Talk:Computer graphics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computer graphics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computer science (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Visualization.
 



Untitled[edit]

Message: The whole content of this article has been moved to Computer graphics (computer science) by User:Trevorgoodchild 24 June 2008, and a new article has been created here by User:Marcel Douwe Dekker the same day. Notice this talk page has not been moved.

The term computer graphics explained[edit]

I reinstated the explanation of the term computer graphics in the article. Some anonymous user is under the impression that this is unnecessary because "links to other meanings of Computer Graphics are already linked at the top of the page"

Now I don't agree. I think it is important that the term itself and its multiple meaning is explained in the beginning of this general introduction article about computer graphics. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can agree that it might be valuable, but without sources I'm loath to add the explanation. What is the "economic branch" who calls it that and where did you get the information. You need a source for those assertions and without them (and some rewording) I don't find that the addition adds anything more than the single sentence hatnote does. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
While I accept and somewhat agree with stricter requirements for citation, a statement technically only requires citation if it is likely to be disputed by an expert in the field. I have rewritten the definition so that I would not dispute it (having partially completed Portal:Computer generated imagery I consider myself an expert, for what it's worth). If others disagree with the given statements, we should move on to the search for citations and/or further rewrites. Dhatfield (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. I agree these things should be (better) referenced. At the moment this is a general problem in several basic articles about visualization. I am working on that. At the moment I am not quite sure where I got that third meaning "The economic branch" from two weeks ago. I doesn't seems to make much sense now. I do think the general introduction of this article could and should need some more work. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see why the note at the top of the page is insufficient. To make an analogy, consider an article on the color orange. At the top of the page you might say, "This is an article about the color orange. For information on the fruit, see Orange (fruit)." There would then be no reason for further discussion of Orange (fruit) on the Orange (color) page. Similarly, there is no reason to further disambiguate the term Computer Graphics on this page -- we have already given the user a very visible redirection to pages that further discuss the broader use of the term computer graphics. As has been stated many times before by various editors, this page pertains to a very particular usage of the word, and should remain that way (especially given the plethora of other pages which more than adequately address the more general use of the term "computer graphics."). In the interest of preserving this distinction, I am moving the present writing to the 3D Computer Graphics page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.198.118 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not delete the content -- it was moved to a more appropriate location (3D Computer Graphics). I am un-reverting for the moment to avoid duplication of content across multiple pages. Please do not make any further changes until a consensus has been reached about whether this new content (i.e., descriptions of other uses of the term "computer graphics") has been reached. It was not part of the original page as of several weeks ago, hence needs to be reviewed by our community before it can be added to the page. 99.233.198.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Marcel: I note that you are an artist, designer, and social theorist. Perhaps you had better leave decisions about what's suitable in an article about academic computer graphics to those of us who are actively engaged in computer graphics research? (i.e., publishing papers at SIGGRAPH and working in computer science departments...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.198.118 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You removed the definition here for about the fifth time. Now in this discussion:
  • Adam McCormick stated, that he can agree that it might be valuable, but it needs to be referenced
  • Dhatfield stated, taht he accepts the defintion, but proposed a rewritte, which he did.
So three editors are here in favour of the definition here. This is completely clear. Removing the defintion here is an act of vandalism. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Consensus does not a good article make. Or would you have us violate Wikipedia's guidelines on style merely because the mob reached a consensus? You still have not addressed my main thesis: the information you propose adding to the page is unnecessary because it is already adequately addressed at the top of the article, and more than adequately addressed in the articles linked to from the top of this article. Please address this point before making further changes. Edits should be made on the basis of reason, not on the basis of consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.198.118 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably the whole problem here is that you are so engaged in computer graphics research (i.e., publishing papers at SIGGRAPH and working in computer science departments. You don't understand that it is needed the explain the term to the ordinariy people.
Or maybe... maybe I don't understand. That the term computer graphics doesn't mean: 2D computer graphics and 3D computer graphics, focussing on visual presentation of aesthetically or artistically appealing images or animation to a broad audience.
In my opinion this is just a matter of how Wikipedia articles are designed. Yes I am not an expert in computer graphics, but I am an expert in Wikipedia. Maybe you should except that. But then agian, maybe I am just mistaken here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No, what you say is essentially correct, that the term "computer graphics" in a broad sense does indeed mean something like "2D computer graphics and 3D computer graphics, focussing [sic] on visual presentation of aesthetically or artistically appealing images or animation to a broad audience." However (and pay close attention here because this is the main point), this page is NOT a page on computer graphics in a broad sense. Rather, it is a page about computer graphics in a specific sense. Hence, this page itself need not account for all the possible uses for the term - it should merely be accountable for its particular usage of the term. Beyond that, it already links to computer graphics in the more general sense, which is more accessible to the causal reader.
Please address this point before making any further edits / reversions! 99.233.198.118 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. In my opinion this is just the "main" introduction article about computer graphics. This article should have to explain first the term and that there is a broad meaning and a specific meaning.
While it may be your present understanding that this article is the overview page for computer graphics, it is, in fact, not the overview article. In fact, as the first statement clearly indicates, "This article is about the scientific discipline of computer graphics." Also note the top of the discussion page the notice that says "This article focuses on the academic discipline of computer graphics rather than applications."
I propose the following solution to this silly debate: create a page called Computer Graphics (Overview) or simply create a Computer Graphics disambiguation page. You can then paste your discussion of the different meanings of computer graphics on that page. I think it may even be nice to have a page dedicated to disambiguating and discussing the various meanings of computer graphics! But that discussion does not belong to a page that has been structured around a particular meaning.
Now this a problem in more articles about visualization, like diagram, illustration, infographic, scientific visualisation and visualization. Lately I have been working to improve that situation, because there are a lot of serious problems here and in Wikicommons. One step to improve this situation is by the introduction of explanations of the most basic term. I just introduced that here, and I will like to keep it, taht way for the moment.
Now you are right about one thing. The introduction of this explanation with a broad and specific meaning, also creates some misunderstanding, because this article is just about specific meaning. That is just a consequence. The reader itself should notice that the remaining part of the article is jsut about "the study of". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and the reader should also notice that the beginning of the article says that it is not about computer graphics in general!

