Talk:3D computer graphics/Archive 1

message: Modeling is not spelled "modelling". I've seen this spelling used throughout and it's not correct. (Actually, yes, it can be spelt that way. Please look up your sources before being so arrogant and decisive. In fact, "modeling" is incorrect in Britain anyway - changing it to American spelling is against the Wikipedia rules thankyouverymuch. - Nippoo 16:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comments from operativem on some terminology

message: Hello. Independently, I have been working on a CG Reference website. Having discovered Wiki recently, and now the Wikipedia, it seems like the ideal format for the project. I’m planning a beta launch next week, which will be announced through my site http://www.sockrotation.f2o.org/ 
All information will be GPL, and I imagine I will be using the Wikipedia as a source of reference, so perhaps we could arrange some sort of crossover?
I’ll pop back here later. -- Foomandoonian (My first use of Wiki. Be kind)
:Not quite sure what you want to do, but if you want to link your website at the bottom of the article, feel free to do so (as long as it's relevant, will be useful to people reading the article, and preferably contains information you have used as a source, which isn't quite the focus of this article but is relevant, and which contains other information than that simply taken from Wikipedia.) Nippoo 16:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GPL CG Reference website

message: Also it might not be a bad idea to differentiate hobbyist level 3D graphics applications from commercial grade when it comes to referencing software (pricing levels and user expectations, etc.)  Another thing would be separating animation production from single image rendering (the process is very similar, but some things work quite differently.)  I suppose animation could be considered a step up from the basics of a still image 3D rendering.  On the hardware side, including information render farms wouldn't be a bad idea. -- pauljs75
----
I personally think the main problem with the current page, as with many tech pages in this Wiki, is that a lot of it seems to be told in the language of experts. Someone like my father would have no idea what any of the content meant. While the entry might be fair in requiring some amount of computer knowledge, it should definitely include links to, and build upon, fundamental background topics, including:
* perspective drawing
* 3D Cartesian Co-ordinates
* Digital displays (i.e.: pixel-based displays)
* general 2D graphics fundamentals
At the same time, the general approach should avoid technical details in favour of helping develop a more intuitive idea of the subject matter: motivations, applications, a bit of history, future directions. Brent Gulanowski 01:56, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Hobbyist vs. Commerical grade

message: I think in this article it should be mentioned, that the term "3-D"
is being misused for this kind of illustration. A genuine 3-D picture consists of TWO pictures, one for each eye and is being viewed by respective means, e.g. 3-D-glasses (anaglyph or polarisation or shutter). These so-called 3-D computer graphics only have ONE picture with a perspective view, and therefore they are totally FLAT. --Wittkowsky 22:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, of course, but when people talk about 3D graphics, they mean the flat images that the article discusses.  What you are referring to are actually called "stereo images" and are not widely used.  However, it bears mentioning; go ahead and add it if you wish.  This article is in dire need of a re-write however, so it may not go in the new version.  But who knows when that will be? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:23, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
All light entering the human eye is projected in 2D onto the retina, so you could say that all human vision is totally flat. Stereograms and 3D glasses create an illusion of 3D (albeit more effectively than a single flat projection), but they do it using 2D flat projection. Anyway, I've always understood the distinction as pertains to the method of generation. Graphics generated from an internal 3D representation are 3D. The article's second paragraph mentions this. -- Wapcaplet 02:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, there is no such thing as a geniune 3D picture (that would be a sculpture), and the thing that comes closest is not a 2x2D picture combo but a hologram. Still, it's not 3D because it cannot be viewed from any angle. If this article tries to set this record straight it should not rely on any preconceptions at all. I agree that the picture being created from an internal 3D representation is what counts here.  Arru 11:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-D computer graphics are NOT 3-D 

message: The paragraph "Creation of 3D computer graphics" mentions 3 phases of making 3d graphics, although only "Modelling" has been explained. 
This makes that part a "Section stub", right?
--Mathew 11:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section stub? 

