ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) (09/13/90)
What is a good text for teaching undergraduate computer graphics? I am
familiar with Foley and VanDam, and Neumann and Sproull. Are there any
others that I should consider? I'd hate to be using Foley and VanDam
just because it is the standard--it ought to also be the best.
Also are there any homework/projects/exercises, which anyone would like
to reccommend as being interesting, valuable or just plain fun?
Any other suggestions/comments would be welcome.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Ellsworth | ben@cv.hp.com | INTERNET
Hewlett-Packard Company | {backbone}!hplabs!hp-pcd!ben | UUCP
1000 N.E. Circle | (USA) (503) 750-4980 | FAX
Corvallis, OR 97330 | (USA) (503) 757-2000 | VOICE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All relevant disclaimers apply.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) (09/13/90)
In article <101880023@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com> ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) writes: > >What is a good text for teaching undergraduate computer graphics? I am >familiar with Foley and VanDam, and Neumann and Sproull. Are there any >others that I should consider? I'd hate to be using Foley and VanDam >just because it is the standard--it ought to also be the best. Perhaps the newest Foley et. al., but certainly the old one was not the greatest, although it was perhaps standard. I actually like Neumann and Sproull better than the old Foley, but the new one is very good, and has many exercises which are illuminating. Another books that I consider good is Watt's book ("Fundamentals of Computer Graphics"? I don't have it in front of me). It covers raytracing and color and some other fairly non-mainstream topics pretty well, although the pseudocode in the book is too abstract to be of any real use in implementation. Still, its nice. If I were to choose a text, I probably would use the Foley et. al., because it is excellent and because everyone will want to have a copy ANYWAY if they are in computer graphics.
mcooper@sunc7.cs.uiuc.edu (09/14/90)
There is also "Computer Graphics" by Hearn and Baker. Not as thurough as Foley, but more suited, IMHO, to a single semester course. It's sort of an overview of most of the basic graphics topics. But then, since Hearn was my prof for two years, I might be biased.. :-) +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | "When the going gets weird, | Marc Cooper marcc@ncsa.uiuc.edu | | the weird turn pro." | | | | National Center for Supercomputing | | -Hunter S. Thompson | Applications | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | The above opinoins are my own, and do not reflect those of NCSA. *Yawn* | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
gordon@cs.tamu.edu (Dan Gordon) (09/14/90)
In article <23900016@sunc7> mcooper@sunc7.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
<
<There is also "Computer Graphics" by Hearn and Baker.
<
<Not as thurough as Foley, but more suited, IMHO, to a single semester course.
<It's sort of an overview of most of the basic graphics topics.
<
<But then, since Hearn was my prof for two years, I might be biased..
Maybe you can clear up something that has been a mystery to me: why
does Hearn & Baker use a most inefficient polygon scan conversion
algorithm? Is it to avoid using linked lists? If you look up polygon
scan-conversion in Foley & van Dam (old and new versions) and in many
other books, you will see that a simple linked list is used to maintain
the active edge table (or list).
Polygon scan-conversion is perhaps the single most important algorithm
in computer graphics. It can be extended in so many ways to yield
hidden surface removal, Gouraud shading, and so on. Its efficient
implementation is of the utmost importance.mcooper@sunc5.cs.uiuc.edu (09/16/90)
[why does Hearn & Baker use an ineffieicent polycon scan conversion alogrithm] A good question! I actually haven't looked that close at the algorithms in quite some time. I can check though.. it probably explains it in the text.
gordon@cs.tamu.edu (Dan Gordon) (09/16/90)
In article <23900017@sunc5> mcooper@sunc5.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
<
<[why does Hearn & Baker use an ineffieicent polycon scan conversion alogrithm]
<
<A good question! I actually haven't looked that close at the algorithms in
<quite some time. I can check though.. it probably explains it in the text.
The text doesn't explain anything. It just presents the inefficient algorithm.cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw) (09/17/90)
In article <8256@helios.TAMU.EDU> gordon@cs.tamu.edu (Dan Gordon) writes: >why does Hearn & Baker use a most inefficient polygon scan conversion >algorithm? Judging from the other mistakes and miscues in the book, H&B give an inefficient algorithm either because (1) They didn't understand the algorithm, or (2) they didn't want to lift the perfectly good explanation from Foley & vanDam. The major reason this book sells, I think, is because it's the best of the inexpensive/thin books. -- Chris Shaw University of Alberta cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.ca Now with new, minty Internet flavour! CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !
gordon@cs.tamu.edu (Dan Gordon) (09/17/90)
In article <1990Sep17.015943.18818@cs.UAlberta.CA> cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw) writes: >In article <8256@helios.TAMU.EDU> gordon@cs.tamu.edu (Dan Gordon) writes: >>why does Hearn & Baker use a most inefficient polygon scan conversion >>algorithm? > >Judging from the other mistakes and miscues in the book, H&B give an >inefficient algorithm either because (1) They didn't understand the >algorithm, or (2) they didn't want to lift the perfectly good explanation >from Foley & vanDam. Another book that has a similar bad polygon scan-conversion algorithm is the one by Pokorny & Gerald (Franklin, Beedle & Assoc., 1989). My impression is that books that avoid linked lists are simply aimed at a NON-computer science audience - e.g., engineering students who have only had an introductory programming course. On the other hand, one book does an excellent job of explaining this algorithm. This is the book "Computer Graphics" by F. S. Hill, Jr., published by Macmillan, 1990. The book presents the algorithm in one section in a pedagogically good manner, and in the next section, explains how the algorithm can be extended to handle several polygons at once. Then, in the chapter on hidden surface elimination, it shows how the latter variation can be used for hidden surface removal. For those interested in a detailed compendium of graphics algorithms, I suggest you look at "Procedural Elements of Computer Graphics," by D. F. Rogers, McGraw-Hill, 1985. In some cases, though, you may need to go to the original papers in order to understand exactly what is going on. A final word: No book that I know beats the new Foley et al. for the sheer encylopedic extent of the covered material, as well as for being very up-to-date. A definite must.
pmoran@m.cs.uiuc.edu (09/18/90)
/* Written 11:53 am Sep 14, 1990 by gordon@cs.tamu.edu ... */ > Maybe you can clear up something that has been a mystery to me: why > does Hearn & Baker use a most inefficient polygon scan conversion > algorithm? Is it to avoid using linked lists? If you look up polygon > scan-conversion in Foley & van Dam (old and new versions) and in many > other books, you will see that a simple linked list is used to maintain > the active edge table (or list). Being neither Hearn nor Baker, I cannot give the final answer to this question, but my guess would be that they felt that the algorithm would be fairly easy to understand. I didn't see anything in the text asserting "... this is the fastest polygon scan conversion algorithm ...". If one is serious about doing a fast scan conversion algorithm he or she should expect to do more than take an algorithm directly out of an introductory graphics book. Patrick Moran University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign