Talk:Graphics

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?

e.g. PDF, RIFF

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?)

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)