2 ms·
> the alternative is to rasterize them, as what is implied by "level-set method", which means you must commit to a spatial resolution Rasterizing is alright, s
by enriquto 6y ago
> the alternative is to rasterize them, as what is implied by "level-set method", which means you must commit to a spatial resolution
Rasterizing is alright, since then there are no structural changes, just independent pixel values. Notice that rasterizing the function does not commit you to an output resolution, you can always interpolate it at an arbitrarily high resolution for the rendering step.
- gugagore 6y agoSurely you can see that rasterizing defeats the purpose of a vector graphics representation.
- enriquto 6y agoNot really, why? An interpolated rasterization is a just a particular case of vector graphics representation. As long as the represented objects fit well in the rasterized distance field (of a fixed resolution), you can sample the level curve to an arbitrarily high resolution, just like any other kind of vector graphics.
- gugagore 6y agoYou can do that in the same way that you can upscale a raster image to arbitrarily high resolutions by interpolating. In my mind, it's not just that you can zoom into vector graphics without seeing pixels. It's also that you can make small adjustments to the input parameters. If you're talking about sampling a grid at resolutions on the order of ~floating point epsilon (seems akin to using fixed-point numbers for parameters), then I guess you have a point.