Hello - I just noticed the controversy you all are having on this page and thought I would chime in. I have engaged in similar discussions with Adam and others about the purpose and organization of this page in the past, and have put considerable effort into keeping it focused on computer graphics as a subfield of computer science (otherwise it tends to get flooded with some pretty weird stuff ;). In an effort to keep the original "spirit" of this page, I have created a disambiguation page which hopefully mediates among all of your objectives for the page. Thanks! Trevorgoodchild (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The disambiguation page is definitely an improvement. However, I still think it bears spelling it out to the reader, in text, in the introduction and/or body of the article, the full range of what 'Computer graphics' means (to everyone) and what this specific page is about. If this page is to be 'Computer graphics (academic)' then call it that. But to hijack a page with such a broad name for a narrowly and arbitrarily defined scope, place an unsigned, dictatorial message at the top of the talk page and shout down and 5R other editors input is just not on. Sorry 99... this place runs by consensus. Period. Deal with it. If the article was particularly good, I would be more lenient on your aggressive and unfriendly behaviour, but it's not. As for the specific form I believe a textual disambiguation / definition should take, see below. Dhatfield (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

History needs improvement[edit]

As of July 22 2008, the history section reads:

"One of the first displays of computer animation was Futureworld (1976), which included an animation of a human face and hand — produced by Ed Catmull and Fred Parke at the University of Utah."

