - does they belong here?

Argument: its a container/structure format, not a graphics format. If PDF belongs, why not MS DOC, or .RAR?
2nd Argument (PDF): If it does belong here, is it raster or vector? I would suggest that it 'vectors' the objects, which themselves are raster/vector (not sure PDF supports the embedding of vector types?)

I think the short answer is something like "if in doubt, put it in both categories". There's no harm having both "Document Formats" and "Graphics Formats" linking to PDF, for example --Darkstar (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

what about 'straddling' formats?

PNG and PS could be argued into either or both camps. PS files are output as raster objects, but contained inside the file object as vector objects (as I understand it..) and I think PNG is in a similar position. Are we classifying the input or output object...

PS/EPS/PDF etc. are vector formats. The fact that they are displayed as raster on screen (or on a printer) is a limitation of the hardware and has nothing to do with the format. PNG are raster formats. The only "ambiguous" formats that might be open to discussion are those that can have raster and vector layers inside the same file (e.g. PSD) --Darkstar (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm planning to eliminate the "Combined Raster/Vector" category. A format can be listed in both Raster and Vector categories if necessary, but most are morally either one or the other. Jsummers (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Animated Graphics

Where is the difference between an "animated image" and a video file? IMHO a simple GIF (or MNG for example) should qualify for "animated image", while FLI, FLC etc. are more of a video format. The line is a bit arbitrary though, as there are good examples of complete "videos" as GIF files, and some video files are nothing more than still image with a bit of animation. --Darkstar (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

SWF

I notice SWF is listed in the "unclassified" section (though it doesn't have an article yet). What category does it belong in? Is it a graphic format, a video format, an executable/app/applet format, or what? Dan Tobias (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Graphics compression formats

I've had trouble deciding whether graphics-specific compression formats should have a primary category of Graphics, or Compression. And if they should be listed on the Graphics page, the Compression page, or both. It doesn't help that some formats (e.g. JBIG, CCITT Group 3) blur the line between graphics formats and compression formats.

I've been putting them all in the Graphics category, but now I think that, at a minimum, compression formats that are always embedded in another file format (e.g. PackBits) should have a primary category of Compression. And I think I'll go further, and include some formats that can be used as a file format, if they are not typically used that way. But I'm not planning to move the whole list of graphics compression formats to the Compression page. Jsummers (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Icons/Cursors/Avatars vs. Skins/Themes