Talk:Graphical projection

Oblique Projection

Note that a page needs creating on Oblique Projection and added as a link after "oblique Projection" on this page. Pat 23:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Problem with nested links

Isn't Axonometric projection a sub-category under Orthographic projection? If so, it should be properly nested.67.170.168.214 06:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Planometric Projection

What about listing planometric projection on this page? Where,

${\begin{bmatrix}x'\\y'\\z'\\1\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}\cos {\frac {\pi }{4}}&-\cos {\frac {\pi }{4}}&0&0\\\sin {\frac {\pi }{4}}&-\sin {\frac {\pi }{4}}&1&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&1\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}x\\y\\z\\1\end{bmatrix}}$

Me121121 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Got a reference for that? It looks like a kind of Oblique projection to me, in fact it's this one I think: --Allefant 09:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's it. But it's not the same as oblique. But I don't have any references, and I don't know how widely used it is. Yet I still learn it at school so I thought it should be included. Can't you use wherever you got that image as a reference? Me121121 09:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So the fact that each 3d dimention is distorted equally (45 degree) means that accurate scale drawings can be made, because a 3d line of length x will always be projected as a 2d line of length cx, irrespective of the line's orientation. This feature makes Planometric images look ugly as sin, but also makes the projection notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stestagg (talk • contribs) 14:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The article oblique projection lists that projection (military projection), so I guess it counts as an oblique projection? —Kri (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Link to "protocol"

The very first sentence of this article links to protocol. That is (of course!) a disambiguation page. I'd disambiguate if I were sure of which article to link to. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"General" Projection?

I don't see any reference to "general" projection. All I mean by the term is the act of projecting a point in n dimensions onto a space of m dimensions, where m < n. Standard 3D graphics pipelines (as described in this article, also in games, ray-tracing, etc) are the case where n = 3 and m = 2. Most likely, I'm not finding it because I just don't know the proper term to search for. -LesPaul75_talk 00:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Found it: Projection (linear algebra). Is it worth mentioning in the introduction (to "graphical projection") that that graphical projection is subset of this more general field? -LesPaul75_talk 00:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a personal point of view, that graphical projection is subset of this more general field? As far as I know graphical projection is a collection of methods, which principles have been developed in the projective geometry. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of opinion, but I could be wrong. This page talks about different ways to take a 3-dimensional object and "project" it to form a 2-dimensional image. Projection (linear algebra) is about how to do exactly the same thing, but in N dimensions. Quote from Projection (linear algebra): "For example, the function which maps the point (x, y, z) in three-dimensional space R3 to the point (x, y, 0) is a projection onto the x-y plane." That's the mathematical description of all the projections discussed here. -LesPaul75_talk 18:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Further development of this article

I just undid this edit which removed most of tyhe content of this article. I think this article shouldn't be reduced but expended and explain all items allready mentioned in the template views. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean 'expanded' instead of 'expended'? If you meant expanded, I agree. However, expanding the article doesn't mean that it shouldn't be split. The template provides the necessary guide to the material. It is confusing to the reader to include material that is stated elsewhere. The text was essentially moved, not deleted.

Trihoiseachaithne (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I mean expanded. Sorry. There are a lot of separate articles here, and I don't think dividing the current text in even more articles helps here. What is needed is one overview article, which explains all different aspects. I have written one for the Dutch Wikipedia, which expressed this ideal. And I rearranged the whole category structure in Wikicommons making the Graphical projection category the top category in the field. I didn't get to it to rearrange this article yet, but I would like it to become an overvied article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Stereographic projection?

There is a discussion at Talk:Stereographic projection about whether stereographic projection is truly a "graphical projection", according to the definition in this article. Your advice would be appreciated. Mgnbar (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger

I suggest merging 3D projection to here, as they are basically the same topic. The only difference is that this article is for techniques "without the aid of numerical calculation". Which I don't think is an important criteria, considering most of the small summaries and articles this page links to ignore it. Thoughts? SharkD  Talk  03:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The only distinction I can make right now is that the 3D projection article focuses mostly on computer graphics and the math behind them and this article focuses on drawing techniques as you said, but I see no reason that can't be handled with different sections within one article. They're still closely related aside from one being done with algorithms. Having used methods from both articles, I'd say they're really the same subject (although the more computer focused parts might be expanded to include various other types such as curved projections that are less-used in drawings with pen and paper) and finding both in one place isn't going to confuse anyone. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Overall I support a merge, but 3D projection would seem to be the better target because the title is broader (that it, the definition does not exclude any particular method), the article is older, and it current has more direct links. Klbrain (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I also think 3D projection is the better target and will proceed that way. If this turns out to be disputed, we can always move the merged article as a separate step. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)