Talk:3D computer graphics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

comments on modeling

I revamped the article on polygonal modeling with a fair amount of detail before I saw this site...if anyone feels that anything I've written should be in this article instead, or in 3d graphics software instead, go ahead and move it. Personally, I think this page should be more of an overview - where 3d graphics are used, define the term modeling and link out to the pages on polygons, nurbs, subd's, etc., same with texturing, skinning, skeletons, raytracing vs scanline conversion - general stuff, since it seems like there are specific pages on everything already. I'm fairly new here though, so maybe there's a standard way of handling broad topics like this that I'm not aware of? - KenArthur

comments from operativem on some terminology

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)) Also, re: 3-D graphics are not 3-D... That individual is correct. And 2D graphics is a subset of 3D graphics. It's important to make this clarification as well. I've made changes where I've seen it. I'll do a search and find a few more.

Okay, on to the topic of scene graphs. The page, which is marked as requiring attention, should definitely be re-written. I will be happy to handle this. In the meantime, the text in the page should be entirely deleted and a very simple definition inserted so as not to provide bad information. Would it bother anyone if I did that?

The section on "modeling" needs to be a lot more general. Talking about CSG very quickly leads people to believe that CSG is a primary method of modeling, when it is not. It would be much better to focus on surface modeling and solid modeling, then go down into techniques for each. Flamurai has done a good job, but my interpretation of his work is that it's very narrow.

RE:

"Although simple equations like these may seem limited, the variety of objects that can be produced is expanded by a technique called constructive solid geometry (CSG). CSG is the process of combining solid objects – spheres, cubes, closed cylinders, closed cones, etc. – to form more complex solid objects using the Boolean operations union, difference, intersection. For example, a tube can be created by taking the difference of a thin cylinder from a larger cylinder."

This makes it seem as if modeling starts out with primitives that are then modified with CSG to produce a wider variety of shapes. This is just not how modeling works, except in VERY specific cases. Modeling works by starting with a draft object, or creating a draft, and then using a variety of techniques to progressively refine the draft. This basic process is true regardless of whether or not the user is performing solid modeling or surface modeling. Lastly, polygonal CSG *is not solid modeling*!!!! True solid modeling uses weight, mass, and so forth, and is better represented by the ACIS kernel for example.

If this is going to be a useful source of information, then we'll have to begin with the hard-to-write, but general explanations.


Modeling can indeed be spelled modelling or modeling. Sanit 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"2D graphics is a subset of 3D graphics." As it is phrased, nothing is defined of the intention of meaning. Am I to believe that if I learn 3D graphics that I'll experience no resistence transitioning to 2D graphics? Myself, and many other specialized professionals would certainly beg to differ with this obtuse statement. Furthermore, there is little point to say this. One could just as well claim that toasted bread is a subset of a toaster, or vice versa for that matter - point being, "So what?" Nearly since the inception of 3D graphics there have also been ways to display the information in 3-dimensional contexts, even if they are simulated. Their relation on a base level is only a matter of accessibility and expense in utilizing display technologies to reach a larger audiances or to better communicate an idea.

comments from waldo on latest changes by Flamurai

Hi Flamurai, I really like the text you put into the proposed new 3D page but I wanted to bring to your attention that matrix math is not something readily understood by a person that would be looking up the meaning of "3D graphics". Now don't get me wrong - I like what you have written and it has meaning to me but I'm just not sure that someone would be able to easily understand the script. I wonder if the page should actually be broken into two discreet sections; beginner and advanced or something like that?

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)

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)

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)

I agree with the language level problem! If we just make sure to mention and link to all the relevant subjects like cartesian 3D coordinates, this article should meet the expectations of someone who looks up "3D graphics" not knowing which particular detail to check out. Arru 11:12, 18 November 2005 (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.

But this article should include a LINK to descriptions of 3D graphics products. I was at Wikipedia:Poser, which linked here, and I would like to be able to find both this general description and find competing products. The simplest way to accomplish this is to include such a link here. -- ToolmakerSteve

It also seems like the rewrite at /Temp has been abandoned. Anyone want to help me pick it back up again?

– flamuraiTM 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)

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)

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)

Section stub?

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)

Pseudo-3D

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)

Pseudo-3D is definitely worth mentioning, particularily to avoid confusion on the "3D is not 3-D" subject above. As long as we're talking computer graphics though, I'm not sure that pseudo-3D is historically significant. I believe it developed a time after the emergence of CAD to make feasible 3D-looking games with the limited hardware of the time. However, in art, pseudo-3D goes way back since most likely before the first "real" perspective drawings. It's all art and not science but I believe it deserves mention because of the connection with computer graphics. Arru 11:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and talking about CG in general terms, pseudo-3D might fit in well with the notion that computer graphics generally puts "fast" and "looks good" before "scientifically correct", even to this day. With the exception of scientific and medical imagery, of course. Arru 11:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

History of 3D computer animation and graphics

I think that there needs to be a history section explaining where 3D animation and graphics got started. To the extent of my knowledge, 3D animation started with engineers creating 3 dimensional models on computers for displaying new ideas and prototypes. It would be nice to get a little more detail on this and how it evolved into the world of video games and movies that it is today.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZekeTheSquirrel (talk • contribs) .

Newbie on the scene

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)

Basic principles

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)

The Root page concept

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)

New articles

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)

3D Movie Software

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)

Ask for more comprehensive update from a 3D artist

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)

Reorganization

Both the current page and the (aborted?) rewrite at Talk:3D computer graphics/Temp seem to be a bit of a mess. How do people feel about the following basic structure:

  1. Introduction
  2. Real-time vs Non-real-time
  3. Overview of process from start to finish (for a layman)
  4. Mathematics
    • Coordinate systems
    • Transformations
    • Projection
  5. 3D object representation
    • Polygonal meshes
    • Implicit surfaces
    • Constructive solid geometry
  6. Visible surface determination
    • Naive approach: back to front sorting (Painter's algorithm)
    • Ray casting
    • Z-buffer algorithm
  7. Shading
    • Basic ideas
    • Light sources
    • Ray Tracing
    • Programmable shaders
    • Transparency
    • Reflection
    • Texture mapping
    • Shadows
  8. Content creation
  9. 3D APIs
  10. 3D Rendering Software
  11. 3D Rendering Hardware