This is not a very good summary of the development of the field! Who were the pioneering researchers? What did they accomplish?99.233.198.118 (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the history in general is a little narrow, then veers into needless definitions (the analogy on vector vs raster). We had people beginning to research 3D algorithms and other advanced stuff in the 60s, so I'm extremely skeptical that we can only trace computer graphics back to 1961. Realistically, can't we say something like, you know, "Computer graphics appeared as soon as computers were capable of producing visual output. The earliest documented example of a reference to computerized graphics was in 1939, when early bulb-based displays were programmed to display a smiley face -- thus acting in a near-identical manner to a pixel-driven display!" (Note: not actual history, heh)

Actually, on that, I'd submit that computer graphics began (I know, people get sick of hearing about this, but its true!) with the Jacquard Loom, if not earlier: you've got a programmable device whose very reason to exist is to produce a graphical output (colorful woven cloth, right?). In fact, if I understand the JL right, this even coubnts as a very early example of vector graphics, as his output method was creating a visual pattern through arrangement of primitive shapes -- the "lines" being the threads, no? ...i'd love to write one, but I don't have the historical research to fill in the details. I'm liking the Jacquard concept, though, and its hard to get much earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.75.149 (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition of computer graphics moves (summary)[edit]

I have the added a defintion on 2 July 2008:

The term Computer graphics has multiple meaning:
  • Field of science, which studies the manipulation of visual and geometric information using computational techniques. Computer graphics as an academic discipline focuses on the mathematical and computational foundations of image generation and processing rather than purely aesthetic issues.
  • The economic branch which deals with the creating and modification of an image on a screen.
  • The images created on a computer, created or mainpulated on a two dimensional or three dimensional, see 2D computer graphics and 3D computer graphics.

Now Dhatfield has rewritten the defintion on 20 july 2008:

Computer graphics has two meanings in common use:
  1. Sub-fields of computer science and electrical engineering which study the manipulation of visual and geometric information. Computer graphics as an academic discipline focuses on the mathematical and computational foundations of image generation and processing rather than aesthetic issues.
  2. 2D computer graphics and 3D computer graphics, focussing on visual presentation of aesthetically or artistically appealing images or animation to a broad audience.

Since 20 July 99.233.198.118 has removed the first definition twince and the second defintion three times now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of computer graphics[edit]

There is a general problem with the definition of the term Computer graphics is Wikipedia and Wiktionary. This article currently states:

Computer graphics is a sub-field of computer science which studies methods for digitally synthesizing and manipulating visual content. Although the term often refers to three-dimensional computer graphics, it also encompasses two-dimensional graphics and image processing.

At the moment computer graphics

  1. the representation and manipulation of pictorial data by a computer
  2. the various technologies used to create and manipulate such pictorial data
  3. the images so produced

Now this Wikipedia article doens't mention the three meanings and Wiktionary doesn't mention the one meaning given here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It guess that this can be solved by adding the subfield of computer science on the forth place. Like this:
  1. the representation and manipulation of pictorial data by a computer
  2. the various technologies used to create and manipulate such pictorial data
  3. the images so produced
  4. a sub-field of computer science which studies methods for digitally synthesizing and manipulating visual content.
Now I wonder in real life which meanings are the most important, and I doubt this is the subfield of computer science. Here I see the same problem Dhatfield already mentioned above, that one group of editors seems to have hijacked the common term.
Renaming this page to Computer graphics (study) or Computer graphics science seems to me a solution here.
Then we can start a new article here, beginning with one of these definitions. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. There is no dispute that the current article refers to a subfield of computer science. Logically this article should be at Computer graphics (Computer science). A requirement for a good article is that it provides comprehensive coverage of the topic. The Computer graphics article should provide an overview of all of the wiktionary definitions and relevant articles. Dhatfield (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole article rewritten[edit]

Since User:Trevorgoodchild copied the existing article to Computer graphics (computer science) I have reconstructed a new article here, based on the Topics list of the new Portal:Computer graphics by User:Dhatfield. Now off cause I only made a draft for a new start here. I hope this works out well. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrative irregularities[edit]

There have happend two administrative irregularities to this page in the last day:

  1. First User:Trevorgoodchild copied the whole content to the Computer graphics (computer science), when I think, he should have moved the whole page inclusive the history.
  2. Second user:99.233.198.118 repeatedly wants to remove the content of this talk page.

Now the third irregularity is that I reintroduced a whole new article here, in a few hours after Trevorgoodchild removed the whole content.

