Talk:3D rendering

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computer graphics Mid‑importance This redirect 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.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is the result of a discussion and a quick fix after the resolution on the Talk:3D computer graphics page. The history for the pages are on the 3d graphic design page. If it's possible for an admin to move the history back to the 3D computer graphics page, that would avoid further confusion. Oicumayberight 07:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interwiki links seem to be a bit crazy here. --Papuass (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to clean them up. This is still an emerging field so no universal vernacular has been established. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does 3D rendering really have to be photorealistic, as the article claims? What about for example cel-shading, isn't that considered to be 3D rendering? —Kri (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I think I've got it now; cel-shading simply isn't 3D rendering. —Kri (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I dunno. I think it's just that our whole coverage of 3d graphics is a mess, imo, technology/industry moves too fast, very scanty 'reliable' sources as Wikipedia defines them. 3D Rendering should be synonymous to Rendering (computer graphics). And yes, cel-shading is a type of 3d rendering, so this article's premise of having to be photorealistic is wrong.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The answer is no. See non-photorealistic rendering. I edited the opening to include that fact. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Programs produce perspective by multiplying a dilation constant raised to the power of the negative of the distance from the observer." I have two remarks about this sentence. 1) It would be 10x as clear in formula form for anyone who knows a bit of math. To those who don't, it's probably arcane anyway. 2) It's possible that this is how computers calculate it, however this formula is NOT equivalent with the projection shown in the figure next to it (observe for example that in the figure, the image would become infinite as the distance to the camera goes to zero, where as the exponential function remains finite at zero). I think the formula corresponding to the figure would either involve some (arc)tangents or even simply a rational function, but certainly no exponentials. Anyway, it's probably noteworthy to mention the discrepancy between figure and algorithm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.106.32 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does the digital photo depicted there really have to be that real. Most video games have good graphics, but not nearly that good. I believe the photo unrealistically depicts this subject.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3D rendering. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302154206/http://hem.passagen.se:80/des/hocg/hocg_1960.htm to http://hem.passagen.se/des/hocg/hocg_1960.htm

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 3D acceleration and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 8#3D acceleration until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

See discussion in Talk for Rendering (computer graphics).

The two articles cover the same topic (standard meaning of "rendering" in computer graphics is rendering 3D scenes). Rendering (computer graphics) was created in 2001, while this article (3D rendering) was created in 2007 (or in 2006 as a redirect), so maybe the creators overlooked the existence of the earlier article.

There hasn't been much added to this article over the years, and it is out of date and still has insufficient citations (still "Start" class). Rendering (computer graphics) has been updated and expanded recently.

Suggestion is to blank and redirect this article. KaiaVintr (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply