Talk:Bump mapping

Whence the technology and concepts of bump mapping? Was it the FPS (games) or the CGA (videos) branch of computer graphics?

Bump mapping was 'invented' by Blinn (see article). It was probably first applied to offline rendering, and then to computer games in the late 90's Goosey

Traditional surface normal perturbation method wrong?

The traditional method of surface normal perturbation (vector addition) can't be right, can it? e.g., if the surface normal is pointing at 45 degrees, and the bump normal is also 45 degrees, then the surface normal won't change at all. And if the surface normal is less than 45 degrees, then adding a 45-degree bump normal will aim the surface normal in the wrong direction (!)

Shouldn't the surface normal be rotated using the angular separation of it and the bump normal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.70.186 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMBM bumpmapping

Does anyone know if there is a ifference between EMBM bumpmapping and what is discussed here?

Yes, what's discussed in the article applies to EMBM bump mapping as well as dot3 bump mapping. Oddity- 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMBM is where they simply add a working environment map along with the height for great and acurate bumpy reflections. BobtheVila

dot3 works well.209.247.23.7 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs expert attention

The article is in dire need of attention from someone who knows about this stuff and is able to write proper English. I know a fair deal about computer graphics but was not able to understand what most of the sentences tried to tell me. I've added grammar and expert-verify templates to the article. ThomasTenCate (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I note above, the focus also needs to shift from platforms and implementation details to what bump mapping is. I will try to improve the english as far I can understand the content. Dhatfield (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw two problems. Firstly, the explanation was too technical, so I added the 'bump mapping basics' section. The second problem is with the English in the later sections - I will address this ASAP. The third problem is the structuring of images, but I don't have plans to fix this yet. Dhatfield (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A agree with the platform thing and it never was my intention, only I wanted to include PS2 and GC in with the other consoles told to have done it. There was a problem with my paragraph on real bump mapping because of the tutorial it cam from. It was hard to convert it into simpler context.--BobtheVila (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, theres a missconception on bump mapping basics, parallax mapping is not an alternative. Normal mapping needs to be used also or it will only stretch the pixels without changing direction. Also a tutorial states height mapping has no true data on it's own and neighbor relient. I guess the manner of usage would reveal fully. --BobtheVila (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bump mapping (sixth generation consoles)

Do we need this one?. I think it should be merged to this one.--SkyWalker (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think my article dissapeared to fanboyism. It's on my talk page. --BobtheVila (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, i'm putting the improved version I did up. I know some extra details that might destroy the overlooked view on the effect and think it needs to stay. I'll link it to here also and rid of the truer hardware differences as it was enough in that implementation section.--BobtheVila (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god i'm stupid.....it is still there, only the name was changed a bit. Still, i'm puttin up that new version.--BobtheVila (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's gone now due to going deeper then other hardwired 3d artists, which is all it did do BTW. I've looked and know that all those classes and tuts tell, is how and whare you code it. Little do they know anything, which because of this, to them many things would be a huge HUGE scientific find. Instead it's simple knowledge like always, and their ignorance that it's all finished and good merely destroys any further facts. For instance, I looked at HDR lighting, and though it's praised, all of it's effect I tested is doable by merely adjesting the brightness and range of the light or bloom itself. That's probably all it is anywho. Height mapping can be reused, it would be the same as that of the physical nature of computers, how it gets smaller and more efficiant. All you do is deepen the contrast to how you want it without cost in an art program and you'll gain a deep and complex look, without using 3 planes of information and at every pixel. Where can I go to get it back on, or a site to post as the more professional facts they are?

They lied with the differences between DX9 and 10. The truth of the manner is that with a small amount of work, you'll find that DX9 could done anything in those shots. Those so called DX9 shots look as if DX5 or earlier, they had no soft bloom nor high res textures. Those textures would not be because of the version of DX anyways. --BobtheVila (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]