I think we should ask an administrator for some help here. Maybe he/she can

  1. First revers the latest edits to this article, and Trevorgoodchild creation of the new article Computer graphics (computer science)
  2. The move this whole article inclusive history and talk page to the Computer graphics (computer science) article
  3. And then reinstate my new article here.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, a cut-and-paste move! If only us regular users could carry out our own {{db-author}} requests, User:Trevorgoodchild could fix it up easily... I guess an administrator is needed now though. --tiny plastic Grey Knight 13:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I think this is now fixed... EyeSerenetalk 13:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is all right like this. Now the content of the current talk page isn't moved to Computer graphics (computer science) which I think is ok, because in essence all previous discussing was concerning computer graphics. I don think some of the discussion here can be archived. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
If you need the talk page moved too I can do that, but since the talk belongs to both articles it might be confusing. Perhaps just an indication of when the page was moved would suffice (plus some judicious archiving as you suggest). EyeSerenetalk 14:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have added a message. Is this what you meant!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The box at the top of the comments page starting with "This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:" needs to be moved to Computer Graphics (computer science) as well, since this page is no longer about the subfield of computer science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.198.118 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for asking first. You are partly mistaken here. I think both articles should be taged with the same tag, but this is something the WikiProject determine themselve. Now I run the WikiProject system, and definitly wants this article within the scope of the WikiProject Systems. If you question the existence of the other templates, you should ask these WikiProjects. This is simply not for you to decide. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, Marcel[edit]

I haven't been around much recently and when I came here it blew me away. Your work here is absolutely brilliant. Dhatfield (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I ought to thank you. In the first edit summary I stated, see here: "Whole new article, a start - based on the Topics list of the new Portal:Computer graphics by User:Dhatfield". The redesign of this article is based on your overview of computer graphics. So if you have some more ideas about this please let me know. I for example noticed that the German article here is featured. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The attribution was seen and appreciated, but your effort to bring together diverse summaries and images renders the portal obsolescent - which is ideal. I'm reading up on lighting and rendering so that I can contribute more to the sub-articles with images and text. I don't read German, so I'm afraid I can't help there - some of the best map creators were on .de. Captain Blood comes to mind, pity he is inactive. German Wikipedia Maps still beats the pants off the English resources. Dhatfield (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

missing buzzwords[edit]

The theme of this article[edit]

I have undid the rewrite of this article because the theme of this article is:

and not

That is the whole idea behind the rewrite of this article, see previous discussion.

The article about "Computer graphics as a branch of computer science" is relocated at Computer graphics (computer science) july 2008.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand why there should be a division between computer graphics and computer graphics within computer science. Nearly everything currently in this article is about computer graphics within computer science and would fit perfectly within the other article. The only thing this division adds to the article is the “Overview” section which gives a dictionary definition of computer graphics which I think is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
The field of computer graphics studies how to make “graphics created using computers”. Every single “graphic created using a computer” involves the field of computer graphics since that is what the field is all about. This is like saying that we need two articles for Pottery: one for the craft of making pottery and another for the objects that are created by the pottery craft. I don’t understand this.
I don’t think many people are going to ever see the computer graphics (computer science) article. I wasn’t aware of it until you deleted all the revisions I spent hours preparing. There is no link to this other article that I can see. But more importantly when people want to learn about the field of computer graphics, they’re going to first see this article and think that they found the right article. I thought I found the right article and I still do because nearly everything in the article is about the field of computer graphics.
Instantaneous (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that most curious users who want to know about computer graphics will probably come here first. But I also am curious as to what can be said about the science of computer graphics. This article should say very little about the science and more about the application. If more can be said about the science, then it should be a separate article linked to this article. The ultimate goal is to avoid having an article that is too long and lacks focus. A Broader focus is fine as long as the article doesn't get too long. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree there should be a better link to the scientific discipline of computer graphics article Computer graphics (computer science), so I added a extra note on top of the article.

Now I do think reverting the changes, you Instantaneous made, was the right thing to do for now. You said it yourself, that you didn't know of the existence of that article. And frankly I think you made this article into a copy of that Computer graphics (computer science) article. It seems to me you have been improving the wrong article.

