Talk:Rendering (computer graphics)/Archive 1

Article Rewrite
It's great that a new version of the article is being produced. However it is not proper to be putting editorial messages to the into article text. It is better to either put non-displayable comments into the text like this: or better yet, work on the article on a subpage: Rendering (computer graphics)/Newversion until you are ready to go live. --Blainster 22:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

3D emphasis
Seems like this article is too focused on 3D rendering; the first blurb in particular ("The model is a description of three dimensional objects", etc.). I hope I don't have to fix it. :/ &brvbar; Reisio 17:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact looking at it again, this article should probably just be moved to another page like 3D rendering or something and this page made into a general overview with links.  Comments? &brvbar; Reisio 17:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ummm, maybe, yes. but the name would be "rendering (3D computer graphics)" -- being formed from its category. Hxa7241 13:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Acdx ( talk | contribs ) 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Specular Reflection link
There is no need for a direct link to specular reflection here in rendering. It makes mores sense as part of the overall Reflection (computer graphics) article, and is linked to from there.ADH 05:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What about 2D rendering?
This article says very little about 2D computer graphic rendering. I suggest that the article get rewritten to describe all methods of computer graphic rendering including render filters as a simpler umbrella article, while the details of 3D rendering get merged into the 3D rendering article. Oicumayberight 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

3D Rendering
There is significant overlap between these two articles. I think that they need to be made completely seperate. This article should be about the study of rendering (as a descendant of Computer graphics) and the other page should refer to the process (as a descendant of 3D Computer Graphics). In general, we need a distinct branch of articles concerning the study/science of CG and a branch for the process of CG. Adam McCormick 20:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Article crying out for some images
An article on computer graphic rendering so needs to have some images! (I would add some if I had anything suitable). CharlesC 23:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3D Rendering.jpg Would be more appropriate for some shading related article though. Acdx ( talk | contribs ) 06:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree on the image part... Perhaps an image showing different "steps" of rendering? Like, unshaded polys, then textures, lighting, post-processing... --Darkuranium (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to "Image Rendering". Any objections? matt 03:29 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what the site policy is, so haven't done anything about it, but the second external link from this page is clearly an advert for somebody offering professional computer graphics services. Perhaps it should be removed?

Rendering also applies to standard 2D video. This article seems to mention only 3D computer-generated graphics. - Omegatron 16:25, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

yes, i think this should be moved. But to "rendering (computer graphics)" -- since this is a disambiguated page, and its normal, in the subject context, simply to use the word 'rendering' alone, the context being understood. (certainly the phrase 'computer rendering' is never used.) Hxa7241 17:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rendering equation gets its own article?
This article does not offer a very in-depth treatment of the so-called "rendering equation." If no one has any objections, I would like to move this section to its own article and expand it. The BRDF probably also deserves its own article. -- Reedbeta 23:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the article was created the same month you wrote about it being needed. --AVM (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge with CGI?
Maybe this article should be merged into computer-generated imagery. That article is more often linked to, and also much more polished. Most of the technical content in this article can and probably should be moved out to other articles, and a very basic and high-level technical explanation could be added to the CGI article. Unless there are any objections, I will probably start to do this in a couple days. Reedbeta 05:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-- CGI, or Computer Graphics, or 3D Computer Graphics!: all these overlap a great deal, at least in their intent. But thats a different problem...

A more abstract summary would be good in a higher-level page. But rendering also needs a page itself: it has a distinct enough identity in academic and practical worlds, and is a large enough subject. It can organize and relate summaries and links to the more detailed pages below it, some already existing. --Hxa7241 20:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Is this article too big ?
I'm uneasy seeing a mix of broad overview (of such a large field) and details like 'the rendering equation' in one place. Would it be better to make this a minimalist overview, and rely on narrower articles for detailed descriptions (scanning rendering? ray casting? radiosit?, rasterisation?, a GPU is ... ?the rendering equation, etc etc).

There's a mixture of links *and overview of what is linked*. It could be simple: "3D rendering is .... ; and is used in .... ; Techniques .." - just 1 page. then let people go to links for detail.

I think it's hard to make large articles coherent. A large body of text assumes context above, but on a wiki many people can change that; and there's ambiguity on whether someone should link to a subset of the larger page, or to a dedicated page. (rendering #equation vs rendering equation? etc).

have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Fmadd (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Strange reference
Reference 48, "hidden surface removal", from 1998 (!) seems wonky. It leads to an archived Web page that describes some random, outdated GPU of no particular importance. It's definitely not a first source description of hidden surface removal - that has been around since the 1970's. I would suggest simply removing that reference, but I hesitate to do it as an anonymous edit. 130.236.67.105 (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Fractals
The article doesn't mention the rendering of fractal images. Should it? - Shiftchange (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Definition
I think that the meaning of the term was also extended to be more general and refer to any process intendent to visualize data, so even opening a simple image file can be considered as rendering. Galzigler (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Avoid rewriting existing pages
It looks like there are already pages on Wikipedia covering many of the topics discussed on this page, as indicated by the Main article links in several sections. Also, these other articles contain more cited/verifiable material than this page does. Since rendering is such a broad topic, would it be worth condensing this page down to an overview of rendering and just linking to these other pages in the Techniques section instead of trying to provide a section for each one?

Thanks, --RubberDuckDebugger (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"image synthesis" redirects here
i added the template, but I am unsure if by now this should be a straight redirect. I think it might be time for a disambiguation page, differentiation between different types of image synthesis. Opinions? --Lommes (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The chronology section needs an update
There must have been some advancements made in the last 20 years. It stops at 2002. Volumetric rendering? GPU rendering? machine learning rendering? VR? I'm no expert, so I'll leave that to someone more knowledgeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.73.226 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)