Would a rewrite based on this be welcomed or are people happy with the current efforts? How much do people like the current text both on the main page and at Talk:3D computer graphics/Temp vs. wanting to see something new? — FishSpeaker 08:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The proposed structure looks good to me. Oicumayberight 08:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that's way too much detail for what should be an overview article. I think this article should read like a primer on computer graphics rather than a manual on how to produce them. I think a better ide would be:
  1. Introduction
    • Overview of process from start to finish (for a layman)
  2. Modelling (or representation
    • Polygonal meshes
    • Implicit surfaces
    • Constructive solid geometry
  3. Shading/Texturing
    • Light sources
    • Texture mapping
    • Ray Tracing
    • Transparency
    • Reflection
    • Cast Shadows
  4. Rendering
    • Real-time vs Non-real-time
    • Visible surface determination (maybe)
      • Naive approach: back to front sorting (Painter's algorithm)
      • Ray casting
      • Z-buffer algorithm
    • Animation
    • Mathematics (maybe)
      • Coordinate systems
      • Transformations
      • Projection
And in all likelihood removing the sections on mathematics, visible surface detirmination, and content creation to other pages. Most if not all of these sections should have more detailed treatments on their own pages. Since most of these could be an entire life's work that shouldn't be hard. Adam McCormick 05:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we're actually thinking along the same lines. I wasn't expecting that each bullet point would be an entire section, but rather a sentence or two explaining in basic terms the given concept and its importance to 3D graphics, with liberal use of links to more detailed pages. I think the biggest problem with the current page is that too much attention is paid to a few aspects of 3D graphics, while many fundamental concepts are completely absent. The fact that our two outlines overlap so much leads me to believe we're on the right track.
Regarding ordering, here's some of my thinking:
  • I put Mathematics first because so many of the other topics (and 3D graphics in general) depend on it. How can you explain polygonal meshes without introducing the concept of a vertex (represented as a vector)? How can you talk about visible surface determination without discussing projection? Perhaps you could survive by using links to other articles and keeping Mathematics later, but I feel pretty strongly that Mathematics has to be a section on the page. Coordinate systems, transformations, and projection are fundamental concepts in 3D graphics and I think it would be a disservice to the reader to omit mentioning them.
  • Really, this brings up the ordering of all the main sections. It seems like there are two obvious ways to do this: 1) a natural ordering of the material where each section builds on the previous section, or 2) ordering based on accessibility and popularity. It seems like I was ordering based on (1) and you were ordering based on (2). Are there any guidelines or have there been any fruitful discussions about the relative merits of these approaches elsewhere on wikipedia?
  • On a smaller scale, in shading, I think there's a natural flow from light sources to ray tracing to programmable shaders to transparency to reflection. Although texture mapping is important, I think it's largely separate from that progression. Perhaps the right thing to do is not set an order now, and just see what works best when the prose is actually written.
  • I just noticed that 3D Animation forwards to 3D graphics. Yikes! That's definitely a topic that needs its own page. I wonder if we can get away with just mentioning it in the introduction rather than giving it its own section.
— FishSpeaker 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I just got caught up on all of the merging/splitting discussion. It's unclear to me what the currently planned path forward is with regard to this page. Can someone clarify? — FishSpeaker 02:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, two things, first, 3D animation should have forwarded to Computer animation, as it does now. Second the future of this section seems to be under active discussion as there has recently been a lot of dissention about how to interpret this page's mission, here's where I think we stand:
  • Computer graphics is going to be a discussion of the academic aspects of CG including what is studied and by whom
  • This page is going to act as a very general overview of the process of creating 3D computer graphics with lots of intenal references to give the reader good information and a basic idea of how computer graphics are created.
  • Each section of this page (ie 3D Modeling, Animation and Layout, and 3D Rendering) are subsets of entire articles on these subjects rather than complete treatments.
Overall, I think the goal is to convey the bisic steps of computer graphics and to give some idea of the steps involved to create 3D graphics and to give internal links to all of the subtopics of 3D computer graphics where the reader can learn more. In this way this page becomes more of a general overview rather than a "How To" with software references. Adam McCormick 16:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I would have an intro that gives basic math information then anything unexplained goes in math. Also, history at the end or after the intro.-- L10nM4st3r (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge with Computer Graphics

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)

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)
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)
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)

Reverting the merge

This was not an appropriate merge / redirect. The purpose of the 'Computer Graphics' page was to discuss the academic/scientific discipline of computer graphics which is a subfield of computer science. Please try to understand that this is not the same as the more general topic of 3D computer graphics (which also embodies entertainment, hobbyist programs like POV ray, other applications, etc.) and deserves its own independent space on the wiki. As strange as this may seem to someone not familiar with the field, it is an important distinction. Please do not perform this merge again. Trevorgoodchild 05:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more should be said about 2D computer graphics on that page. Oicumayberight 05:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that that is what The CG page Should be, but that is not what it was. I was planning on rewriting the CG page after the merge but I think reverting the merge is a little insulting. This is my degree field too. I resent you presumption. Please discuss this before you revert my changes again. Adam McCormick 06:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If this is truly your field, then you'll understand why the revert was necessary. How many times have you said, "I do computer graphics," and been answered with, "Oh, so do you use Maya or 3DS Max?" or something similar. It is so very important that these concepts be separated in people's minds.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevorgoodchild (talk • contribs).
I agree that there is a difference, but I DO NOT feel that the page that exists at Computer Graphics accomplished this goal. Yes, there needs to be an article on the field of CG, and it should be seperate from 3D graphic design, but all of the information on CG right now belongs in 3DCG. CG should start from scratch with your "Mission" in mind. Adam McCormick 06:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The is the computer generated article. Oicumayberight 06:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A reminder for you of WP:COOL. Calm down before editing please. Also, please sign your post --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be cool, i'm just trying to establish a dialog. Adam McCormick 06:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, although I have no personal views of this matter, the merge information will stay in the article, to prevent edit warring, until this matter is settled to an agreement. Thank You. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I really think the appropriate thing to do is to have one page called "Computer Graphics" and one called "3D graphic design" as we have now (or 3D graphic art, or whatever it is you want to call what people on CGSociety do). There are really two major classes of things people in "graphics" do: 1. some of them develop new mathematics, technology, and software. 2. some of them use this software to create images and animations. The two are completely different tasks and should be separated into two pages. Trevorgoodchild 06:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that, as I have said several times at this point, but the question is content. I think CG is not valuable (in addition to 3D graphic design) in its current state. It needs to be an article on the fields of study, not on the graphic design process. Adam McCormick 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The division into modeling, animation, and rendering is on the fields of study. Those are the broadest categories - you might hear a professor say, "I work on animation," or "I work on rendering," etc. More specifically you might hear one say, "I do simulation," or "I do geometry stuff." Which is why there are sub-categories. Maybe it needs clarification that those are not processes but rather sub-disciplines. Trevorgoodchild 07:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, there's not much there -- only because it hasn't been around for long enough. I should've added the "stub" tag, which is what I'll do now. Trevorgoodchild 06:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

New name

I'm strongly against the new name. There is already too much blurring the distinction between design and production. This page speaks mostly of production techniques and says little about design (problem-solving) or design concerns. There should be at least 3 separate articles involving 3D graphics:

  1. about technology using wire frame models;
  2. about production techniques using 3d modeler software, maybe title "3D modeling".
  3. about graphic design in general, 2D and 3D.

I don't think there are graphic designers who specialize in 3D graphics unless they are also specialists in production, in which case they are more engineers or technicians than designers.

If any renaming should be done, this article should be split into 2 articles. One with the original name, and another titled "3D modeling". The original title should be an overview of how 3D computer graphics work and the applications. The "3D modeling" should be about the skill you are calling "3D graphic design". Oicumayberight 06:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the renaming issue. Calling the production of 3D Images "Graphic Design" trivializes a Billion dollar industry. Verly little in this article can be characterized as Graphic design. Adam McCormick 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, how about "3D Digital Art"? CGSociety refers to itself as the "society of digital artists," so we'd at least have a citation. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevorgoodchild (talk • contribs).
There's already a computer art, digital art and computer generated imagery article. It would only add to the confusion and end up getting merged. I suggest this article be split into 3D modeling about the skill and 3D rendering about the technology. Oicumayberight 06:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Trevorgoodchild 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was being split into "3D modeling" and "3D rendering"? Why the revert? Trevorgoodchild 07:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This 3D computer graphics article is the main overview article. Oicumayberight 08:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)'

Split

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)

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)

Technical Information

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)

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)
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)
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)
Don't bother deleting the discussion, someone else may benefit from the discussion. Adam McCormick 01:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

See also

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)

Irrelevant links

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)

How is modelling used today in games?