The fact that you erased most of the current article, tells me you don't appreciate the picture the current article is given. I agree with Oicumayberight that this article is more about the application. I indeed designed this article to be (just) a simple overview article about the practice, using the structure User:Dhatfield had designed for the Portal:Computer graphics. This overview article wants to give a answer to a view simple questions:

  • How did the computer graphic develop?
  • Which type of image types exist?
  • Which basis types of concepts and principles are used?
  • What are the applications?
  • Which are the famous people and images?

....etc. independent from the story of the scientific study of computer science, which is an other story. Now I think both stories are important. I don't care if they are told in one article or in two. And Oicumayberight is right that one article could be to long. But in the changes Instantaneous made, I think the first story was eliminated.

This doesn't mean I think the current situation is perfect. Far from that. I think both articles can be improved. Some of the history section here, should be moved to the Computer graphics (computer science), and some more appropriate history should be add here. This article has a lot of sections which can be filled in. I would propose to first improve both articles, before thinking about merging them.

Now I don't understand you remark, that "a dictionary definition of computer graphics is inappropriate for an encyclopedia". I think in a introduction and overview article it is very important to add such definition, especially when there are such a different meanings of the word.

So again. I would propose to first improve both articles, before thinking about merging them. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I still feel like nearly everything in this article, whether people realize it or not, falls under the category of computer science. Everything in rendering is definitely computer science. The history section is just a history of computer science. Maybe people find the term “computer science” intimidating, but they shouldn’t. It’s just the study of how to get computers to do things. If you want to know anything about computer graphics besides it can make pretty pictures, you need to understand something about the technology and then you’re talking about computer science.
I don’t like the overview section. First, it doesn’t give an overview of the article at all. I don’t like how the focus of the article is basically on semantics. The article’s focus is on a detail discussion of all the different ways that the term Computer Graphics could be used. How is the "manipulation of pictorial data" all that different from the technology for manipulating it? All you study in the field of computer graphics is the technology for doing computer graphics. So how is the field all that different from the technology?
Instantaneous (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between studying the elements and dynamics of computer graphics (science) and the application of computer graphics (technology). Science is what it is. Technology is what it's used for. There is also some overlap there in how it works, that can be stated in both articles. If "how it works" is the same as "how it's used" that is technology. If "how it works" doesn't pertain to any specific usage, then it's scientific. Now if you want to argue that computer science really isn't a science, that's a different subject. This article is not a place to make such a WP:POINT. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don’t want to debate this point, but since you brought it up. Computer scientists study technology. They’re more like engineers than true scientists. Scientists discover how the natural world operates. There’s no scientific mystery as to how a computer operates. They were designed by humans. No one is dissecting computers like you would dissect a frog to figure it out how it works. Like engineers, computer scientists study how to improve technology. I really don’t want to debate this point. Frankly, I don’t care if you consider computer science to be a part of science or engineering. This debate is not important, but the article itself makes it seem important. The entire overview section discusses semantics. The article makes the controversial claim that people who study computer graphics study something else beside computer graphics technology. We could avoid this entire issue by removing it from the overview section.
Instantaneous (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing these semantics isn't an option. There is no question the term "Computer graphics" has multiple meaning, and then the overview section is the place to start explaining. I don't share your concern: The article makes the controversial claim that people who study computer graphics study something else beside computer graphics technology...?? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's an option. I don't see how it contributes to the article. People interested in semantics should consult a dictionary. People interested in learning something about computer graphics should consult Wikipedia. Lots of words have multiple meanings, but we don't need to include them all. "Pottery" could mean the craft of pottery or it could mean the objects produced by the craft. That is the only difference between the fourth definition "the craft of making computer graphics" and the other three. This debate isn't leading anywhere. I disapprove of this article, but I won't make any more major changes.
Instantaneous (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The listing is a reminder that we can talk about four thing, when we speak of "computer graphics: The object, the craft, the study of... and the type of representation." The introduction makes clear this article is going to speak about the object and the craft, and there is a second article about the study. If you don't make these things real clear in Wikipedia, some other editor will add a multi-issue tag on top of the article, see for example the enterprise architecture article, which can be there for months (and years).
The current the situation of two articles also gives the advantage, that we can tell two stories here. The story about the object and the story about the study. Especially the history of both and the representatives of both are not the same. As I said before, I think both articles can use inprovement, and in general I think you allready making those improvements, with your current edits. I think there are other solutions to your objections. If you think the current overview section is all about semantics (I thing it is less then 50%) you could consider expanding the section, so it will be just 25%. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles[edit]

