Talk:Texture filtering

Major rewrite
This is my first major WP contribution .. How does it look now? Valarauka 13:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Image?
Its a good article. I only find one problem; no image. Perhaps we could find and example of the different filtering methods, showing comparisons between them. You know like different filtering methods on the same CG scene? Other than that its a solid article. PowderedToastMan 03:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect?
From the intro: "In short, it blends the texture pixels together by breaking them up into tinier pixels."

This wording is confusing and is not really what texture filtering does. The sentence that this attempts to explain is clear enough to stand on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.201.178 (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading explanation?
The article states:

Given a square texture mapped on to a square surface in the world, at some viewing distance the size of one screen pixel is exactly the same as one texel. Closer than that, the texels are larger than screen pixels, and need to be scaled up appropriately - a process known as texture magnification. Farther away, each texel is smaller than a pixel, and so one pixel covers multiple texels. In this case an appropriate color has to be picked based on the covered texels, via texture minification.

If the texels are larger than the screen pixels, why do they have to be scaled up? Don't they have to be scaled down instead? Thanks for any clarification. Gromobir (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Answer: Being larger is the emergent correct answer as a result of the rendered projection, so the question becomes, because they are larger how do you sample the original texture. Consequently this sampling of texture to screen implicitly involves enlargement, known as magnification. Conversely when smaller the opposite, known as minification is required.