Talk:3D rendering

message: This page is the result of a discussion and a quick fix after the resolution on the Talk:3D computer graphics page. The history for the pages are on the 3d graphic design page. If it's possible for an admin to move the history back to the 3D computer graphics page, that would avoid further confusion. Oicumayberight 07:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Interwiki links seem to be a bit crazy here. --Papuass (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to clean them up. This is still an emerging field so no universal vernacular has been established. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Does 3D rendering really have to be photorealistic, as the article claims? What about for example cel-shading, isn't that considered to be 3D rendering? —Kri (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I think I've got it now; cel-shading simply isn't 3D rendering. —Kri (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. I think it's just that our whole coverage of 3d graphics is a mess, imo, technology/industry moves too fast, very scanty 'reliable' sources as Wikipedia defines them. 3D Rendering should be synonymous to Rendering (computer graphics). And yes, cel-shading is a type of 3d rendering, so this article's premise of having to be photorealistic is wrong.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photorealism? 

message: "Programs produce perspective by multiplying a dilation constant raised to the power of the negative of the distance from the observer."
I have two remarks about this sentence. 1) It would be 10x as clear in formula form for anyone who knows a bit of math. To those who don't, it's probably arcane anyway. 2) It's possible that this is how computers calculate it, however this formula is NOT equivalent with the projection shown in the figure next to it (observe for example that in the figure, the image would become infinite as the distance to the camera goes to zero, where as the exponential function remains finite at zero). I think the formula corresponding to the figure would either involve some (arc)tangents or even simply a rational function, but certainly no exponentials. Anyway, it's probably noteworthy to mention the discrepancy between figure and algorithm.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.106.32 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dilation constant 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 3D rendering. 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/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) 22:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :3D acceleration and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 8#3D acceleration until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "3D acceleration" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]