Talk:3D computer graphics
|
|
| Contents |
Break up article & link to images
This page could probably stand to be broken off into two separate articles: 3D computer graphics to cover the basic concepts and methods (and a rough overview of technology, maybe), and 3D computer graphics software to talk about the specific stuff like how models are created and rendered. Anyone else have ideas? -- Wapcaplet
- Wapcaplet - I plan to rewrite the article since it meanders a bit
and also there isn't a proper focus throughout.
I shall also link to images and screenshots(maybe upload some with permission) to demonstrate concepts and results.
The current lack of illustration is ironical considering the topic being discussed here - Gyan
Gyan - Yeah, it is a bit odd having no illustrations in an article about graphics :) I'd be happy to add some, at some point, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. -- Wapcaplet
Feel free to use what I have displayed on my "about: 3d-page" http://members.home.nl/rouweler3/about3d.html or link to it. Succes Marcel Rouweler
GPL CG Reference website
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)
Hobbyist vs. Commerical grade
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)
Problems
It's been a long time, and this article still seems to be in need of some work. As noted above, there is a definite obstacle in the form of tech-talk, but what appears to me a bigger problem is the lack of structure and organization. The "technology" section is barely more than a stub. In the "Creation of 3D computer graphics" section, there are a lot of random details thrown in: specific modelling techniques (NURBS, CSG, polygons, etc.), a list of various shading techniques, skeletons and animation, software used to build models, scene layout and lighting, more animation and keyframes, how lighting is a difficult art to master, tessellation (which I've barely even heard of after doing more than 10 years of 3D modelling myself), scanline rendering... the overall effect here is overwhelming, and I (as a long-time modeller) am left with more confusion than I came in with.
Then there's "Phong reflection should not be confused with Phong shading", with no real explanation of what either one is, why they shouldn't be confused, or why 3D graphics rely heavily on them. The separate articles on those subjects leave me completely in the dust.
Also, I am curious about the justification for the "five most popular" (actually, six) software packages. Popular to whom, for what purpose? The overall list is getting rather extensive, and should probably be moved to a separate article.
Not least, the article could really stand to have maybe a picture of some 3D graphics.
-- Wapcaplet 02:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100%. Isn't that why a rewrite was started? Why didn't that move forward? — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:59, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
- it seems that many rewrite and wikiproject efforts languish in the same way...--✈ James C. 23:29, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
I'm removing the "Motion Theory" section:
- Nothing specific to 3D animation
- Pose-to-pose animation was not developed by Disney
- Nice try, but it's "Wabi-Sabi", not Wasabi, and even then it's more appropriately just Wabi.
Isn't it worth noting that the display is not "truly" 3D on any current display device? Usually 3D graphics are 2D graphics rendered with common visual tropes of 3D objects like perspective and shadowing -- they aren't anymore "3D" in this respect than a drawing I might do of a cube on a piece of paper. The only 3D display systems I've seen are still just illusions of 3 Dimensions... --Fastfission 02:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Removal of software list
This article should be an overview of 3D computer graphics, not a list of software. The list could go to List of 3D computer graphics software, but most "List of" lists do not have paragraph-long descriptions like this one. Those descriptions should be in the articles for the relevant software, not in the 3D computer graphics article.
It also seems like the rewrite at /Temp has been abandoned. Anyone want to help me pick it back up again?
– User:Flamurai/Signature 16:49, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- They could go in the 3D modelling article. Right now, it is just a redirect to this article. Some enterprising individual could actually start an article on the subject and slap the list in there. I'd do it, but I actually know more about 3D programming, and not a whole lot about the modelling end (though I wish I did). :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:43, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
3-D computer graphics are NOT 3-D
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)
- 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)