Wikipedia:Picture peer review/File:Bump map vs isosurface.png

Bump map vs isosurface




Long version starts here: I've done some minor tidying to the article on bump mapping recently, including sourcing the key problem or limitation with the technique that shapes given a bump map only LOOK like they've got a bumpy surface because of the way they reflect light. The shape itself isn't actually changed. This is important because it can cause problems with obtaining realism in bump mapped images but I was unable to find an image which actually showed this important limitation clearly; so I created this one. I know it's early days for VP, but I think the encyclopaedic value should be clear and I might as well get feedback on it now. I hope there's also a chance for FP.

Some technical background about the image: it has been raytraced using POV-Ray at a high quality using effects such as radiosity (to improve the realism of the ambient lighting) and fog (to soften the background and create the mottled light pattern on the ground). This makes the "fake" CG appearance of the left hand, bump mapped sphere all the more obvious sitting next to the right hand, isosurface sphere.

Short version starts here: High quality ray traced image showing an important, and therefore encyclopaedically valuable, limitation in bump mapping by comparing a bump mapped sphere (left) with a sphere that actually has a bumpy surface (right).


 * Articles this image appears in:Bump mapping


 * Creator:GDallimore (Talk)


 * Suggested by: GDallimore (Talk) 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Version 2 added with improved bump map to show that the technique can give very good effects. Also, I have increased the similarity between the surface texture of the two spheres for easier comparison. Also, slightly increased lighting from the front but higher contrast. Any comments on either version before I submit to FP? GDallimore (Talk) 12:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconder:
 * Interesting and the digital imagery is very good. I can barely wrap my head around what this is (a technique of digital reproduction of a surface?) but yes, I think it could maybe pass. However, I gotta say Ray tracing (graphics) has a lot of very good images. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I agree there's already some great stuff out there. The thing about this image is that it isn't intended to be ultra-high quality - it's intended to be highly encyclopedic with at least some artistic quality. I've been working on some artistic improvements, though, and am ready to do a new version if I get any suggestions for improvements. GDallimore (Talk) 15:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

