Talk:3D computer graphics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pre 2007

Contents

[edit] Reorganization

Both the current page and the (aborted?) rewrite at Talk:3D computer graphics/Temp seem to be a bit of a mess. How do people feel about the following basic structure:

  1. Introduction
  2. Real-time vs Non-real-time
  3. Overview of process from start to finish (for a layman)
  4. Mathematics
    • Coordinate systems
    • Transformations
    • Projection
  5. 3D object representation
    • Polygonal meshes
    • Implicit surfaces
    • Constructive solid geometry
  6. Visible surface determination
    • Naive approach: back to front sorting (Painter's algorithm)
    • Ray casting
    • Z-buffer algorithm
  7. Shading
    • Basic ideas
    • Light sources
    • Ray Tracing
    • Programmable shaders
    • Transparency
    • Reflection
    • Texture mapping
    • Shadows
  8. Content creation
  9. 3D APIs
  10. 3D Rendering Software
  11. 3D Rendering Hardware

Would a rewrite based on this be welcomed or are people happy with the current efforts? How much do people like the current text both on the main page and at Talk:3D computer graphics/Temp vs. wanting to see something new? — FishSpeaker 08:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The proposed structure looks good to me. Oicumayberight 08:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that's way too much detail for what should be an overview article. I think this article should read like a primer on computer graphics rather than a manual on how to produce them. I think a better ide would be:
  1. Introduction
    • Overview of process from start to finish (for a layman)
  2. Modelling (or representation
    • Polygonal meshes
    • Implicit surfaces
    • Constructive solid geometry
  3. Shading/Texturing
    • Light sources
    • Texture mapping
    • Ray Tracing
    • Transparency
    • Reflection
    • Cast Shadows
  4. Rendering
    • Real-time vs Non-real-time
    • Visible surface determination (maybe)
      • Naive approach: back to front sorting (Painter's algorithm)
      • Ray casting
      • Z-buffer algorithm
    • Animation
    • Mathematics (maybe)
      • Coordinate systems
      • Transformations
      • Projection
And in all likelihood removing the sections on mathematics, visible surface detirmination, and content creation to other pages. Most if not all of these sections should have more detailed treatments on their own pages. Since most of these could be an entire life's work that shouldn't be hard. Adam McCormick 05:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we're actually thinking along the same lines. I wasn't expecting that each bullet point would be an entire section, but rather a sentence or two explaining in basic terms the given concept and its importance to 3D graphics, with liberal use of links to more detailed pages. I think the biggest problem with the current page is that too much attention is paid to a few aspects of 3D graphics, while many fundamental concepts are completely absent. The fact that our two outlines overlap so much leads me to believe we're on the right track.
Regarding ordering, here's some of my thinking:
  • I put Mathematics first because so many of the other topics (and 3D graphics in general) depend on it. How can you explain polygonal meshes without introducing the concept of a vertex (represented as a vector)? How can you talk about visible surface determination without discussing projection? Perhaps you could survive by using links to other articles and keeping Mathematics later, but I feel pretty strongly that Mathematics has to be a section on the page. Coordinate systems, transformations, and projection are fundamental concepts in 3D graphics and I think it would be a disservice to the reader to omit mentioning them.
  • Really, this brings up the ordering of all the main sections. It seems like there are two obvious ways to do this: 1) a natural ordering of the material where each section builds on the previous section, or 2) ordering based on accessibility and popularity. It seems like I was ordering based on (1) and you were ordering based on (2). Are there any guidelines or have there been any fruitful discussions about the relative merits of these approaches elsewhere on wikipedia?
  • On a smaller scale, in shading, I think there's a natural flow from light sources to ray tracing to programmable shaders to transparency to reflection. Although texture mapping is important, I think it's largely separate from that progression. Perhaps the right thing to do is not set an order now, and just see what works best when the prose is actually written.
  • I just noticed that 3D Animation forwards to 3D graphics. Yikes! That's definitely a topic that needs its own page. I wonder if we can get away with just mentioning it in the introduction rather than giving it its own section.
— FishSpeaker 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I just got caught up on all of the merging/splitting discussion. It's unclear to me what the currently planned path forward is with regard to this page. Can someone clarify? — FishSpeaker 02:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, two things, first, 3D animation should have forwarded to Computer animation, as it does now. Second the future of this section seems to be under active discussion as there has recently been a lot of dissention about how to interpret this page's mission, here's where I think we stand:
  • Computer graphics is going to be a discussion of the academic aspects of CG including what is studied and by whom
  • This page is going to act as a very general overview of the process of creating 3D computer graphics with lots of intenal references to give the reader good information and a basic idea of how computer graphics are created.
  • Each section of this page (ie 3D Modeling, Animation and Layout, and 3D Rendering) are subsets of entire articles on these subjects rather than complete treatments.
Overall, I think the goal is to convey the bisic steps of computer graphics and to give some idea of the steps involved to create 3D graphics and to give internal links to all of the subtopics of 3D computer graphics where the reader can learn more. In this way this page becomes more of a general overview rather than a "How To" with software references. Adam McCormick 16:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Computer Graphics

