CG terms and terminology

General Forums Blender and CG Discussions
1

Hi all!

I’m a long-time Blender user and 3D artist. I got used to the lingo and terminology of 3D graphics a long time ago, but recently I’ve started thinking about the words and how they’re used.

If you start reading a tutorial that talks about 3D objects and meshes and textures and maps and material and diffuse and all that, and you have no idea what the words mean in this context - what do you do?

Is there any specific, collected source where one could check what these arcane words mean?

How does one get started in 3D these days? Just tutorials and Youtube vids all the way, and you pick up words as you go?

The Blender Noob to Pro glossary is quite high on the Google results, but it doesn’t define many of the more common terms. It’s severely lacking.
For example, it lacks model, mesh, material, texture and other basic information. Diffuse and specular are defined in a way that could refer to the way light reflects off of an object, or as a part of a light source instead of the object the light is reflected from (“Ambient, Diffuse, and Specular are called the three components of a light source”).
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_Pro/Glossary

Here’s a thread on the DAZ forums that is one of the more comprehensive lists I’ve found so far. It’s very comprehensive, but not organized as well as it could be - for example, “mesh” refers to “3d model”, but that’s not defined. Instead, the list defines “modeling”. So while it covers a lot of ground, finding a specific definition might take some research.

There’s also this Maya-specific glossary that is also a good general start. It looks nice, and is organized better than the DAZ forum list from above. For example, it defines both the verb and noun meaning of “model”. Surprisingly, it doesn’t define “diffuse”. It’s a good general list, but it seems to lack the alternate terms that exist in software besides Maya, things like Armature and Blend shape / morph shape. So it’d be a very good base, if the alternate terminology were added and collected.
http://www.brianschrank.com/2730/maya/3dglossary.pdf

I’m interested in the views of those just starting out, and whether you’ve found this to be a problem.

In case anyone is interested, I’m writing a thesis on the 3D terminology in Finnish, and looking answers to questions such as: have these terms been defined? do these terms need to be translated or are they good as they are in English? are there resources that those starting out need? do those resources exist or should they be created?

2

I don’t know of any collected resource, since many of these terms are software specific. What is worse, they’re often devised by so-called UI experts, or even marketing departments, making it a headache to decipher later. Worse still, even basic terms tend to change meaning over time. E.g. you brought up diffuse. For a very long time you could just say it’s the object’s color. With the advent of PBR (where no two people have the same definition of PBR…), “Diffuse” has come to mean the color of the reflected light that gets scattered more or less equally in all directions, as opposed to the glossy/specular part that is reflected in a particular direction dependent on the incoming angle and surface/microfacet normal. So it’s now a component after the lighting calculation. What has traditionally been referred to as diffuse is now called ‘albedo’, or ‘base color’. Arguably, diffuse has always meant what it now commonly means in PBR, but that’s not how the term was used by most artists in a modelling/texturing context most of the time. But it was used like that in a compositing context!

So there. Term meanings depend on who says them, when, where, what they’re doing at the moment, and what software they like :stuck_out_tongue:

3

Hi,

I’m not really a newbie, as I know my way around this terminology, but as you’re making a thesis out of it in Finnish I thought I’d share with my feelings about this with some translations in my mother tongue, French.

At some point one would need to start thinking about where those words come from. Did they originate in the 3D realm? For example, if you’d want to make some home repair work you would need some equipment and some raw material (tis the actual word), where the material could be wood, glass, cement, and so on. In French we would call them matériel and matériau, respectively. So in a sense, the word material comes from the real world, and means the exact same thing.

Texture (in French: texture) is also used the real word, as « the feel, appearance, or consistency of a surface or a substance ». Example: the texture of an icecream, the texture of a wool cap.

Mesh (in French: maillage) is a tricky one to understand I think, usually defined as an « enterlaced structure », a « network, net (of wire or thread) ».

The thing to note is that there wasn’t a bunch of people who created “3D” along with some fancy words. I guess a newcomer really needs to have some sense of vocabulary, which will be hard to expect if the newcomer is a teenager with no real experience in the world. Most of these terms I actually picked from modelling (creating a model), by making small scales model. It shouldn’t be too difficult to understand where “3D model” might come from with “small scale model” in mind, “3D” being here to tell it’s done in a computer.

Though, there are some terms which could be hard to get at first sight, to me it would be the “shad-” family: shader, shading, etc… Are they supposed to create shadows, like an umbrella?

But anyway, these words are already defined in the real world, and they have the same meaning as in the real world, one just needs to have some vocabulary.

My two cents,
Kévin.