message: It would be great if the new version of the 3D computer graphics article had a history of 3d computer graphics part. I made major edits on the article Pseudo-3D. I see 3d computer graphics as the logic evolution of 2D computer graphics, with Pseudo-3D, or 2.5D computer graphics, if you want it to call like that, being a important step between those two. What do you think? --Abdull 12:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-3D 

message: I had spent some (a lot actually) stumbling around the net bookmarking and downloading everything in sight after I had decided to "have a go at 3D" without actually knowing what I meant by that.Looking around I think my behaviour is perhaps not untypical.
I spent some money too and purchased Poser Shade Mystica and a few other things besides.
So having learned enough to get into trouble and not enough to get out of it, I said to myself right back to basics and lets start at the beginning which is how I ended up here.
Its nice to have some sort of conceptual framework in your head and I studied both the article as it is now and the ongoing rewrite.
The original is easy to read but with mistakes obvious to experts and some even to me. Having said that the rewrite seems a bit confusing.
I think workflow is important and it seems to me that you have modelling texturing and rendering all with or without animation, which seems to affect everything if thats your intended final outcome. So I guess what I am saying is that I would split animation off into its own (linked) pages after having explained (at the beginning) why that is being done.
Hope this helps.
From An Amateur's Point Of View
1.I think it will be appropriate to subcategories the 3D Modeling,Graphic And Animation into Basic and Industrial.
2.The 3D Modeling can be Organic;which uses NURBS,Metaballs and a lot more curves.
3.Addition of basic explanation of variuos methods e.g. Boolean,Lofting,Deform etc. will be useful.--asydwaters 12:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie on the scene 

message: I think an outsider to the trade would benefit from a list of some basic principles of 3D computer graphics like:
*Surfaces, not solid volumes.
*Textures, not solid materials
*Keypoint-based, both surfaces and animation behaviour
*Model-texturize-(animate)-render flow
*Approximations of geometry, light & shadows to speed up computations
*Distinction of realtime and offline rendering
As most of you know, there are exceptions to all these points under particular circumstances. But they are important in the way they differ from the real world that photorealistic CG tries to mimic.
Arru 15:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic principles 

message: I have introduced the concept of a Root page and used it on several topics that, like this one, were part of a hierarchy. This one seems to me to start with Graphics. Using that as tbe common reference for linking all associated pages back to, we can avoid duplication of explanation.  --Lindosland 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Wikipedia:Root page|Root page]] concept 

message: Perhaps of interest to those who edit this page, I've just written the 3D modeler and 3D model articles.  Previously, 3D model was just a redirect to this article and 3D modeler didn't exist at all.  Read and edit as you please. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New articles

message: I looked for 3D movie making software and it took some time before I found this page!
Apparently, Microsoft has written the page '3D Movie (software)'... --82.134.117.232
:That's because 3D Movie (software) is about a software product called "3D Movie" by Microsoft.  It doesn't refer to a type of movie, that's why it has (software) after the title to distinguish it from 3D movies in general.  And, no, it wasn't written by "Microsoft"--it's history shows it was written by a number of regular Wikipedia editors and anon users, just like any good Wikipedia article. :-)
:What type of 3D movies are you interested in?  The type that looks 3D when viewed (article here), or the kind that use software to make things look 3D?  If you are interested in the latter, why would you look anywhere but here in the first place? ;-)  I don't know, it seems kind of obvious to me... — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D Movie Software 

message: May I request for a comprehensible satisfactory article from a pro to make newbies understand this article more friendly and in a step by step process. Aside from that let this article be two sided, whereas Im also looking for an in depth detail of the 3D world, as such specialization tend to be "overwhelming" to newbies like me. So please make this article more detailed and tackle both pros and newbies alike so as to make this a one stop article about 3D. Its also for the reason that some of my questions regarding 3D have not been addressed, as it remain intriguing to me. Help would be appreciated. ejay, RP, Manila, 24:00 Oct 20 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frio ej (talk • contribs).
:This has been requested before.  The problem is that it is such a huge & complicated subject, addressing it without getting down into the nuts and bolts to quickly is difficult.  What we've attempted before is just an outline of how the article should be structured: with a blueprint like that in hand, constructing a coherant article would be much easier.  AFAIK, we never agreed on one, so the article remains a pile of mush. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ask for more comprehensive update from a 3D artist