This article or section appears to have been copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles, possibly in violation of a copyright. This has occurred:

  • July 2008 when I rewrote this article at User:Mdd/Computer graphics July 23, and
  • Here, when I expanded this article July 23 and July 25, 2008.

I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I might be willing to assist, but I'm still upset about what happened when I edited it a few months ago. I don't know if this is the right place to complain. I'm new to Wikipedia. This was the first article I really tried to edit and it will probably be the last. Basically, I spent several days working on revisions and everything I did was immediately deleted without considering even some of my changes. You deleted my revisions because they were too technical and told me to put them into the Computer Graphics (Computer Science) article. I did that, but those revisions immediately got deleted because supposedly they were not technical enough. I just finished a PhD studying computer graphics and I don't have enough time to deal with this aggravation. Instantaneous (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not good. Let us take a closer look:
  • At 18 April 2009 you rewrote the entire article (see here), which I indeed reverted, however: We have had a long discussion about this in the past talk item (see here)
  • At 19 April 2009 you rewrote some (bigger) parts of this article (see here), and afterwards I made only some minor changes, see here. Your changes here are still in place, as you can see in the total edits made since your last edit on April 19, 2009, see here.
  • Now the reverting at Computer graphics (computer science), see here is something you better discuss there and not here.
Now it seems to me that with your second edit here, you already assisted in dealing with some of the possible copy-vio problems here. You rewrote several of the quotes I added to this article. The copy-paste registration is something I like to fix myself later on. I also have to double check if there are still quotes in this article, that fail quotation marks and/or need some rewriting. You could look into it if you want. I hope this addresses your concerns. -- Mdd (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised at the copyvio notice. Is this really necessary? By it's nature this article draws on other wikipedia content. Naturally, it would benefit from more input but I think it's a reasonable Start-class. I hope that Instantaneous reads German, they have a FA :) Anyway, the copyvio notice implies that it was copied from non-free sources, which is incorrect if the content came from other WP articles. Dhatfield (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, never mind. [Insert witticism about copyleft militants here]. Dhatfield (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I have solved most of the copy-vio problems here as I explained in the next two talk items. This work gave me a few ideas about further improvement of this article I do read German and I noticed they have an interesting section about "Anwendungen" or applications. Right now I have other copy-vio problems in my work to take care of, and I will get back on this. I also realize I caused a lot of trouble here by not using the quotation marks needed. This probably also gave confusion with the rewriting of the article. Again I apologize to the both of you, and will try to do better next time. -- Mdd (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration[edit]

This article is started as a draft version on User:Mdd/Computer graphics. This copy-paste registration there:

Further copy-paste registration here in this article:

-- Mdd (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing ??[edit]

I am double checking possible copy-vio's and I wonder if there is still a matter of close paraphrasing in the last paragraph of the current overview section, see here . It states:

Today computers and computer-generated images touch many aspects of our daily life. Computer imagery is found on television, in newspapers, in weather reports, and during surgical procedures. A well-constructed graph can present complex statistics in a form that is easier to understand and interpret. Such graphs are used to illustrate papers, reports, theses, and other presentation material. A range of tools and facilities are available to enable users to visualize their data, and computer graphics are used in many disciplines. [2]

The original first version of this text was in the initial 23 July 2008 20:25u version of this article, see here :

Today much of our life is affected by computers, and by computer graphics. Whether you see them on television, in newspapers, in weather reports or while at the doctor's surgery, computer images are all around you. A well-chosen graph is able to transform a complex table of numbers into meaningful results. Such graphs are used to illustrate papers, reports, and theses, as well as providing the basis for presentation material in the form of slides and overhead transparencies. A range of tools and facilities are available to enable users to visualise their data, and computer graphics are used in many disciplines. [2]

The differences between those two versions are substantial, see here .

