Talk:Impossible object

message: This article does not do a good job explaining the principles behind impossible objects. It fails to mention the math behind it. In particular, all impossible objects are derived from the fact that information is lost when translating 3d points into a 2d plane. Since different 3d points can translate to the same 2d point, points that are detached in 3d space can be apparently consistent in the projection. For example, if you take 2 points A and B, where A is directly over B, there are many different 3d paths that will project in a way that joins A and B. One path is to go directly about the Z axis. Another path is to go about the Y axis, and then the X axis (that is, pretend A and B are both in the XY plane). When both possibilities are entertained in the same image you get an impossible object (in this case, a Penrose triangle). 
There is a lot more I could write on the topic, but I fear I am approaching the boundaries of "original research."
(IIAOPSW (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underlying principles 

message: In the In fiction section, the item
*In the video game Diablo II, the "Arcane Sanctuary" region was based on impossible drawings.
had the following comment added 09:04, 13 June 2007 by user:71.194.202.81:
:(on purpose? i think this results from being unable to show a 3-d area on Diablo's graphics, and is a coincidence-)
While possibly relevant, it needs some editing and fact checking before going into the article proper. Or, the whole item should be removed as unsourced / original research.--Niels Ø (noe) 09:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here's a picture of it. SpectrumDT (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In fiction 

message: There is discussion on whether the rune of Xel’lotath from Eternal Darkness: Sanity’s Requiem is really an impossible object or not and thus whether it should be removed from this article. I think it is not and therefore should be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synetech (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rune of Xel'lotath 

message: There seems to be a soft distinction between things that are impossible objects and things that are optical illusions. Some items in :Category:Impossible objects suffer from this confusion, as well as some content in this article and the see also section. Some care should be taken in the application of the definition of impossible object. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Optical illusion is a superset of impossible objects. I think most of the stuff in there is tagged correctly. --CyberXRef☎ 08:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible object versus optical illusion 

message: Previous version : this included a video clip of the game Fez, but this does not appear to represent "Impossible objects" in the sense of this article. There are views of a "block" universe from one direction, and the 3D graphics rotate (too quickly to see what is happening) to a different view. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to pay close attention to the gameplay. As the player moves, he may for instance climb a ladder that in reality is partially connected to one cliff, and continue by climbing a different ladder that is connected to a different cliff. But this is in one fluid motion that "breaks" the rules of perspective in both a visual and spatial sense. It's very subtle. SharkD  Talk  14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Fez definitively has impossible objects in the sense that player's movement on 3D geometry is based on that geometry's 2D projection. In other words, there is no "depth" to objects unless the view is rotating and the game totally breaks perspective by allowing player to traverse the projections. For example, objects far apart in 3D space appear to be next to each other when looked from a certain angle and the player can move between them as if there was no depth distance. In video, a good example is at 1:30 -- the player jumps between the purple floating platforms that in 3D view are on 4 opposite corners of the main structure. It takes getting used to. It's the most famous game with this mechanic, so I think it's a very good example to include. There's not many works with complex impossible geometry, yet alone playable/interactive. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While we don't have free imagery, Antichamber is perhaps a stronger example of impossible objects in video games. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, in full 3D it's the best example and perhaps best example overall. I would still say Fez is more known/popular, but I guess that's somewhat subjective. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

text: , Yes, that's how it works. It is 3D (or 4D if you include time) instead of 2D, but it still is an visual artistic representation of an object that can't function in reality. SharkD  Talk  19:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

text: "I'm not entirely convinced that this is the same sort of thing as the rest of the "impossible objects", which are always tricks of perspective in a 2D drawing." Television screens are 2D, so it's not different in that sense. SharkD  Talk  21:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fez video game example 

message: Calling the trident mysterious seems like an attempt to play it up.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mysteriously" 

message: Here's another video game that features impossible objects. Could maybe link to the video if it weren't so grainy. SharkD  Talk  23:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And the sequel, though it's more about shadows. SharkD  Talk  23:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Echochrome 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I'm just a casual reader, however I notice this example lacks a source and lacks supporting details via a Google search.  Should it be removed?
"Impossible linked cards - invented by Bixten Seme and created in real time by an expert practitioner, of which there are only three worldwide. The centers are torn out of two cards and then they are permanently linked."
(I realize there is a magician's tool called the "impossible cards" but they are obviously not *truly* impossible, nor limited to three worldwide. And still no mention of a Bixten Seme.)
(Apologies for the initial accidental post of this comment under the wrong topic not sure if that can be edited or deleted.) Quillseek (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I agree that this is not notable. Googling "Bixten Seme" returns almost nothing. It also sounds promotional in tone. I have removed it. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the confirmation! :) Quillseek (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Bixten Seme/Impossible cards?