5 ms·
To the extent that might have ever been true, it would have been because of the limitations of very low resolution displays, or to work around limitations in th
by sjwright 8y ago
To the extent that might have ever been true, it would have been because of the limitations of very low resolution displays, or to work around limitations in the vector rasterizer.
In any modern context, a vector is always preferable as it will generate the best output for an unlimited number of sizes, resolutions and contexts.
- billfruit 8y agoThe question may have been the scaling of line widths in a linear fashion while using vector images, which isn't that pleasing to the eye, compared to a hand crafted raster with more eye pleasing line width for a give size/resolution. May for aesthetic reasons line widths may require to be scaling in a nonlinear way? Scaled vectors will have mathematically correct line widths, but to a human perception the line may appear to thick/thin for the image size, than which a raster artist would have used if they were creating a native raster of that size.