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge with [[Computer Graphics]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Split

message: I don't believe there is enough technical information regarding the Mathmatics and Projection of 3D graphics in this article, indeed, it almost reads like a disambiguation of 3D Computer Graphics sub-fields. Do people not research such subjects on Wikipedia for technical insight? Rather than simple industry phrase explanation, and redirection to sub-fields, as what seems to have happened here. Neobros 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the technichal information can be found in the subtopics of this page. It has been intentionally left general so as to make the subject more accessible to the average reader. This is also the page on creating CG and such not that for research fields. This is the accepted form for subjects as extensively documented as CG as you may see with such pages as Physics Adam McCormick 23:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, granted. However I can hardly find a line of information relating to the basics of 3D Computer Graphics (Mathmatics, Projections and so forth) in either this main article or relating sub-articles. As opposed to Physics where the terminology is so broadly applied to several sub-fields without a singular origin, 3D Computer Graphics can be pinned down to a hand full of basic instigators, of that the sub-fields in this case (Modeling, Animation, Rendering) are production processes to the end-goal of 3D Graphics, rather than actual sub-fields. As this is the case, I can only see reason in highlighting the base technical workings in the main article, while explaining in more clarity the detail of the production processes in sub-articles. To summarize, surly we can add advanced technical information without losing simplicity on this subject? Rather than simply occluding all detailed technical information many users fail to find here. Neobros 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, upon futher examination of the Reorganization, the new page will fit the technical criteria I'm requesting. If nobody else has anything to add on the subject, I'll delete this discussion. Neobros 01:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother deleting the discussion, someone else may benefit from the discussion. Adam McCormick 01:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical Information

message: I have just removed/relocated many of the links from this section, please only add new links if they are relevant to 3D-CG in general and are not otherwise represented in the subtopis of this category of articles. Otherwise the link may belong more readily to a sub-topic. Adam McCormick 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I am of the opinion that linking normal everyday words like "size" and "location" is pointless unless the links go to a specific explanation of ther usage in this context. As it stands these links go to disambiguation pages which don't clarify the meanings of the terms but complicate them. There is a dictionary definition of these terms and they are not being used inconsistently with those definitions, thus the link is not relevant and should not be added. If there is an article on size or location that is relevant to this article beyond 3D modeling then link it, but just linking the word is pointless. Adam McCormick 19:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant links 

message: The Leonar3Do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo_1UIovqKc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPiB_Ad7IC4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWRBUcMbzkw&feature=related  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.75.100 (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Hungarian breakthrough

message: One of the figure texts (second figure in section Rendering) does not make sense:
::Flat shading，3DCG Dunkerque class battleship
--Mortense (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It does... to us 3d artists at least heh. Anyway, made it more human readable. :P Linked to wikipedia article discussing the topic. --Obsidi♠nSoul 19:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure text trouble 

message: Following the reference to 'rendering 6D images' in the introduction, the article does not make it clear what '6D images' are, neither are there internal or external links to pages that do.  Ssmethurst (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was nonsense because it was some unnoticed vandalism. I've reverted it. - MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  6D images 

message: Surely a 3D print of a 3D model is a 3D rendering of the model, with all the same imperfections that a 2D rendering has. The 3D print is not the model.
It is like saying because of laser printers a 2D model is not confined to virtual space.
I propose to remove that sentence unless there are objections, if I remember... ˥ Ǝ Ʉ  H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. I thought it was weird when I first saw it as well. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Due to 3D printing, 3D models are not confined to virtual space".?? 

message: 3D computer graphics software overlaps substantially with the present article. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge software here 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 3D computer graphics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070405172134/http://accad.osu.edu:80/~waynec/history/lessons.html to http://accad.osu.edu/~waynec/history/lessons.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302154206/http://hem.passagen.se:80/des/hocg/hocg_1960.htm to http://hem.passagen.se/des/hocg/hocg_1960.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 3D computer graphics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120723194435/http://wiki.cgsociety.org/index.php/Comparison_of_3d_tools to http://wiki.cgsociety.org/index.php/Comparison_of_3d_tools
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Digital content creation tools. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 25#Digital content creation tools until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Digital content creation tools" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: That would be an interactive experience here.
For example, 
125.167.115.127 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we add a Commons file example of 3D objects? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Can we mention that 3D computer graphics are 3D projection on flat screens while on screens, and 3D only if they are holograms? TudorTulok (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2D 

message: Mehr Wahrheit über die Ausererdischen!!!??? 2A02:810B:4C0:3A08:E14F:4ABC:B51A:7EF3 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ausererdischen Technik und komunikation 

message: — Assignment last updated by John ricciardelli Jr. (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History and Theory of New Media

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Modeling program and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 8#Modeling program until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Modeling program" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Model (CGI) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 8#Model (CGI) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Model (CGI)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :3-D acceleration and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 8#3-D acceleration until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "3-D acceleration" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]