This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Computer graphics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
I have the added a defintion on 2 July 2008:
Now Dhatfield has rewritten the defintion on 20 july 2008:
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)
There is a general problem with the definition of the term Computer graphics is Wikipedia and Wiktionary. This article currently states:
At the moment computer graphics
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)
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)
There have happend two administrative irregularities to this page in the last day:
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
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 12:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Done I think this is now fixed...
EyeSerene
talk
13:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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:
....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)
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)
This article or section appears to have been copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles, possibly in violation of a copyright. This has occurred:
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)
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)
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:
The original first version of this text was in the initial 23 July 2008 20:25u version of this article, see here :
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?".
The whole original text of this version looked like this: a text over five paragraphs:
I guess my question here is, if this is still a matter of close paraphrasing? If you compare the first and last version here:
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 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 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:
I will add quotation marks there and let it be.
-- Mdd ( talk) 21:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting quotes about computer graphics CG possibly for further enhancement of this article:
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)
Interesting quotes about computer graphics from PD sources:
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)
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.
Hello everyone! I think it's high time we replaced the header image with something other than an 11-year-old Blender screenshot. I took the liberty of putting together a little collage, similar to those that appear on pages about cities or biology. Here is what I put together:
Any thoughts? Are there any good images I may have overlooked? Please also advise regarding the appropriate licensing for this kind of composite, I wasn't sure how to approach it. -- PlantPerson ( talk) 17:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello: The phrase was coined by computer graphics researcher William Fetter of Boeing in 1960.
This is not more correct. Because William Fetter himself corrected in an article somewhere in the net this information, some time after 2012. I know to find the source and try to correct it with a source. - -- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 19:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello - The quote is complet with the sentence: Fetter has said that the terms were actually given to him by Verne Hudson of the Wichita Division of Boeing. Hudson was his supervisor at Boeing. Boeing Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Pouska ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello
I am not sure, but I find nothing via google about Sujit Shetty. It was added to Further reading.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 05:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, @ Philg88:, @ John of Reading: in the part - Pioneers in computer graphics - you find: Aaron Marcus. [1]
This looks for me like an Advertising and PR for the company: Aaron Marcus and Associates, Inc. I find nothing what this man make to a pioneer. In addition, nothing to find that hi need to stay at this place of honor.
Look at William Fetter, Graphic Designer starting 1958 at Boeing, coining the word Computer Graphics Design with his team, and with much more credits to his name. That’s a place for Fetter – a real pioneer. Aaron Marcus is a teacher and something else but never a pioneer. I am sorry but this my 2 cents. This need to be deleted because of WP:COI and A, B, C.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 17:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Thestormykhajiit: you edited : Computer graphics are pictures and movies created using computers, such as CGI - Question: did you mean a company which build computers with the name CGI? If I do a search via google then I don't find a company at the first pages. Can you please fix it or can I do it? CGI is now used for Computer-generated imagery and etc. I remember the computers by Silicon Graphics International (SGI). Best.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 06:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello
the difference between a company and a organizations is? The organizations is not a company. This part of the article need to be cleaned and the companies deleted or moved. Best.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 23:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Computer graphics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Computer graphics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Tamás Waliczky is not a pionier - I don't find no citation for this. OK, he is an artist in Medias and has an artikel on WP. I undo it.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Computer graphics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Computer graphics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 06:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure why a roboticist and MIT professor working in a related field is listed among "Other pioneers" on the Computer Graphics article in the same list as Ed Catmull. 2601:549:4302:E750:7547:E2BF:A435:E313 ( talk) 15:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I feel that history should have its own article, and be replaced here with a summarization. This is a very large topic and can be expanded upon much further, which makes me think it could be seperate from this article. Thoughts? Coulomb1 ( talk) 23:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Computer graphics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
I have the added a defintion on 2 July 2008:
Now Dhatfield has rewritten the defintion on 20 july 2008:
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)
There is a general problem with the definition of the term Computer graphics is Wikipedia and Wiktionary. This article currently states:
At the moment computer graphics
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)
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)
There have happend two administrative irregularities to this page in the last day:
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
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 12:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Done I think this is now fixed...
EyeSerene
talk
13:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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:
....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)
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)
This article or section appears to have been copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles, possibly in violation of a copyright. This has occurred:
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)
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)
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:
The original first version of this text was in the initial 23 July 2008 20:25u version of this article, see here :
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?".
The whole original text of this version looked like this: a text over five paragraphs:
I guess my question here is, if this is still a matter of close paraphrasing? If you compare the first and last version here:
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 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 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:
I will add quotation marks there and let it be.
-- Mdd ( talk) 21:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting quotes about computer graphics CG possibly for further enhancement of this article:
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)
Interesting quotes about computer graphics from PD sources:
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)
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.
Hello everyone! I think it's high time we replaced the header image with something other than an 11-year-old Blender screenshot. I took the liberty of putting together a little collage, similar to those that appear on pages about cities or biology. Here is what I put together:
Any thoughts? Are there any good images I may have overlooked? Please also advise regarding the appropriate licensing for this kind of composite, I wasn't sure how to approach it. -- PlantPerson ( talk) 17:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello: The phrase was coined by computer graphics researcher William Fetter of Boeing in 1960.
This is not more correct. Because William Fetter himself corrected in an article somewhere in the net this information, some time after 2012. I know to find the source and try to correct it with a source. - -- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 19:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello - The quote is complet with the sentence: Fetter has said that the terms were actually given to him by Verne Hudson of the Wichita Division of Boeing. Hudson was his supervisor at Boeing. Boeing Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Pouska ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello
I am not sure, but I find nothing via google about Sujit Shetty. It was added to Further reading.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 05:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, @ Philg88:, @ John of Reading: in the part - Pioneers in computer graphics - you find: Aaron Marcus. [1]
This looks for me like an Advertising and PR for the company: Aaron Marcus and Associates, Inc. I find nothing what this man make to a pioneer. In addition, nothing to find that hi need to stay at this place of honor.
Look at William Fetter, Graphic Designer starting 1958 at Boeing, coining the word Computer Graphics Design with his team, and with much more credits to his name. That’s a place for Fetter – a real pioneer. Aaron Marcus is a teacher and something else but never a pioneer. I am sorry but this my 2 cents. This need to be deleted because of WP:COI and A, B, C.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 17:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Thestormykhajiit: you edited : Computer graphics are pictures and movies created using computers, such as CGI - Question: did you mean a company which build computers with the name CGI? If I do a search via google then I don't find a company at the first pages. Can you please fix it or can I do it? CGI is now used for Computer-generated imagery and etc. I remember the computers by Silicon Graphics International (SGI). Best.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 06:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello
the difference between a company and a organizations is? The organizations is not a company. This part of the article need to be cleaned and the companies deleted or moved. Best.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 23:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Computer graphics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Computer graphics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Tamás Waliczky is not a pionier - I don't find no citation for this. OK, he is an artist in Medias and has an artikel on WP. I undo it.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Computer graphics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Computer graphics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 06:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure why a roboticist and MIT professor working in a related field is listed among "Other pioneers" on the Computer Graphics article in the same list as Ed Catmull. 2601:549:4302:E750:7547:E2BF:A435:E313 ( talk) 15:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I feel that history should have its own article, and be replaced here with a summarization. This is a very large topic and can be expanded upon much further, which makes me think it could be seperate from this article. Thoughts? Coulomb1 ( talk) 23:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)