File talk:Bitmap VS SVG.svg

Looks as though the Bitmap S (S2.png) is an external image that didn't get included in the SVG image. /Lokal_Profil 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

On my Firefox the file is completely invisible... Erina 10:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The image doesn't show for me on the description page but if I click on the text saying "Bitmap_VS_SVG.svg" I can see the image (this might require an svg viewing program/plugin). But even there the image is faulty and lacking the bitmap S. I'm guessing that the wiki engine recognises this problem and therfore doesn't render the image at all on the description page. /Lokal_Profil 00:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the SVG inclusion is failing because either (a) an <img> tag is being used (it's recommended to use <object>) or (b) because an incorrect MIME type is being used - I see "image/svg" but it's supposed to be "image/svg+xml" isn't it?

Well since the uploader doesn't seem interested in fixing it I'll recomend it be deleted in favour of Image:Bitmap VS SVG.png/Lokal_Profil 18:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's failing because it's missing the linked bitmap files. -- ３２４７ (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Text + too horizontal

This image contains text, making reuse in other articles and other languages problematic. Also it is too horizontal, making use at thumbnail size difficult. Perhaps it would be better to split this image in two, and delete all the text (except the large S). Shinobu 16:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The format list goes off the edge

Title, the new version, from November onward, has so many formats, it goes off the left edge! Please fix.

-FavoritoHJS (トーク) 01:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Colors

This file has a blue color for vector and black color for raster, but that's wrong because converting an image to raster don't have to convert it to grayscale. I know it's made to say "SVG is better" but that's wrong for two reasons.

1: Some people won't get it and assume converting something to raster will make it monochrome.

2: This will make most of people think vector is better and it must be used for everything, but vector also has too many disadvantages (expensive to decode, not widely supported, complex images can't be made without losing details) and there's no reason to favor it for "everything".

Colors must be same (i think averaging the colors will be good). There's also some minor color issues those cause the raster to look worse but they're easy to correct. (Note: I know overwriting is not preferred for color changes but this file must be an exception to this rule since colors are giving incorrect information in this file, that's just like uploading the photo of a white bird with the filename "A black bird.jpg".) RuzDD (トーク) 17:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yug @Cfaerber i'm pinging because you're the authors and nobody answered this, what do you think about this? RuzDD (トーク) 07:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

RuzDD go ahead, it's Wiki. Just keep the general idea, but switching to a single color is ok by me. Yug (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but how can we prevent misunderstanding and usage of this file in wikis to show the difference (to prevent misunderstanding) if we keep the general idea @Yug? Can changing the file description to indicate rasters don't have to be monochrome prevent misunderstanding? RuzDD (トーク) 02:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites Thank you for allowing overwriting but seems like the SVG renderer of MediaWiki can not handle multiplications, what can I do? Can anyone update the renderer? RuzDD (トーク) 16:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@RuzDD: I'm unsure what you mean by that. The renderer still works on my end, as it does for other files that use multiplications. I did update the file based on this discussion, feel free to revert if I misunderstood what you wanted to achieve though. ReneeWrites (トーク) 17:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This is very good, I was thinking this is not suitable but this looks like better (also averaging two colors can be good, i think). But, this is not what I meant by "multiplications". I changed the blend mode of two elements as "muliply" but looks like this does not work. Open the original file next to the MW-rendered one and focus on the pixels on the left side (the big pixelated letter), you should see the difference if your viewer can handle it. But, you should do this comparison with my version of this file because your version does not include any multiplications. Thank you. RuzDD (トーク) 18:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to make a quick edit to average the colors (if I can) and re-add the multiplications, so you can understand what I mean better. RuzDD (トーク) 18:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I could not average the colors but re-added the multiplications, @ReneeWrites, thank you. RuzDD (トーク) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I get what you mean now. This looks a lot better! Thank you too ^^ @RuzDD: ReneeWrites (トーク) 19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)