
Boost : 
From: Marcelo E. Magallon (mmagallo_at_[hidden])
Date: 20030522 10:00:40
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 12:48:42PM +0200, Rene Jager wrote:
> > > "Computer Graphics using Open GL" F.S. Hill Prentice Hall
> > > "Computer Graphics Principles and Practise in C", Foley
> > > et.al. Addison Wesley
> >
> > "Down the graphics pipeline" by Blinn is also a good reference for
> > this kind of thing.
>
> why only looking at geometry classes/functions from a computer
> graphics point of view? why not from robotics? things like position,
> orientation, mapping, transformation, translation, rotation...
Because it's the same? The only thing that might be different is the
use of homegeneous coordinates / projective space. Engineers tend to
think of translations and rotations as two different things, while
computer graphics people think of them as the same operation: matrix
multiplication. Perhaps another point of divergence: I can imagine
Physicists (which I am also one) whishing 4d vectors to be initialized
to (0, 0, 0, 0) while computer graphics people might want it to be (0,
0, 0, 1). The former might think that casting 4dvectors to 3dvectors
means just taking the spatial component of the original vector. The
later will think that it means returning (x/w, y/w, z/w). The former
will want to differentiate psedovectors, too. The later might wish to
differentiate between vectors and normals (because they transform
differently).
Marcelo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk