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

Computer graphics This template 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 articles

I re-organized the section under basics to reflect the steps 3d artwork normally undergoes (modeling, texturing, lighting, rigging, animation, and finally rendering). As for items removed from the basics section of the older version and placed under related concepts: 3D scanner covers basically the same stuff as 3d rendering, and they might even need to be merged. The 3d printing article concerns only the medical industry. It may need to be included in the basics section, but maybe not now given its present scope. 3d computer graphics software, while important, doesn't fit under the present definition I'm using for the category. If an alternative definition was intended I would request that it be known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David C (talk • contribs)

As the initiator of the template, I can say that the template was never meant to be a step-by-step or a "how to" create 3D computer graphics. It was meant to show the various aspects of 3D computer graphics.

I'm not sure what definition you are using. I started the template based on the definition in the 3D computer graphics article, which is broader than art. I included articles based on the potential scope of the terms, not just the current limited content of the articles. I considered 3D scanners and 3D printing basic methods of input and output of 3D computer graphics. The point of considering 3D scanning a basic aspect is that there are alternatives to modeling. The point of considering 3D printing a basic aspect is that 3D models are not confined to virtual space.

I guess you could argue that 3D scanning and 3D printing could be used without graphics. However, that would raise questions about considering anything that isn't entirely dependent on 3D computer graphics a basic aspect. Computer animation and skeletal animation can be used with 2D animation as well as 3D. Shading isn't even dependent on computers. Both shading and texture mapping are covered in the topics of 3D modeling and 3D rendering. 3D scanning and 3D printing are independent of modeling and rendering, but do primarily involve 3D computer graphics.

I listed 3D computer graphics software as a basic method because it is the primary tool for creating 3D computer graphics. Oicumayberight 08:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for lack of clarification. My concern was not with the overall scope of the infobox, but with the scope of the basics section as I could not identify any reason why it was designed the way it was. IE what defines what is placed in the basics section, and what defines what is placed in the related concepts section. I was suggesting the steps it is possible for a 3d artwork to undergo as a possible definition.

From your response, I assume your definition of scope for basics would be: input, output, and means, and in effect could very well be just a simplified version of my definition minus the means part. If scanning is considered input, then I would suppose modeling is too since modeling must come before scanning. I'm then also going to guess that rendering is output along with printing. You would then have two forms of input, two forms of output, and one form of means. However, if this is the case I would suggest regrouping the basics section to reflect this definition like so:

3d modeling / 3d scanning

3d rendering / 3d printing

3d computer graphics software

In other words:

Input

Output

Means

Actually, I'll go ahead and change "3d scanner" to "3d scanning" while still having it link to the same article right now.

Lighting and texturing may be covered in the articles of 3d modeling and 3d rendering, but they are completely separate processes. Shading itself may encompass a much broader definition than 3d computer graphics, but the article itself that I linked doesn't. Other definitions of shading will probably be disambiguated to other pages if they're added later on. Therefore, I would strongly suggest adding that back in to the infobox. If you disagree, please click on the link, and read the first sentence of the shading article.--David C 09:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about the regrouping.

As for the Shading, the first sentence is a bit confusing or oversimplified if 3D models is understood to mean computer models. Unless you define 3D modeling as any method of achieving 3D Photorealistic effects, it only invites conflict from those traditional media artists who see it as an oversimplification. I added "or illustrations" to the first sentence to clarify it a bit. Many articles on the wikipedia are underdeveloped works in progress. The goal should be to let those articles develop into the full scope of how the term is mostly used in verbal language, not just on the wikipedia.

It's also best to let the 3D rendering article cover shading in the context of 3D graphics because it covers everything else associated with photorealistic effects. In addition to shadow and highlights (what most people associate the word "shading" with), 3D rendering covers reflection, refraction, diffraction, and camera effects like depth of field and lens flares; which shows just how wonderful the technology can be. Oicumayberight 10:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have image of the dice and glasses? If you look at the image it does not seem to be a computer graphical image. Would something like the utah teapot be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.149.38 (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is in fact a computer graphical image. --Yair rand (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Years later I replaced it with File:Activemarker2.PNG, although an iconic early 3D image would also be good. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE applies as much to navboxes as articles, as in many cases this will be the only image on a page - "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate". Showing the reader an amazingly photorealistic image of some dice and glassware on a kitchen surface does not clearly convey "computer graphics", it conveys "glasses on a kitchen surface". --McGeddon (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if Cel-shading could be added to the template? SharkD (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]