Talk:Digital image

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Vector graphics[edit]

klasjfajsdkf by me!I do not think that it is useful to include 'vector graphics' as a class of 'digital images'. People who work in digital image processing do not work with vector graphics. Algorithms that are said to apply to 'digital images' do not apply to vector graphics.

'vector graphics' can be a kind of 'graphics device', or a class of (2D) 'geometric models'. Some '2d computer graphics' algorithms are specific for vector graphics. But they are not 'digital images'.

--Jorge Stolfi 04:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since when are raster graphics the only type of digital image? Are vector graphics not images? Yes they are. Are they no digital? I would think that they are digital. There are separate articles for raster and vector graphics, so this article should not be just about raster graphics. And, why are there not images on this page? Althepal 04:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is a glaring omission. I just finished cleaning up the intro and realised there was no mention of vector-based graphics, which is plain wrong for an article which by definition should overview both raster and vector graphics: either may be the basis for a digital image. I'm not so well up on vector graphics, so if you'd like to include something back in, I'll check out getting some appropriate images. mikaul^talk 12:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word digital means different thing. You probably think: "both raster and vector graphics produce images represented in digital form, therefore raster and vector images should be placed to the same category". But digital images are digital not because they are stored digitally. They are digital because they are digitized from real life images.[1] This is a long-used term in digital image processing. And there is no way to get vector image directly from image sensor.--Avivanov76 (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warm greetings from 2024. The task and goal of being able to get an image description of a scan of an image is an old challenge - it is not accurate to say that there is "no way to get a vector image from" a scanned image. It was more difficult in the nineties but scanning into some descriptive format is getting more and more common, in varying fields/different images from 2d images, DTP & typesetting (OCR) to say music notation and varying forms of 3d scanning.

(That said, I am old-school and not a huge fan of the term 'digital' in this article. I would have liked just "computer imaging", but I am warming up to it) Chipbite-mawi (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say that I think the following sentence is misleading at best but IMO it is simply false/incorrect:

> "Depending on whether the image resolution is fixed, it may be of vector or raster type."

I dont understand the point, so maybe it is me - if so it should be clarified. I can't see how resolution dictates vector or raster. There is no threshold in terms of resolution that separates raster vs vector approaches.

I think the sentence should be removed. Chipbite-mawi (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If one wants to mention how resolution relates to the approaches, one could perhaps clarify instead that raster images have a fixed resolution (or something similar, not sure about phrase) and that "vector image approaches instead are independent from and do not directly relate to resolution but can be scaled to cater to different outputs." Chipbite-mawi (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup time[edit]

This article has languished for a while. I've removed a lengthy account of the history of television as it was at best incidental and largely irrelevant to the article subject, being concerned with analog image processing. I've sourced instead an outline history, ignoring much earlier image processing (which was pretty much based around codifying, rather than digitizing, although if anyone feels different it could be mentioned I guess) and starting instead with the advent of advanced digital computers. I'll leave the re-inclusion of video game technology to anyone who can provide a source but I'd suggest mention of it was kept in proportion relative to imaging as a whole. The rest of the article is in serious need of a clean up, especially of the "vector" and "viewing" sections. I've tagged it accordingly. --mikaul^talk 01:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Projected Digital Image (PDI)[edit]

I started this section without much verification yet. (I'm surprised that it appears to be a new subject). I'm not sure whether this is the page for this section; I don't believe this topic needs it own page. A lot of work is needed for this topic, but not just in isolation. For example, a typical competition may use a Canon projector, yet neither the page for the Canon company, nor the page about their products, discusses their projectors (except a brief mention at 2004). I think the whole topic of photographic societies and their competitions and the tools (software and hardware) used for them needs more coverage across Wikipedia. This is "work in progress". Barry Pearson 08:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overhead_projector#LCD_overhead_displays discusses earlier equipment used for the same purposes, without using the word "digital". Jim.henderson (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've looked around a little more, and agree that these topics are not yet well covered. However, I also think this is the wrong article. I mostly see this hardware in use in popular astronomy lectures, which is to be expected since those are my cup of tea. These particular image projectors seem to be video projectors as used in showing motion pictures. They work just as well for stillpix, and that article seems the right place for the hardware discussion.

I find articles already existing for animal shows, art exhibitions and the like, and a Category:Photography exhibitions which seems to lack a general lead article about photo shows and competitions. Perhaps you have already started writing it, in the form of your section of the present article, and need merely convert it into a stub article and expand it. Unless, that is, you find an existing article that can better use this material. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sinuhet: I'm almost sure this is not the right page. Digital image is a sequence of bits. Projectors and especially competitions cannot define it. Go ahead and create a new article for PDI.