4

Whereas I’m not actually new to this, or Finnish for that matter, I have been finding that I do use Google quite a bit to get a better understanding of more recent terminology so that I can focus on what I’m doing at that moment. That being said, it’s a real good idea to have a fairly comprehensive idea of terminology and workflow before and during hands on work.

5

A lot of terms in CG derive from mathematical or scientific terms, sometimes giving them new meaning. However, applications tend to use them slightly differently.

The “real” answer to “What does ‘Diffuse’ mean?” pretty much involves looking at the actual code/specification used to compute the result. In the classic case, ‘diffuse’ refers to something like the ‘kd’ term in this formula. If an application offers a ‘diffuse’ setting on a light, that means it lets you modulate this term on a per-light basis (which doesn’t make physical sense). Either way, in almost all cases, the ‘diffuse’ property of a material is a value multiplied against the Lambertian term of the material. Less commonly, people prefer to use the term ‘albedo’ instead, for some reasons I don’t care about and thus forgot.

‘Specular’ is even more complicated. Again, there is a term for it in the classic case, but it only depends on angle towards the light sources. Until PBR (in renderers like Cycles) became mainstream, environment reflections used to be treated separately (or were even omitted on some materials). PBR materials unite environment reflections and light reflections to something that is closer to the real-world meaning of a specular surface. In either case, usually the specular property of a material is multiplied against the specular reflection term (whether that includes environment or not). For engines that separate light specular and environment specular, there are usually two distinct properties (In Blender Internal: ‘specular_color’ for lights and ‘mirror_color’ for environment reflections).

I could go on and on about specular exponent and roughness, but the real point is: It all depends. If you want to know what terms mean in the context of CG, you have to research how they’re used.

Also, don’t waste your time on finding Finnish terms for anything. Any reference that doesn’t provide the English terms is pretty much useless. You can just add a Finnish translation for the word for comprehension, but the English term should be authoritative.

6

Why?

You can just add a Finnish translation for the word for comprehension, but the English term should be authoritative.

Why should the English term be authoritative?

7

A useful reference will always provide the English terms so that it connects to the canon of literature that is already available in English.

I know the French have a habit of rejecting anglicisms, instead making up their own ridiculous terms for everything. That is really fine if you want to learn every word twice, or want to spend a life of deprivation inside the francophone sphere. On the other hand, considering the recently weak performance of France in terms of world domination, I strongly suggest you forego this nonsense and submit to the cultural hegemony that the English language has today.

Why should the English term be authoritative?

Researching a term in English is much easier than researching it in French or even Finnish, so if you want to claim accuracy, do yourself a favor and declare the English term authoritative.

8

This wasn’t a France versus the English world type of questioning, you paranoid freak.

Alright, there we go:

“Habit” comes from French “habitude”
“Reject” comes from French “rejecter”
“Term” comes from French “terme”

“Texture” comes from French “texture”
“Diffuse” comes from Latin via Old French “diffusus”
“Specular” comes from Latin via Middle French “spéculaire”
“Programme” (US: program) comes from French “programme”
“Facet” (as in micro-facet) comes from French “facette”
“Ray” (as in “ray tracer”) comes from Old French “rai”, now “rayon”
“Model” comes from Middle French “modelle”, now “modèle”

This is just a handful of words that the English world took from French, perhaps they should have made up their own “ridiculous terms” for those. You could barely fathom the number of English words borrowed from French. As to why and how English Frenchified, I’ll leave it to you to do the research.

ばかたれ.
This argument is invalid. Speaking French, English, German, Alsacian, Portuguese, with some notion of Spanish and Italian and on my way to learn Japanese, I don’t feel like I’m « spending a life of deprivation inside the francophone sphere ».

Also, haven’t you noticed I’ve been writing in English the whole time?

What about the part of the literature that is not available in English? The part that a close minded person like you will never read? Or intend to translate? Well, I guess if it’s not in the American transvestite version of English then it’s not a reference, has therefore no reason to exist and its authors should be disregarded by the whole community.

You seriously haven’t noticed I have been writing in English the whole time? If not, then why did you feel like attacking my origin? Why did you decide to spray this uneducated nonsense about the French language?

9

This is just a handful of words that the English world took from French, perhaps they should have made up their own “ridiculous terms” for those. You could barely fathom the number of English words borrowed from French. As to why and how English Frenchified, I’ll leave it to you to do the research.

Good job missing the entire point. As you see, the English are not so culturally insecure that they completely invent new words for terms already established from another language, but it may also have had something to do with the fact that France ruled Britain for centuries.

The French, on the other hand, are so insecure that they must legally regulate the amount of French in the media.

This argument is invalid. Speaking French, English, German, Alsacian, Portuguese, with some notion of Spanish and Italian and on my way to learn Japanese, I don’t feel like I’m « spending a life of deprivation inside the francophone sphere ».

