5 ms·
Apples to oranges... The 3D equivalent of vector graphics would be Boundary Representation [1], which is multiple orders of magnitude harder than 2D vector gra
by layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
Apples to oranges...
The 3D equivalent of vector graphics would be Boundary Representation [1], which is multiple orders of magnitude harder than 2D vector graphics.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_representation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_representation
- Jasper_ 7y agoAbsolutely. One could also come up with a 2D imaging model that does not rely on curves and is friendly to rasterization. My goal is to illuminate why when we say "2D vector graphics" we typically mean apples, and why when we say "3D" we mean oranges. Plenty of other imaging models exist for both 2D and 3D, but for better or worse these are the ones that stuck. Part of my research is investigating alternative imaging models that doesn't have the same influences, like the boundary representation, and seeing what falls out of it.
- mch82 7y agoAny thoughts on voxels? Write ups I’ve read on the concepts behind voxels have been pretty interesting. The idea of building up objects from grains of sand with material properties (instead of shaders, textures, bump maps, bounding boxes, etc.) is pretty interesting.
- Jasper_ 7y agoVolumetric representations are awesome in many ways since we can filter and evaluate them like pixels in 2D. It doesn't really help the curve solution, and for a lot of reasons we will use something like marching to convert back to a rasterizable mesh, but they help solve a lot of problems.
- jayd16 7y ago>My goal is to illuminate why when we say "2D vector graphics" we typically mean apples, and why when we say "3D" we mean oranges. This premise in the article was pretty confusing as I do not think this is universal. When I think of vector graphics I think of fonts (2d) and star wars cgi (3d vector death stars). When talking about rasterizers, the modern pipeline of rendering 3d meshes to a 2d back buffer comes to mind. It took me some time to understand the purpose of this article because I first had to understand that 2d meant vector and 3d was to mean raster in this article.
- Jasper_ 7y ago2D and 3D are both vector (as in, a mathematical description of the shape). Typically when we say "raster graphics", we mean graphics already computed as a set of points, like a bitmap PNG file. But here 2D comes in as a set of curves, and 3D comes in as a set of triangle edges. Both are mathematical descriptions that have to be "rasterized", e.g. transformed from the edge representation to the raster one.
- dao- 7y ago> Apples to oranges... That's kind of the article's point. It explains how it's an apples to oranges comparison. If that's obvious to you, you don't need to read it.
- andybak 7y agoYep. It's almost as if the person posting that hadn't finished reading the article.
- learnstats2 7y agoIf it's obvious to me that the headline's intent is to mislead for clickbait purposes, then I probably ain't gonna bother reading the article, sorry.
- Jasper_ 7y agoPlease let me know how my title was clickbait-y, or a better title you might prefer. It wasn't my intention to mislead, and I am open to suggestions for better titles.
- gugagore 7y agoI am not sure if I understand the objection. Is that that you don't agree with the use of "2D graphics" and "3D graphics" to mean what they mean in the article?
- learnstats2 7y agoSorry, I didn't realise you were the article's author. I'm answering with in good faith and with good will to you :) Most of the article doesn't seem relevant to the headline, and as such I found it difficult to understand where the article was leading and why I should be interested to read on. If the headline was something like "Parallel histories of 2D and 3D vector graphics" then I would have understood what I was committing to read and been more satisfied with the overall experience. Obviously, the article has found an audience so perhaps I am wrong and you can safely ignore this thought ;-)