Vector versus Bitmap

Another issue the art team needed to research were the benefits of using vector versus bitmap graphics.  Since mobile devices are far less powerful machines than today's computers it was necessary to determine what graphic format was going to yield the best performance and at what cost.  It was also an important question because we were interested in supporting multiple resolutions (devices).

I (Kyle) researched the pros and cons of each format and found some interesting facts.  After reading several articles I decided that it would be interesting to create my own experiment, comparing basic shapes and images in Photoshop, one set being vector and the other bitmap.

One issue with vector images that was later discussed was their ability to maintain peak performance.  Since they are comprised of algorithms which draw the exact lines and curves that make up the image, it's possible that they would demand too much memory and debilitate performance.

In the end it seemed like using both formats would be necessary, as each had a certain give or take to them.  More visually prominent elements would benefit from being vector images so that they would scale nicely from device to device, while less prominent visuals (that could afford to suffer a loss in quality without being to noticeable) could be converted to bitmap images.

References:
http://designwashere.com/design-battle-vector-vs-raster/
http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41
http://www.hiland.com/knowledge_base/helpful_hints/bitmap_vector_images_understanding_difference/