Talk:Stanford bunny

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computer graphics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics 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.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Bunny image

This article used to have a picture of the Stanford Bunny, but i9t was remopved because the picture had no copyright tag. Is there an image that is clear of copyright? RJFJR 18:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe every image of the bunny by itself is copyright free since the model is provided for personal use at no charge, but I'm not sure. |The Stanford 3d scanning repository] writes the models are provided for free for non-commercial uses so it seems like the model is under a "some rights reserved" license. It is not clear to me if those rights extends to produced images. I would say this is unrealistic since this would require a massive amount of askings to Stanford each time a new rendering technique is developed. I think the images can be distributed for free without permission, as long as credits for the model are given. MaxDZ8 _talk 13:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rendered a stanford bunny with my 3D engine, added the image as public domain, and remove the "image request" from this discussion page. Jtsiomb 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the image is a derivative work, the copyright belongs to the sculptor of the original bunny figurine, or to the sculptor's employer if the sculpture qualifies as a work made for hire. The article does not identify this sculptor, which would make File:Stanford Bunny.png appear to violate WP:NFCC(10)(a). Who is the sculptor? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This webpage would tend to support your conclusion:

I [Greg Turk] was a postdoc at Stanford University with Marc Levoy in 1993 and 1994. One day, close to the Easter holiday, I was out shopping on University Avenue near the Stanford campus. I entered a shop that sold various decorative items for the home and garden. On one of the shelves of the store was a large collection of clay bunny rabbits, all identical. I had range scanning on my mind, and these bunnies looked to be about the right shape and size for our scanning project.

However, Commons has many images and even the scan of the rabbit, so I'm unclear what the ground truth is here. Arlo James Barnes 19:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started a DR to resolve the uncertainty: commons:commons:deletion requests/Stanford Bunny images Arlo James Barnes 23:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Limitation

Why is 69,451 triangles considered a small amount? and why is this "small" amount considered a limitation. Is it a limitation when benchmarking rendering performance? -- 216.16.231.172 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question: it seems yes 60,000 is small by today's standards and doesn't provide a complex enough surface for compression / simplification algorithms. I've added the "by today's standards" into the article. -- 216.16.231.172 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 'when?' ambiguity tag as it doesn't really add anything, and interrupts the flow of the article. As time progresses the statement will only become more true. Nearly all graphics cards today are capable of generating at least tens of millions of triangles per second, some in excess of 1 billion per second. Though this may not be the most accurate temporal description. I don't feel that it's ambiguity detracts from the article as no matter when a user will read this it most certainly be true. -- IT Sleuth (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense; once there are sufficient polygons to represent the shape faithfully, nothing is really gained by adding more even if a given renderer could handle more on the fly easily. Arlo James Barnes 19:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]