It's a question I would like answered which i think should also be mentioned in the article: Are the models designed in a 3d modelling program, saved, and then imported into the game at run-time and manipulated from there or are they designed in the program and then translated into the source using coordinates or something? 212.120.248.128 (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any single answer to your question. Every single system uses a different method. In general, any "pretty" scenes are just saved as video, and any "ugly" scenes are rendered real time by feeding coordinates into the GPU. Most of the information you'd like to see added is actually done (in most cases) by a Game engine, the game designers never touch the source code, they just build the characters and go. This is also not the place for such specifics, what your talking about is a very tiny part of the science and art of 3D computer graphics. Hope that helps, let me know if you need more information. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I had to chime in here. Adam, I don't understand your response. It sounds like you're a little ill-informed or an industry outsider. As someone in the video game industry (and a programmer at that), let me field this question.
Almost modern video games use models created in modeling programs such as 3D Studio MAX, Maya or Alias. Indie game developers may use some of the free 3D modeling packages, but the concept is the same. After the model is finalized, it is almost always saved in a proprietary format. This format is either cooked up by the developers themselves or dictated by the game engine they are using. But in many cases, the developers are using an "engine" they developed themselves.
About ten years ago, computer weren't capable of generating attractive, real-time 3D graphics and many "cut-scenes" were played as video. However, today, many cut-scenes are played within the game engine itself, almost no canned video needs to be used.
Within the game itself, the 3D models are imported (read in from files) into memory and manipulated from there. I can't think of any cases where the 3D coordinates of a model would be hard-coded into a game's source code. Sometimes a model and its texture are bound together in the data file, sometimes they are separate (a much more likely scenario—slapping a different texture on a model can give it a completely different look). Once in memory, models are shoved through the GPU to be rendered onscreen (this is simplifying things quite a bit, but that's the basic idea). The GPU handles a lot of calculations related to 3D rendering, but it's quite an overstatement to say it does it all. 3D content shoved through the GPU doesn't have to end up "ugly" and in many cases doesn't. On modern hardware, a great deal of 3D scenes can look much better than pre-rendered video did even just five years ago.
In no cases do the game designers "just build the characters and go". First off, unless they are wearing two hats, game designers do not build art assets, such as 3D models. They may specify how they are supposed to look and write dialog, but they do not develop the art. Most models are built by game artists and some are purchased (and some are purchased and then modified).
Secondly, you are correct, when you said "the game designers never touch the source code." But your response is misleading. Why in the world would a game designer touch source code? It's not their job. Modifying source is the job of programmers. No game—I mean no game—is shipped without custom code. Many game engines are available for purchase, but none are used straight "out of the box." All require custom programming in order to make a game. Some light-weight games can be built with a game engine using scripts, but these are the exception rather than the rule. Some developers modify the engine source code directly, some interface with it via an API, but none just use the engine without some programming.
This is quite a bit off-topic, and discussing it in any meaningful detail wouldn't be done here, but I hope this gives you a better idea of how 3D models are used in modern programming. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Your final statement is really my point and in that I agree completely. Thank you for the verbose answer.
However, when you say there are no cut scenes I just can't agree. My background is Computer Graphics, albeit on the research and academia end, but I know high-performance prerendering when I see it. Maybe this practice doesn't exist on the best-of-the best top-end hardware, but even the previews I've seen of FFXIII have cutscenes that are (since you seem to take offense at "ugly" and "pretty") more attractive than the non-prerendered, gameplay sequences. I know there are game systems that do no do cut scenes (the N64 comes to mind) but most I've seen do (in fact some of the more popular cut secenes are cobbled into DVD's).
Also, I wasn't using "game designers" in any specific sense either, I was trying to be general, perhaps more correct would have been "people who create games." It also seems that you are speaking as part of one specific companies way of doing things. I know there are many "new" games built onto older games rather than specifically built themselves, this was more of what I meant by never touching the code, or the engine when producing the new game. No changes in game mechanics, physics, gameplay, etc... just changes in text and imagery. Adam McCormick (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not trying to pick a fight and you're from academia, not the video game industry, so your perspective is different. Yes, many modern games do use video (or FMV) for cutscenes. But many do cutscenes within the engine itself. And some will use FMV for some cutscenes and in-engine rendering for others. It all depends. My point was that not all cutscenes are pre-rendered.
A generic way of referring to someone involved in the production of video games is "video game developer". :^) — Frecklefσσt | Talk 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Hungarian breakthrough

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)

Figure text trouble

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)

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)

6D images

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)

It was nonsense because it was some unnoticed vandalism. I've reverted it. - MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Due to 3D printing, 3D models are not confined to virtual space".??

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) paraphrased ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No objection here. I thought it was weird when I first saw it as well. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge software here

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

  • Support per WP:OVERLAP and the 3D computer graphics software is an integral part of 3D computer graphics, being used to make the latter. Brandmeistertalk 09:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PAGEDECIDE, without prejudice for a later split if it grows. Although 3D software is a relevant topic on its own, the current article has not enough wheight ãnd structure to be stand alone. Diego (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

≠ק--119.30.35.71 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)--119.30.35.71 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)--119.30.35.71 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"Digital content creation tools" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Should we add a Commons file example of 3D objects?

That would be an interactive experience here.

For example, here

125.167.115.127 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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)

2D

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)

Ausererdischen Technik und komunikation

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

Wiki Education assignment: History and Theory of New Media

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): John ricciardelli Jr. (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by John ricciardelli Jr. (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"Modeling program" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

"Model (CGI)" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

"3-D acceleration" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3D_computer_graphics/Archive_1&oldid=1209396564"