Talk:Oblique projection

Anatomy: Meta Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to The field of anatomy.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Diagram please[edit]

Please add a diagram and some examples to make this more clear.

It looks like the diagram (provided by User:Jbergquist - thanks!) is pretty explanatory. If it is not adequate, say so. Otherwise, I'll remove the above image request. The Rod 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

context tag[edit]

Also, is the article still unclear or is it ready to have its context tag removed? The Rod 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Euclidean geometry?[edit]

What do we mean by parallel? The idea dates back at least to Euclid. If lines are translated without rotation they will remain parallel. This is a common drafting method.

Can this be right?[edit]

My intuition has failed me, but ... isn't the following assertion from the article plain wrong? Surely all the projections described here must project spheres into circles.

    In a general oblique projection, spheres of the space are projected as ellipses on the drawing plane, and not as circles as you would expect them from an orthogonal projection.

Question[edit]

Isn't cavalier oblique and NOT perspective? I thought perspective needed to have vanishing points, and there is none for cavalier. --aciel 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as well. From the description and images in the article, it seems to be just another form of axonometric projection. SharkD 02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was mistakenly categorized as perspective I'd say - google nearly always has it as an oblique projection (I added a reference saying so and moved it in the template tree accordingly). --Allefant 14:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One might perhaps see the cavalier projection as an perspective view, but the distans of the vanishing points is infinity. –Xauxa (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query withdrawn[edit]

Sorry - the above query was b*ll*cks. Lucky nobody's paying attention anyway.

Chris C 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I think this image is misleading, as the a and b from x+az and y+bz somehow are completely missing. Anyone has a better one? --Allefant 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it now with another one. --Allefant 12:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

skew projection[edit]

Not a single google result besides Wikipedia says that skew projection is another name for oblique projection - so I'm removing it for now. If there's a book or paper saying so, it should be added in, citing the reference. --Allefant 13:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

less pretention[edit]

"Inferior to unity"? Come on, write "less than 1" like normal people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.211.175 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Cavalier projection and Cabinet projection?[edit]

Any disagreement with merging Cavalier projection and Cabinet projection into this article? All three articles are currently rather small, and I would rather there be a single largish article than three stubs. SharkD Talk 02:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with the merger as there was no comment. SharkD Talk 01:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

Are the captions on the examples correct? The first example looks like it has an angle of 15 degrees (not 30). Likewise the potting bench example appears to have an angle of 45 degrees, not 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.181.42.126 (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC) No they are not. Potting bench is 45, and a scale factor of 2/3, not 1/2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.240.251 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oblique projection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100822152816/http://www.tpub.com:80/ to http://www.tpub.com
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100822152816/http://www.tpub.com:80/ to http://www.tpub.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]