Talk:Auxiliary view

message: I think 3/4 perspective is synonymous with isometric perspective. Any sources that say otherwise? SharkD 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to back the article up with references some time ago, did some quick googling and changed it a bit, but couldn't find any proper sources either.  Some google links definitely used it for something else though. I put an unreferenced tag, maybe that will give it more attention by someone who actually knows? --Allefant 19:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That makes sense. SharkD 22:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm starting to think that 3/4 view is anything that is not a plan view or side view (see here). This conflicts with your source. Also, I'm not sure that "view" necessarily equates to "graphical projection". The graphical projection article makes heavy use of the word "protocol" to define the term. SharkD (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I guess there is no real formal definition - this source also just uses the term to mean neither "frontal" nor "profile" for their faces. Would be nice finding a source dealing with the term itself. About "view" and "projection", they obviously are not the same, but following the protocol in one of the graphical projections results in a picture representing a scene from some view. And in reality, it's all just words, so when a game reviewer says "isometric view/projection/perspective/angle" it's the same :P --Allefant (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misnomer

message: I'm wondering whether this article should be merged with Auxiliary view as they seem to be describing the same thing. I.e. the terms seem to have evolved independently. SharkD (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be. The question is, to which article. My interpretation is, it are two different terms which describe about the same thing. So the terms are different (therefore two articles would be needed) - but what they describe is about the same. Maybe both of them could be merged to another existing article. I just looked at Top-down perspective and Bird's-eye view, a similar thing is going on there - they describe the same thing, just one focuses more on computer games and the other more on photography. --Allefant (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think merging into Auxilary view would be better, since it's an industry term instead of a fan-created term. I'm not sure whether Top-down perspective and Bird's eye view should be merged. 3/4 or isometric perspective could also technically be called "Bird's eye" in some cases, whereas "top-down" is more specific in that, in order for it to qualify, the viewing angle must be perpendicular to the ground plane. However, it could be merged with Multiview orthographic projection or one of its sub-articles (not sure which one). SharkD (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. It would be nice if we could find a reference for this. It does sound right to me (but we might both be wrong - e.g. when I googled for 3/4 view back then I found it in the title of a face recognition paper, so terms like "top-down" also might be used outside of computer games and then mean something different). --Allefant (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. A Google search results in the largest number of hits for "3/4 view" being in articles dealing with facial modeling and portraiture. There are also some hits in articles about automotive engineering. Here's an article about views used in video game development. This article deals with a whole genre of video games. Video game reviews that mention the term are also fairly common: . I haven't checked each article to determine how exactly the term is used, though. In games that don't use parallel projection I guess the term could also be synonymous with two-point perspective or three-point perspective. SharkD (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with auxiliary view?