Talk:3D computer graphics/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 |
The rewrite of this article is being devised at Talk:3D computer graphics/Temp. Please comment or help out as necessary. Thanks! |
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)
