Is it possible to convert a file that was vectorized in Adobe Illustrator to a Photoshop .jpg file without pixelating the image when enlarging

  • 6
    It might help if you expand your question and tell us what you're trying to achieve. For instance, if you're looking for a way to store vector images in a standard format supported by web browsers, the answer could be SVG. Aug 30, 2016 at 13:20
  • perhaps better to start a new question @marcvangend i mean this discussion can be useful to dispel misconceptions as it is now.
    – joojaa
    Aug 30, 2016 at 13:22
  • @joojaa Absolutely. I meant that as a tip in general, not specifically for this question, now that correct answers have been given. Aug 30, 2016 at 14:12
  • unluckily unless you can directly upload files to YOUR server, SVG is not supported by most sites beause of inherent security flaws (hence: browser support SVG, but almost no sites allow to upload) Aug 30, 2016 at 16:47
  • Why do you want to convert it to a jpg? Can't you use it as a vector graphic?
    – DocPixel
    Aug 31, 2016 at 4:52

3 Answers 3


No, a .jpg (JPEG) file is always raster and consists of discrete pixels. When you zoom enough the pixels show up. Also note a JPEG file is not a Photoshop file, it is a standard lossy raster image format.

  • Could scale it up and then save as jpg. Not sure if that's what the person means though
    – Ryan
    Aug 30, 2016 at 12:48
  • 4
    @Ryan it would still pixelate when zoomed enough
    – joojaa
    Aug 30, 2016 at 12:49
  • 1
    @joojaa You could make a jpg so that you don't see any pixelation, even when zooming pretty much, but that just works if you have only exactly horizontal and vertical lines... Perhaps this is not what OP wanted, but technically it should be possible... ;-)
    – palsch
    Aug 30, 2016 at 19:04
  • 1
    @palsch not if the program likes to use something other than nearest neighborhood filtering in which case it will just blur the line.
    – joojaa
    Aug 30, 2016 at 19:08
  • 1
    @palsch you could also make a your image 1x1 pixels...
    – Cai
    Aug 30, 2016 at 19:11

The short answer to that would be; no.

We need to get a few facts straight to answer your question completely:

  1. JPEG is not a Photoshop file, it's a standard lossy raster image format. There are multiple image editors that can save as JPEG.

  2. Vector images is the use of polygons to ensure the image can be enlarged without 'pixelating'. Formats such as JPEG, PNG etc are raster images and thus can not be scaled up without losing quality.

This means there is no way to convert a vector image to raster image that can be scaled upwards. Depending on what you need the image for, there are a few things you can do. This includes saving as SVG or saving as a very large raster image and then scaling down to reduce the loss of quality. However you probably don't want very large images on ie a website.

  • 4
    Nitpicky They aren't necessarily made out of polygons. in fact they are in general not they are made out of curves, patches and so on.
    – joojaa
    Aug 30, 2016 at 12:56
  • 1
    @RadLexus that even happened to me the damn auto correct changes lossy to lossless if your not careful, so its a ez<sy mistake to make.
    – joojaa
    Aug 30, 2016 at 14:46
  • 2
    @joojaa Gotta love auto correct. Didn't even notice it.
    – Summer
    Aug 30, 2016 at 15:17

Save it as a resolution big enough that pixellation gets unnoticeable once you magnify the image enough. For an antialiased drawing in shades of gray that means you want to save the image 256 times bigger than the intended resolution. Says you have a SVG drawing you want at 512x512 resolution, just save it as 131072x131072 image.. not very pratical. However if your "magnifier" uses bilinear interpolation the drawing just get blurred instead of pixelated.

Alternatively you could just stop zooming the image when the 131072 pixels-wide image get a 1:1 pixel correspondence to the screen, while at same time you allow editing pixels only in the 512 image.

Also note that you could get downsample artifacts when looking the image from "too far", because of that you need several versions of the image (exactly a mipmap pyramid), or some algorithm that is able to do proper filtering on the bigger image.

  • 4
    This answer is actually the closest to correct, but somewhat makes a joke of itself with the ridiculous example size. BTW in some sense you can quantify the number of samples that are required to be able to reproduce the original vector image exactly with a suitable tracing algorithm, so that the rasterization can be thought of as "lossless". Aug 30, 2016 at 19:40
  • Yes at that size even a very fast change in color (like a white pixel on column 1 becoming black on column 2 in the 512x512 image just becomes a 256 colors gray gradient in the bigger image, and when it is magnified you cannot see any "seam" because the brigthness change of just 1/256 even when a pixel may take half of screen (basically I assume the bigger image is a bilinear upsample of the 512x512 image and that eye cannot see a 1/256 change) , using proper dithering it is possible using a smaller image i guess (but not so much small)@R.. Aug 31, 2016 at 7:59
  • This isn't exactly practical advice...
    – Cai
    Aug 31, 2016 at 8:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.