Talk:Shading

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsVisual arts Computing 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

No mention of Lambert shading?--Lionelbrits 04:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lambertian Shading is available as well as others@ BRDF(Bidirectional reflectance distribution function) --Danukasan (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm no expert but shouldn't the article say shading depicts lighting not depth. Lighting implies depth but its different. Sorry if I'm mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.22.100 (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's depth. It's the object that is being shaded. Although an object can't be seen with the naked eye without lighting, lighting is a broader subject that doesn't have to include objects. Lights can be seen without objects to shade. It's rays that depicts lighting. Oicumayberight (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why does the Flat Shading article redirect to this one? Flat Shading is a Shading model so I think it should have a page on its own, like Gouraud and Phong shading have. Also, I think Shading model should redirect to this one (it only contains references to the three models) as I don't see a big difference between the two topics. What do you think?

132.231.1.190 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, there's alot of confusion here between shading/reflectance models and vertice interpolation/surface smoothing, even if they both work together and share some similar notations. The whole comparison should be removed, the image is especially confusing. --Danukasan (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suggest we branch from this point along the lines of Surface Smoothness Shading, and the other Refracted Surface Luminosity Shading since they're two different things with similar names which can be ambiguous when not used rigorously, as seen with the Phong shading merger. Perhaps rename the article Rendered Solid Shading, or something a bit more specific as well? --Danukasan (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

In this there are three type of shading 1. Constant intensity shading 2. Gouraud Shading 3. Phong shading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.160.166 (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why is OpenGL mentioned in this article at all? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some graphics engine manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.174.13 (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Smooth Shading section was idetified as being a copyvio diff of [1]. I've now rewritten the section in my own words and removed the copyvio notice.--Salix (talk): 10:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply