Portal talk:Computer graphics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computer graphics (Rated Portal-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Portal  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Portal-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Portal  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated Portal-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Portal  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated Portal-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
 Portal  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is within the field of Visualization.
 

Fix the pentachoron animation[edit]

I can see this gif at a size of 1 287 712 bytes... On my Athlon XP, Internet explorer uses all processor resources any time this gif can be seen on a page. I would suggest to quickly remove it. There is no reason to put an image of this size on Wikipedia. RV 81.249.99.37 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Hey there. A few comments from taking a quick look.

  • The intro section needs to be a true introduction to the topic. At the moment it sort of jumps straight in - "The most widely recognised form of Computer-generated images are three dimensional (3D) animations seen in movies and commercials." What the hell is computer generated imagery? (incidentally, why is it hyphenated in the text but not in the page name?)
  • I took a look at a random picture (this one) and the caption could be improved. What's an "iterative reflection"? Wikilinks are useful. Remember this is an introduction to the topic for someone who knows nothing about it.
  • Also took a look at Portal:Computer generated imagery/Selected article/1; not sure why but it's doubled the width of my browser (the Read more... link is way over to the right). Also, the blurb could also be a bit longer... they usually go longer than the image size (if that makes sense).

Hope these help a bit. —Giggy 08:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Giggy, I missed these comments until now. Definitely things I need to look into - the intro is a dog :) Dhatfield (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Computer graphics[edit]

Hi, good initiative. I wonder why this portal isn't named "Portal:Computer graphics"? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of problems with the term "Computer generated imagery"
  • It is relatively unknown. I was surpriced there was even an Wikipedia article about it.
  • That article already states that it is an application of the field of computer graphics
  • If I look at the content of the portal it also covers the field of computer graphics and more.
  • I have a problem with the term "Computer generated imagery" in general. All images are made by computer nowadays, and all scientific articles are written by computer. But nobody speaks about computer generated articles. It is always the person behind the computer making the adjustments. The computer is just a tool. I don now that the creating of those images by computer requires a lot of methods and techniques but that is covered by the study of computer graphics.
There are some arguments in favour of Portal:Computer graphics
  • It is a regular field of science
  • It is covered in many Wikipedia articles organized in several categories.
  • The main goal of a portal in Wikipedia is to represent this wikipedia coverage.
I know it is a lot of work. But renaming the portal is just a matter of hour work. I know because I designed the Portal:Systems science in a day. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree. I sort of picked the name out of a hat when I was developing it - not good, I know. In addition to your comments, the name is too long. However, in line with your argument, maybe it should be called Portal:Graphics. Practically all graphics are computer generated. Your thoughts? Dhatfield (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, can you please help me with setting this portal up? I have quite little experience with WikiMarkup and I'm making a real hash of it. The images seem incorrectly sized, I have no idea how to set up an article layout - I borrowed the current one from Earth Sciences, so it links to their Archive. I can make the name change (new portal and move) but I don't know how to delete the old one. Would you please help? Dhatfield (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I just prefer Portal:Computer graphics, but not in the way the current computer graphics article is designed, just focussing on the field of study. Some more thoughts:
  • I think graphics is to broad a field, because Graphics applies to both art and science, and if I look at the topics you want to stick to the science.
  • Visualization could be an alternative name, but I think this term is to "undetermined"
  • The term computer graphics in real life both relate to the media, the techniques and the academic study.
  • and in Wikipedia computer graphics both is a clear category in Wikipedia and Wikicommons for some time now.
You can ask some more people, or just give it a try and see if and how it works. Just change the "Portal:Computer generated imagery/Intro" text and it's header in the portal and you see if it works.
My first idea by the way was, that you should change all names of the 25 to 50 pages you created, but now I don't think that is even needed. You can just rename/move the portal page, and then change it in the 25 to 50 pages. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Done - thanks for the encouragement and good ideas. More improvements to come... Dhatfield (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pioneers in Graphic design[edit]

I don't think you can classify Piet Mondrian as a pioneers in Graphic design. Allthough his latest paintings are graphical, that doesn't make him a graphic designer. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to say I just pulled the biography names from assorted linked pages. If you think he should be out, he's out. I'm not much of a biography man myself. Dhatfield (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't be embarrassed. I am impressed by your work any way. There is a lot of trail and error in the beginning of such innovation like this. Maybe I can assist you with some of the biographies. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to this computer graphic portal[edit]

Hi, Dhatfield, good work making this portal operational. Now I made a first design for a link to this portal, which can be introduced in the " see also" section of related articles. If you Dhatfield approve, or have a better idea, we can start introducing these links. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant Marcel. I'll start on this now. Dhatfield (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Links that need to be added to topics[edit]

To do: check if these are in topics, add if not

Texture mapping links

Bump mapping

Animation

Other

Pages with good images[edit]

Unplaced links[edit]

"Did you know?" references[edit]

The "Did you know" box states:

I know this isn't an article, but I would love to have a reference where I can read more about this... Could we do this? At the moment it's a statement we just have to take on blind faith and I'm quite curious why specifically ray-tracing benefits from quantum computation. Errantkid (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Want feedback for improving dolly zoom animation[edit]

Hi. I've noticed for a while that wikipedia lacks a decent (and free) representation of the dolly zoom technique.