Also that initial version was a close paraphrased summary of this original of the online source: University of Leeds ISS (2002). "What are computer graphics?".

"Today there are very few aspects of our lives not affected by computers... [and by] computer graphics. Whether you see them on television, in newspapers, in weather reports or while at the doctor's surgery, computer images are all around you... A well-chosen graph is able to transform a complex table of numbers into meaningful results. Such graphs are used to illustrate papers, reports, and theses, as well as providing the basis for presentation material in the form of slides and overhead transparencies. A range of tools and facilities are available to enable users to visualise their data, and this document provides a brief summary and overview... [and] computer graphics are used in many disciplines".

The whole original text of this version looked like this: a text over five paragraphs:

Today there are very few aspects of our lives not affected by computers. Practically every cash or monetary transaction that takes place daily involves a computer. In many cases, the same is true of computer graphics. Whether you see them on television, in newspapers, in weather reports or while at the doctor's surgery, computer images are all around you.
"A picture is worth a thousand words" is a well-known saying, and highlights the advantages and benefits of the visual presentation of our data. We are able to obtain a comprehensive overall view of our data and also study features and areas of particular interest.
A well-chosen graph is able to transform a complex table of numbers into meaningful results. Such graphs are used to illustrate papers, reports, and theses, as well as providing the basis for presentation material in the form of slides and overhead transparencies.
A range of tools and facilities are available to enable users to visualise their data, and this document provides a brief summary and overview.
Computer graphics are used in many disciplines and subjects but for the purpose of this document, we will split the topic of computer graphics into the following fields:
Source: University of Leeds ISS (2002). "What are computer graphics?". Webdocument at iss.leeds.ac.uk.

I guess my question here is, if this is still a matter of close paraphrasing? If you compare the first and last version here:

  • There are still a few similar phrases in both text, more specific:
    • "on television, in newspapers, in weather reports"
    • "such graphs are used to illustrate papers, reports, theses"
    • "a range of tools and facilities are available to enable users to visualize their data"
    • "computer graphics are used in many disciplines".
  • The tone of both text is quite similar. I think you could call it a neutral tone, that is why I made the summary in the first place.

I think if we want to stay on the save side, this paragraph should be rewritten, or quotation marks should be added. -- Mdd (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this also concerns the Portal:Computer graphics/Intro because much of the text of this last paragraph is used there as well. -- Mdd (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
To make it even more interesting the original text has a Copyright notice stating.
Although formal copyright is reserved, members of academic institutions may republish the material in this document subject to due acknowledgement of its source
We might not be members of academic institutions but "due acknowledgement of its source" has been attributed..? -- Mdd (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess for now to avoid any copy vio claim some of those four phrases still there can be adjusted using quotion marks. For the future I think it is better if this section should be analyzed all over and rewritten as a whole. -- Mdd (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In the history section[edit]

In the history section a similar situation has taken place. The inital text could be closely paraphrased. Also here the article has been changed even more in the past 16 months, see here. Most of these edits have been made by User:Instantaneous, see here April 2009.

I noticed that two phrase has stayed the same:

  • "would help shape the early computer and computer graphics industries", and
  • "by releasing the IBM 2250 graphics terminal, the first commercially available graphics computer".

I will add quotation marks there and let it be.

-- Mdd (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes about computer graphics[edit]

Interesting quotes about computer graphics CG possibly for further enhancement of this article:

  • "The purpose of a computer graphic is just the same as a manually produced illustration: the aim is to provide a visual representation either to enhance or replace textual information. A computer graphic can be a drawing, a painting, a scanned image, a photograph, a diagram, model or a combination of any of these pictural forms".
    • Carol Elston (2007) Using ICT in the primary school, p.52.