I think this article should be merged with the Computer graphics article because the subjects are identical and they treat a lot of the same information Adam McCormick 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have created a merged version in my sandbox User:Alanbly/Sandbox/3D Computer Graphics. Feel free to change it or leave suggestions (suggestions/discussion preferred) on the talk page. Thanks! Adam McCormick 07:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so i'm going to be WP:bold, and maybe then someone will give me some input. After all, reversions are cheap. Still needs a copy edit for someone better at it than I am. Adam McCormick 02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose merge. This does not work at all. The computer graphics article may be in bad need of a re-write, but it should not be oversimplified to 3-D computer graphics. 2D Vector graphics and 2D Raster graphics are utilized way more than 3-D computer graphics and have there own dynamics. The Computer graphics article should be the parent article of 3D computer graphics and 2D computer graphics. Oicumayberight 05:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting the merge

This was not an appropriate merge / redirect. The purpose of the 'Computer Graphics' page was to discuss the academic/scientific discipline of computer graphics which is a subfield of computer science. Please try to understand that this is not the same as the more general topic of 3D computer graphics (which also embodies entertainment, hobbyist programs like POV ray, other applications, etc.) and deserves its own independent space on the wiki. As strange as this may seem to someone not familiar with the field, it is an important distinction. Please do not perform this merge again. Trevorgoodchild 05:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more should be said about 2D computer graphics on that page. Oicumayberight 05:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that that is what The CG page Should be, but that is not what it was. I was planning on rewriting the CG page after the merge but I think reverting the merge is a little insulting. This is my degree field too. I resent you presumption. Please discuss this before you revert my changes again. Adam McCormick 06:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If this is truly your field, then you'll understand why the revert was necessary. How many times have you said, "I do computer graphics," and been answered with, "Oh, so do you use Maya or 3DS Max?" or something similar. It is so very important that these concepts be separated in people's minds.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevorgoodchild (talk • contribs).
I agree that there is a difference, but I DO NOT feel that the page that exists at Computer Graphics accomplished this goal. Yes, there needs to be an article on the field of CG, and it should be seperate from 3D graphic design, but all of the information on CG right now belongs in 3DCG. CG should start from scratch with your "Mission" in mind. Adam McCormick 06:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The is the computer generated article. Oicumayberight 06:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A reminder for you of WP:COOL. Calm down before editing please. Also, please sign your post --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be cool, i'm just trying to establish a dialog. Adam McCormick 06:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, although I have no personal views of this matter, the merge information will stay in the article, to prevent edit warring, until this matter is settled to an agreement. Thank You. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I really think the appropriate thing to do is to have one page called "Computer Graphics" and one called "3D graphic design" as we have now (or 3D graphic art, or whatever it is you want to call what people on CGSociety do). There are really two major classes of things people in "graphics" do: 1. some of them develop new mathematics, technology, and software. 2. some of them use this software to create images and animations. The two are completely different tasks and should be separated into two pages. Trevorgoodchild 06:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that, as I have said several times at this point, but the question is content. I think CG is not valuable (in addition to 3D graphic design) in its current state. It needs to be an article on the fields of study, not on the graphic design process. Adam McCormick 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The division into modeling, animation, and rendering is on the fields of study. Those are the broadest categories - you might hear a professor say, "I work on animation," or "I work on rendering," etc. More specifically you might hear one say, "I do simulation," or "I do geometry stuff." Which is why there are sub-categories. Maybe it needs clarification that those are not processes but rather sub-disciplines. Trevorgoodchild 07:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, there's not much there -- only because it hasn't been around for long enough. I should've added the "stub" tag, which is what I'll do now. Trevorgoodchild 06:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New name

I'm strongly against the new name. There is already too much blurring the distinction between design and production. This page speaks mostly of production techniques and says little about design (problem-solving) or design concerns. There should be at least 3 separate articles involving 3D graphics:

  1. about technology using wire frame models;
  2. about production techniques using 3d modeler software, maybe title "3D modeling".
  3. about graphic design in general, 2D and 3D.

I don't think there are graphic designers who specialize in 3D graphics unless they are also specialists in production, in which case they are more engineers or technicians than designers.

If any renaming should be done, this article should be split into 2 articles. One with the original name, and another titled "3D modeling". The original title should be an overview of how 3D computer graphics work and the applications. The "3D modeling" should be about the skill you are calling "3D graphic design". Oicumayberight 06:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the renaming issue. Calling the production of 3D Images "Graphic Design" trivializes a Billion dollar industry. Verly little in this article can be characterized as Graphic design. Adam McCormick 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, how about "3D Digital Art"? CGSociety refers to itself as the "society of digital artists," so we'd at least have a citation. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevorgoodchild (talk • contribs).
There's already a computer art, digital art and computer generated imagery article. It would only add to the confusion and end up getting merged. I suggest this article be split into 3D modeling about the skill and 3D rendering about the technology. Oicumayberight 06:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Trevorgoodchild 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was being split into "3D modeling" and "3D rendering"? Why the revert? Trevorgoodchild 07:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This 3D computer graphics article is the main overview article. Oicumayberight 08:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)'

[edit] Split

The split is complete. The articles probably need a template that includes the other 3D related articles as well. Oicumayberight 08:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is now a stub. I suggest that we put back in the Overview section with main article links to the split off pieces. Done. Adam McCormick 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../3/d/_/Talk%7E3D_computer_graphics_33ed.html"