Also, haven’t you noticed I’ve been writing in English the whole time?

Apparently you can read English, but you fail to understand it, or why would you reply as if I personally insulted you? As I said, if you want to communicate internationally, you have to learn the terms twice. If, like most other languages of lower cultural significance, you would just adopt the term straight away, you would not have to do that. Since you learned all these languages, did you not notice that they are full of anglicisms?

What about the part of the literature that is not available in English?

What relevant part of literature on computing is not available in English? I’d go as far as saying that if it isn’t even available in English, it is irrelevant by definition. Are you contesting that English is the language to use when talking about computing and CG?

The part that a close minded person like you will never read? Or intend to translate? Well, I guess if it’s not in the American transvestite version of English then it’s not a reference, has therefore no reason to exist and its authors should be disregarded by the whole community.

Bullshit.

You seriously haven’t noticed I have been writing in English the whole time? If not, then why did you feel like attacking my origin?

First of all, it’s all tongue-in-cheek. The fact that you take it all so seriously could mean you need to develop some better sensitivity for the English language ;-).

Why did you decide to spray this uneducated nonsense about the French language?

Uneducated? I actually learned French, that’s why I’m entitled to make fun of it.
Edit: Here’s an article for further amusement.

10

I’ve been reading a lot about terminology work, and it’s starting to look like we’re missing the term definitions in English as well as in Finnish.

I’m still looking into what’d be the best way to approach this, but basically, I’d give the English word used of a thing, give a short definition, and list a few words that are used, or could be used, about it in Finnish. The problem is, if there aren’t proper definitions for these things yet, I’d have to focus on that more than finding the Finnish terms.

Because a good designation, or the name used of an object, should fulfill the following requirements:

  1. transparent: understandable on its own without a definition
  2. harmonized: similar internationally across the same and similar specialties
  3. concise: short and easy to use in speech
  4. exact: precisely defined
  5. consistent: consistent with the rest of the terminology

Using the English term, or something that can be connected to it, fulfills the Harmonization requirement. However, it works against the Transparency requirement.
For example, what exactly does “rendering” do (incidentally it also comes from French)? Yes, it creates an image, but why does that word mean that thing? Yes, it’s used and known and understood everywhere and there’s no reason to change it, now. Same is true for many English terms in non-English languages.

Rendering, diffuse and probably specular should stay similar so that the English terms are understood at a glance.

However, if the English term is something that is more rarely used, and more descriptive, then it should maybe/probably/possibly be translated. “Ambient occlusion”, for example, could perhaps be translated as something closer to “environmental coverage”, something that hints at the usage. The words “ambient” and “occlusion” are both rather rare in everyday usage, so the English name for the effect might only be understood a long time after a would-be, non-English-native 3D artist first heard the term. Having such a long phrase in the middle of normal speech in a different language can also end up making rather ugly sentences in Finnish and probably other languages as well.

11

Environmental coverage isn’t any better than ambient occlusion. More importantly, ambient occlusion actually makes sense (its value representing the fraction of the surface of a theoretical omnidirectional, or ambient, light that is occluded by something). Environmental coverage brings forth images of environments covered by grass or some such. It also severs the link between ambient occlusion and ambient lighting - something that has been a mainstay in CG for many, many years.

People meddling with terms is what makes learning take so long in the first place. Please, don’t engage in revisionism. It’s a pestilence.

12

@BeerBaron, this is what I expected you to answer. You just said “the English word should be authoritative” without any other explanation. And that feels arbitrary. As an example, I used to work in agriculture/landscaping, there we use the Latin name of the plants, and this is an international convention. So if I go in Russia and ask for a Xanthorrorhea (unlikely), they will know (hopefully) what I’m talking about.

As a humongous disclaimer: I don’t give a goddamn flying fuck if the word is used in English, Swahili or French. Neither do I wish to change it.

In my first post I tried to show that those terms already existed in each language; they weren’t just invented by some dudes who came up with CGI.
These languages all have their own words for those anglicisms as well, which existed prior to the anglicisms, which reinforce my question: why do people speaking certain language have to use the English words, especially if they don’t speak English in the first place? If they start a conversation in English, then it makes sense to use the English word, otherwise it doesn’t.

edit: just like Latin is used in landscaping, it’s also fine if two people who know CG use English terms ;). But for non initiate I don’t understand why English should prevail, just like vernacular names are used for plants outside botany.

Should I beat the shit out of a kid who says Christmas tree instead of Abies Nordmanniana?

Are you contesting that English is the language to use when talking about computing and CG?

