How to configure the image tracer?
-
@Subpath Well, i used a very high res image, you say it will improve using something so big?
-
Well, I don't know the Resolution.
But whether it brings an improvement can easily be determined by trying it out. -
@Subpath said in How to configure the image tracer?:
Well, I don't know the Resolution.
But whether it brings an improvement can easily be determined by trying it out.Hi Subpath. I made a test. With low res image to high res. It is here. Even the results are better, always is added some distortion:
https://icedrive.net/s/ZF5TyWig1T56gW32TFW1C792WkRV
-
@marce said in How to configure the image tracer?:
@Subpath said in How to configure the image tracer?:
Well, I don't know the Resolution.
But whether it brings an improvement can easily be determined by trying it out.Hi Subpath. I made a test. With low res image to high res. It is here. Even the results are better, always is added some distortion:
I made the same test with inkscape to take some reference. The accuracy improves a little with higher rest, but is not so dependent as can be seen here:
https://icedrive.net/s/kDgWzBfiXwVWwXNAVABPFwCNwG7G
-
Well, when I talk about better resolution, I mean the difference between the
left and the right side. Significantly less jagged edges.The part on the right is magnified 4x using Upscayler.
Which can magnify up to 16x.
.
.
.
Here's my tracing result from Corel Tracer based on
the 4x magnified image. I choose "Logo" as the tracing mode.
.
.
.
By the way, since "sd" is repeated, I only enlarged and traced those
two letters.
-
@Subpath Nice results in Corel. Minimum amount of Nodes, and a very editable shape. In inkscape -i take it as reference, since their trace module is very good imho- this is are the results of the very low image you shared:
Must said, are very good, taking account of the low res source.
Using the good res last image you uploaded, tweaking the smooth corners and optimize, i got similar results in inkscape to Corel:
So, i believe that really is not necessary so high res images as source, but some kind of optimization of the trace process in VS.
-
I would say you need both.
High resolution, to me, means the smoothest possible contours,
as jagged outlines negatively affect the result of a tracing.I haven't spent much time with VS Tracer yet. But I think the results
may also be improved by adjusting the settings a bit. -
@Subpath Well, low res images are better in some cases. Look in the sample below. This is an old scanned Capital letter —from etc.usf.edu. The original source is very rough. In the case you want to conserve the original roughnes is ok to use the High Res image. But if you want a smooth and flowing drawing, a low res will make the trick. The first Z at the right, in red, is a nice result, and it comes from the low res image. The High res trace result is exact, but not what i want, that is, a kind of vectorizing photo retouching.
This both results are using the same settings, in inkscape, but the change is the resolution of the source image. -
Well, that's due to the smoothing algorithm of the vector tracer. I think a slightly
better result could perhaps be achieved with the high-resolution version using
slightly different settings for smoothing.I would have vectorized the template you created here by tracing a simple line
in the middle of the contour (Corel Trace has a mode for this) and then
assigning an appropriate line weight.I've created a lot of bitmap traces professionally (in digital printing).
Many by hand, because the trace results were too poor. I can't recall a
single instance where I would have preferred a low-resolution bitmap
version if I had the choice. -
Just to let you know, that I appreciate your input a lot. It gave me some ideas what to try out ie. using upscalers.
I gave up Inkscape for VS back then (mainly due to supported color profiles and more familiar UI), but remember that the autotracer performed quite nicely.
Thanks
-
your always welcome
nice to hear that this ideas was helpful
