Talk:Color bleeding (computer graphics)

Untitled
Why it shouldn't be deleted. It is essential, and I can rephrase the content so it is not copyright infrigement, ASAP, but no sooner than I find additional reference material. Thanks. -- Mtodorov 69 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Done this. Goodness you are quick!
I hope it is not copyright infrigement now. I am deeply apologizing, I thought quoting single sentence with valid reference not only trivial, but legal also. -- Mtodorov 69 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job. I wonder though if this isn't just another name for radiosity, or at least a sub-phenomenon of radiosity. Would this be worth merging into the radiosity article? ~Matticus TC 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Goodness, no! Term color bleeding is also used in graphic industry, print and in textile industry, as the ref you erased said. I am searching diligently for refs, pls don't rush erasing them.
 * See the ref: Color ink jet pen having nozzle group spacing to prevent color bleed -- this is obviously not just radiosity, right?


 * Enjoy your day! -- Mtodorov 69 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, it would seem that the same term is used in two different fields to refer to very different things. The refs given in the article refer only to its use in the realm of computer graphics, whereas the ref you give above is for its use in printing. In this case, I think it would be wise to have two separate articles for the term - one describing its use in computer graphics, the other its use in printing (whether the computer graphics one is worth merging to radiosity] is another debate). This is why Wikipedia has disambiguation pages. I will move the current article to color bleeding (computer graphics), make a new article under color bleeding (printing), and turn color bleeding into a disambiguation page. This helps separate out the two usages of the term. ~Matticus TC 11:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Will proceed so. -- Mtodorov 69 11:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)