I’m a programmer, I think this is sufficient to say I’m not really contesting anything here (as most programming languages are implemented in English). But I don’t feel like switching to English when I want to talk about computing with a non-native English speaker, even for one or two words!

First of all, it’s all tongue-in-cheek. The fact that you take it all so seriously could mean you need to develop some better sensitivity for the English language ;-).

I was a tad sarcastic on the side, but then you can’t really know what tone someone’s using when typing :P. Also, the Pulp Fiction gif I posted should tell a bit about my level of seriousness.

Uneducated? I actually learned French, that’s why I’m entitled to make fun of it.

Il y a apprendre et apprendre. Viens vivre en France et comptes le nombre de gens qui disent “poste électronique”! :stuck_out_tongue:

Nota Bene: I censored this post as to not ruin the thread, @BeerBaron, if you wish to continue on the France nonsense, I accept PMs.

13

It’s worth noting that the “Ambient” in “Ambient Occlusion” actually refers back to the ambient term in the classic model. This is a color (or sometimes gradient) added in as light “from all sides” to account for the lack of indirect lighting in early CG. Some applications (including Blender’s new viewport AO) unfortunately get this wrong by multiplying AO against the direct term too. Instead, it should be multiplied against the ambient (or similar) term only.

Of course, anglicisms can sound ugly in other languages, but it’s still better than coining your own terms and then using them as if they had any meaning in your language already. If your reader really wants to learn about something, they will have to learn both the English term and the translation, anyway.

edit:

If it wasn’t obvious from context, I explained it later. I was talking about the not-so-influental Finnish language, you brought up French out of nowhere. Clearly most of these terms have french counterparts or roots (originally latin, really). But they don’t automatically get the same meaning, just for existing. That’s in fact a benefit of anglicisms: Their meaning becomes less ambiguous than a translation. If you start debating with yourself how to translate “Ambient Occlusion” to Finnish, you’re already wasting your time. (Also: I’ve removed the bit about “poste electronique” before you replied. I still think it’s fair to make fun of.)

14

Thanks for that bit of into!

That is why I’m trying to find an existing and well-made list of definitions. If there’s a good list of definitions, these sorts of mistakes and omissions are easier to avoid.
Also, I’m at most coining suggestions for the words, and I’m going to list several variations whenever any doubt exists (basically always). I will try to list any terms already used, and only time will show if it will change how the language is used.

15

Having started out with just tutorials myself i can say that i picked up the lingo on the way. some words explain themself, some you already knew (from math eg (or at least they sound familiar and you have a distant memory of some math class) ) , some are explained by good tutorial makers. On some you read up, and then there are some which you know exactly what they do , but dont know what they actually mean and couldnt translate into your native language. These are the ones you always read but never said aloud :).

As far as i know i feel the common ground for the terminilogy is based on the math behind everything, vector geometry and such. X, y, z, u,v, normals, vectors, vertex, face, edge. And so on.

having switched over from c4d to blender at some point, i found blender to be actually to be more consistent and math-based. some differences are: c4d says move/scale/rotate, point/edge/polygon while blender says translate/scale/rotate and vertex/edge/face . as both makes sense i guess, i didnt have sleepless nights switching to blender, because most of the functionality and tools you know is also there and you just have to rediscover it once. i think while learning the difficult part is to learn what can be done, how it can be done and how to do it properly. the names of the tools dont really matter that much, but i only speak for myself.

diving into cycles nodes, i think it’s better to use a math-based terminology than something dumbed down. because that way we can read up on some raytracing (like the intro into raytracing that was on blendernation recently), and the terminology stays rather consistent with how things are called in cycles.

16

Another great thing about math-based terminology: I can read a math book to find the existing Finnish terminology for the various math terms, which would be nice! :slight_smile:

Thanks for the feedback.

17

Greetings from Finland. Thous explanations of terms are for my very welcome.

18

Oh, i forgot. All thous abbreviations? Maybe some explanations about them, please.

19

It’s going to be my thesis (opinnäytetyö), so it’s going to take several months before it’s complete. I’ll probably tackle 20-40 terms at a time. I think I’ll try to have one set like that ready before summer, so I can get some feedback before the summer break. Right now I’m thinking it might be the names and definitions of various texture maps (diffuse, bump, normal, specular…) but that might change.

Then I’d work on it during the summer until, in August or September, I would send it to various schools so the teachers and students can give me some more feedback. The final version based on that would be released in November or so.

If you’re interested in giving feedback in a few months when I have something to show, feel free so send me a PM.

20

many of the basic terms like mesh,vertices,diffuse etc i remember getting intuitively,troublesome was “shinyness”-“glossiness”,“brownian”(blender particle sys)…i wish 3dsoftware had a common naming convention for basic items.