Comment: If I am correct there is no general agreement that any drawing, painting, scanned image, or photograph should be considered a CG...!? -- Mdd (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Some quotes from PD sources[edit]

Interesting quotes about computer graphics from PD sources:

  • Computer graphics aid public understanding through simplification of data or alteration of images. Computer-generated graphics show tables, graphs, diagrams, or charts in dramatic and understandable ways. They become part of printed reports and are shown on computer screens or television monitors. They can incorporate videos or video simu lations of proposals, programs, or projects.
  • Why are they useful?
    • Computer-generated images provide information in a stimulating, visual way. Images are more effective, immediate, and powerful than words in conveying a message. Visual images are universally understood and help surmount language barriers. Whether people are computer-literate or not, they readily respond to the visual images of computer presentations. With an image at hand, discussion among members of the community and relevant public agencies moves beyond conjecture to more substantial issues and concerns. (See Americans with Disabilities; Ethnic, Minority, and Low-income Groups.)
    • Computer presentations and simulations enhance interactive communication. Images are used to accommodate and incorporate community suggestions over a series of meetings. Com munity leaders explore "what if" scenarios and investigate the potential for change. Geographers at the University of Illinois have developed GIS systems for use by county planners. The system employs an interactive planning system that coordinates related information. On a computerized county map, users gain access to detailed maps or photographic images of a site. They sketch in suggestions and make copies of images, attaching text, audio, or graphic annotations. Users’ suggestions are then compared directly to the original image.
    • Computer images convey complex information in easily-digested segments. Individualized pieces of data on demographics or economic impacts can be turned into graphics for participants to discuss. They can present environmental and æsthetic impacts. Simulations can give a bird’s-eye, pedestrian’s, or passenger’s view, standing still or in motion.
    • Showing a potential facility in a familiar context enhances understanding. Digitized photographic images help overcome misconceptions and serve as a check against distortion or misrep resentation by either promoters or critics. Digitized before-and-after photos have been used by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT), the New York State DOT, and the Massa chusetts Highway Department to demonstrate how high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes would look if applied in specific corridors. The Finnish National Road Administration has used this technique in developing its master plan for Helsinki.
    • Source: COMPUTER PRESENTATIONS AND SIMULATIONS United States Department of Transportation.

Comment: There is some more interesting general information in that US DOT COMPUTER PRESENTATIONS AND SIMULATIONS document. Unfortunately it is looks a lot like wishfull thinking... It maybe would be nice to go look for scientific research results here? Just filtering real info from this text might be an other option. -- Mdd (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate heading images?[edit]

The images at the top of article are hardly suitable for the heading of the field of computer graphics. The first is a screenshot of Blender, a much latter development based on early research in the field. It is neither the first nor the most widely used in the field. The software is not described, nor its purpose, making it illegible to the lay reader. The second is a complex mathematical example from 4 to 3 to 2 dimensions that requires the reader to follow three links to unknown terms. A good wikipedia article for an entire field is one in which a reader outside the field would have some hope of understanding from the examples provided. Images should be foundational, simple, and descriptive of the field, which these are not. Better examples might be Turner Whitted's raytraced spheres, or simply the RGB structure of digital images.

You may have a point in what you say. If you find something that you may fit there better, please either change it to what you think is better (see Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages), or go to the talk page and discuss it. Please also sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) so it's possible to see who is writing. —Kri (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

True pioneer?[edit]

While he had an important effect (started Blender), Ton Roosendaal doesn't seem in the same category as the other pioneers - his first experience in computer graphics appears to be 1989. There are tons of (generally more important) people that predate him: Lance Williams, Frank Crow, Pat Hanrahan, Paul Heckbert, Marc Levoy, on and on. "Pioneer" to me means before 1980 at latest. I would remove Ton's name, and in fact will now do so. Feel free to add him back, but explain why. Erich666 (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, this section has an odd name, "Pioneers in graphics design" - it's more like pioneering researchers and authors, with a very few graphics design people (i.e., artists). I don't quite know how I'd reform it. Erich666 (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No ILM, etc. in article on CG?[edit]

From a practical, real world perspective, omitting this and other major industrial contributions seems odd. Same comment, re: lack of description, business "sectors" with historic and continuing benefit from CG (science and scientific imaging, film/entertainment, etc.). LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.245.235 (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)