Talk:Anisotropic filtering

"Steeply from the camera"

I was curious about this technique, but as a layman I'm having trouble understanding this phrase - does it mean perpendicularly from the camera, as in a flat plane with the face towards the camera, or a flat plane just off of parallel (i.e. a few degrees off)? 148.177.129.213 14:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It means that the tangent plane of the surface in question is close to parallel to the direction the viewer is looking in. Look at these (non-GFDL, alas) screenshots for examples: [1][2] —Simetrical (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"POV"

Notice the use of first-person plural. This is not an encyclopedic tone.Jeremyburkhart

"Antistopic filtering..."

I'm only beginning to learn about Anisotropic and wanted to double-check to see if "antistopic" is a typographical error in this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Modus~enwiki (talk • contribs) 14:23, September 21, 2006 (UTC)

yes, it is, thanks for catching that. fixed. - Valarauka(T/C) 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to "The Naked Truth About Anisotropic Filtering" should be removed. This article is obsolete, partially plain wrong, misleading and of low quality. Sorry I have to say that but the author failed to see the benefits of AF as much as to provide proper example pictures. The pictures in this Wikipedia article are much better in this concern anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.134.245 (talk) 20:14, March 19, 2007 (UTC)

Serious edit rot

This needs to be rolled back by about 2 years to improve it. It has been borked yet again by fiddlers. Uninformed editors have called a RIP an anisotropic MIP map. It's a RIP map **LEAVE IT ALONE** If this confuses you in any way then you have no business editing this piece. LOOK if you do not understand this INTIMATELY, and I mean at the hardware level then READ it, don't edit it because it WAS correct and you'd have benefited by reading instead of editing. It is really frustrating to spend significant time on this and have fiddlers undermine it.

There have been some serious errors introduced here due to people editing who perhaps never understood the original text.

I've corrected those and tried to avoid some of the confusion that may have led to those edits.

errors still abound.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.225.145.242 (talk)

Please don't alter this unless you intimately understand the description folks. Specifically RIP mapping really does mean RIP mapping where written in is not MIP mapping (FYI Rory096).

It's back to being called anisotropic MIP mapping yet again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.225.145.242 (talk)

Perhaps we shouldn't use RIP mapping to convey anisotropic filtering, but that requires a more extensive rewrite, certainly substituting RIP with MIP does not help ;-) It is inherently technical and I think that the image in the article combined with the introduction conveys to the layperson what it is and the detailed description is there for the technically minded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorbie (talk • contribs) 11:36, July 13, 2007 (UTC)

Yes perhaps, I added the whole section of anisotropic as an enhancement of MIP and put RIP in there as informative exposition, what are you gonna do, people who should READ this and learn are editing it instead. Sigh. Can we fix this and get it locked? I also don't appreciate some glory hounds substituting the graphics I added years ago with something worse for no good reason other than to get their picture on the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.225.145.242 (talk)

I'm not totally familiar with precise definitions of these cg algorithms (hence why I found the page in the first place) but it seems to me that RIP mapping might warrant an embedded link and a separate page. I would certainly be interested in reading about it, too. ZekFallen (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)ZekFallen

"16-tap"

Where in the world did this come from? It's never defined, just used. What is it? 66.192.186.99 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Then ask for a citation it will be added but for the love of god stop editing stuff you do not understand, just because Google does not lead you by the nose to a TLA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.225.145.242 (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

rectim in parvo?

What does this mean? I found out that MIP is "much in little" but nothing on RIP. A google search on this term produces a lot of websites talking about disease and searching "RIP manpping" says that it is replication iniation point mapping.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.148.19 (talk) 15:51, February 23, 2009 (UTC)

- "replication initiation point" mapping is for a different kind of RIP mapping. The context there is DNA analysis. In the context of rendering textures, the "RIP" in "RIP mapping" simply means "rectangular MIP". Following is a citation from US Patent number 5,222,205, a patent on RIP mapping: "Texture maps [using this method] are thus herein defined as "RIP" maps, for rectangular MIP maps. " (emphasis mine). Brian Geppert (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

References

example of anisotropic mipmap image 'click to compare'

In the section 'An improvement on isotropic MIP mapping' text underlay associated with this helpful example image:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropic_filtering#/media/File:MipMap_Example_STS101_Anisotropic.png

contains the text 'click to compare to previous, isotropic mipmaps of the same image'. It would seem that clicking doesn't show previous, isotropic mipmaps of the same image. Is there perhaps something I'm missing about the image and I'm clicking the wrong thing?

ZekFallen (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC) ZekFallen

The "click to compare to previous" text was added in this edit, but I can't find any evidence of that ever working (apart from the file description page having a link to File:MipMap Example STS101.jpg, which doesn't work well with the media viewer). I've added the isotropic image to the article directly. --Pokechu22 (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The opening paragraph

The opening paragraph reads like a legal definition. Can it be worded understandably?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.100.102 (talk) 23:54, May 4, 2021 (UTC)

Use of second-person pronouns like "we" in section 1

The author refers to themselves and the reader as "we" throughout section 1, inconsistent with the rest of the article. I believe it is also against the style guide to refer directly to the yourself or the reader when writing text for Wikipedia. -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 14:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:WE says that the "author's we" is OK in some situations. But it does seem a bit weird here (especially given the inconsistency). I don't see an easy way to change those sentences though; it'd be a more complicated rewrite of the section. (Note that "we" is actually first-person plural, not second person; the closest thing to a second person plural is y'all.) --Pokechu22 (talk)