Inkscape blurs ARENT vector!

Cat Amongst The Pigeons

Ok this could potentially put the cat amongst the pigeons or the Inkscape user base into hating me but after comments and lots of wondering, I deleved deep into blurs, vector and Inkscape.Truth be told, I've had many a convincing debate with a variety of Inkscape users, from the casual user to the pretty geeky one and I wanted to find out for myself if the blur capabilities in Inkscape are in fact 100% vector.

As a vector purist, I like to find out what effects and filters I use in my work which are 100% scalable in paths and points. For instance, in Adobe Illustrator, if you use a drop shadow or any sort of blur effect, what the program does is duplicate the vector object, then rasterize it. It then applies the blur to the raster object and then groups both objects together into one object. It's not until you expand the object that you see the two components.

However this being said of blur effects in AI, if you choose not to expand the object before you, you can go into the active filter and modify it to your hearts content. You can alter the dimensions of the shape, the colour and even the scale of it in comparison to others on your canvas and the effect/filter remains the same. This is often referred to as a "live effect" due to being able to modify it after it's been applied.

Now when we talk about blurs, on a technical level you are asking an object to be morphed into it's defined surrounding area by a set amount. This amount is defined in pixels. Which to me is the tell tale sign that something is a raster effect. However let's throw this theory out of the window for now.

Keen to find out for myself I went and downloaded/installed Inkscape which is a free vector program. It's a little complex for anyone to get into, but it certainly has a variety of benefits and is a competent vector program for anyone, professional or amateur a like. I'm not debating it's many strong points here.

When you apply a filter/effect to the objects in Inkscape it would appear you're unable to expand the object to find out whether there is a raster counterpart to the object which is creating this effect. So how does one test this?

The Copy & Paste Experiment

Let's try copying an object from one program to another. If you copy a vector object with no effects and only a fill colour from AI to Inkscape it maintains all it's points and is completely edittable. Likewise if you copy an object without effects from Inkscape to AI it maintains all it's points and is completely edittable. What does this tell us?

It means that the programs are perfectly capable of copying and maintaining vector data between the programs. Simple!

Now how about copying an object with say an SVG blur on it. Well to do so from AI to Inkscape it copies it over as a raster object and the same remains from Inkscape... the very effect that Inkscape users claim is 100% vector.

SVG is a Scalable Vector Graphic and one which is able to be viewed in a browser - well the more advanced ones - as it's based in XML. Without getting overally technical that I lose you, it's a text file which dictates the appearance of a graphic. Similar to say you stating co-ordinates on a map or graph to create a straight line... the co-ordinates you state would be the "text file" and the straight line would be the "graphic".

So SVG filters meerly dictate the appearance of an object created in xml. And just as a blur effect in Illustrator is a raster effect in a vector program, SVG blurs are a raster effect in a vector format. SVG blurs are a "live effect". This is why you can not copy an object which has an effect applied to it from one program to another.

To put it simply: if the blur you applied on your object in Inkscape was 100% vector, you could copy said object over to AI without losing the blur as it maintains all vector data when it's copied across. I've tested this with one of my more complex vectors. All points remain edittable when being copy and pasted across.

Saving as an SVG

You can save vector files in the majority, if not all vector applications as an SVG as it's a universal file. It will maintain the paths and points of a vector object so you're able to modify them cross platform.

However, should there be a live effect contained within the file, it will rasterize it. Again, I've opened SVG files across programs to test this out.

Blurs in Inkscape are raster effects. Not vector. Blurs in Inkscape are live effects just like in Illustrator.

A final thought

When people said to me - Inkscape can create vector blurs, I didn't believe it at first and you know why I didn't believe it?

Inkscape is a free, open source program.
Illustrator is the industry standard vector program, costing the industry millions to make sure they get this standard.

Do you you honestly think that Inkscape would have such a fantastic option of a vector blur and Adobe's powerhouse vector program would not? Inkscape have had these live effects for years, are the developers of Adobe that dense to not cash in on another vector tool?

Ladies and gentlemen of the scalable community, I rest my case.

Edit: Further reading provided by ScislaC's journal - a great read and does rightly put my copy/paste experiment to shame but it doesn't confirm Inkscape's blur as being vector.

Odds and Sods

My website is online at ChewedKandi.net. You can follow me on Twitter, Dribbble and on Facebook.