I've taken a bash at creating a CG animation which I have uploaded to commons:File:DollyZoomTest.ogv and added to the dolly zoom article. I would like to improve this video with an aim to getting it to featured status and am looking for suggestions on how to do so. Useful feedback could include:

  1. Whether there is a better range of movement/angle of view to show off the technique to its best effect.
  2. What background/foreground objects could be used and in what arrangement.
  3. Colour schemes and other artistic rather than technical suggestions.

You can leave comments here or go to commons:File talk:DollyZoomTest.ogv. Thanks.

I've also dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Want feedback for improving dolly zoom animation page. GDallimore (Talk) 16:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Machinima[edit]

We have a few articles in Category:Machinima. Should any of them be added to the portal as well as the category?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no harm in cross linking. --ToniSant (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
New contributor Natbrock (talk · contribs) tried to add one earlier today; see the history of the misnamed Portal:Computer Graphics/Selected article‎. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
New contributor Natbrock (talk · contribs) is also the user who added the Educational Assignment banner to the top of this talk page. --ToniSant (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Toni, that banner got me confused a couple of days ago. It stated: This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment...", but this is not an article. This is a portal build with frames. Possible contribution here could be, for example:
This is sophisticated stuff, not for beginners. That is why I urged User:Natbrock not to edit this portal again. It seems like I should request you to reconsider his assignment (and the banner added here)? -- Mdd (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Fair comment, and I will be mindful of the different nature of portals to articles, of course. However, you could be a little more good spirited in your dealings with new editors like User:Natbrock. Telling someone not to edit this portal again simply because they're a beginner is actually against WP policies. :-) Isn't it? --ToniSant (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, do you actually want User:Natbrock to improve this portal, or not? As to dealing with new editors: If they repeatedly make edits that disturb the article (or portal), it is normal to ask them not to edit the article/portal anymore... until he/she is clear what he/she wants to accomplish. Until that time he/she should limit themselves to talk pages. -- Mdd (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You're absolutely right! :-) The talk pages are where it should be happening, and I see now that it is. So, no harm done. Just a little misunderstanding. Keep up the great work! --ToniSant (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding a new article to this Portal page?[edit]

The beginning of this discussion is copy/paste here from the Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions(see here)

How do you add a new Article to a Portal? Natbrock (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the problem you're having is that you're clicking edit this page at the top of Portal:Computer graphics, and then confusingly not seeing anything that resembles the content you've just read on that page. If that's the issue, it's happening because the page is made up of other pages pieced together and called there by reference, but which actually exist discretely on their own pages--a process called transclusion. If you want to edit a particular section, go to any one of the blue headers and click on the little white [edit] link inside of the blue header on the right side. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, Can you add a new article instead of editing a article? Natbrock (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Natbrock, I made you a new start at Portal:Computer graphics/Selected article/6 (which is linked to the portal with this edit). Now you can continue in that subpage. -- Mdd (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Because this entry is online, I wikified the entry by adding an image, removed the reference section, and added some white lines. Now you can alter/improve all of these elements as you like, but the lay out should be like the rest. -- Mdd (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for your help and giving me a chance, you have given me a better understanding of wikipedia, and next time I will make sure I learn more about wikipedia first then trying to do things myself Natbrock (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess we got off on the wrong foot. You ideas and input are very much appreciated, even if you cannot get it right the first time. I guess my frustration was, that I couldn't understand what you were up to. Only through the different discussions it became clear. And then, in stead of explaining what you could do, I just did it (because it would take much more effort to explain). Any way, it seems you are right on track again. Good luck on Wikipedia. -- Mdd (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good lighting[edit]

Good lighting.
Could be better.

Hi. I am having a hard time to find a good lighting for files like the one on the right in POV-Ray. It would be great if anyone more experienced in raytracing could improve that. (The source is on the description page.) I don't care in which raytracer, as long as it is free to use. Greetings, mate2code 21:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact you're using shadowless lights doesn't help. Immediately makes everything look flat. Try turning the lights you've got into largish area_lights as first step. A complicate overlapping structure like the one you're trying to light would probably benefit from a touch of radiosity, too. GDallimore (Talk) 23:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I had to use shadowless light, because shadows made it a complete disaster. I am not experienced in raytracing, so what I do will never be really good. It's acceptable to me as it is, but I would be glad, if an expert gave it a try. mate2code 20:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)