Talk:Catmull–Clark subdivision surface

What's the input for the function? Example input/output?

typical 3D datas are formated like this: an array of vertex points first (x,y,z) 3D coordinates with type (float, float, float), they are indexed from 0 to (n - 1), then a list (or array) of faces, a triangle face is specified with 3 ints, and a quad face with 4 ints, the ints are the indexes in the first array. This data model is most often used because vertices belongs to several faces, so there are no duplication of the coordinates with this model.

here are below a typical input and output for the Catmull-Clark subdivision surface algorythm, the input is a simple cube:

input_points = [
  (-1.0,  1.0,  1.0);
  (-1.0, -1.0,  1.0);
  ( 1.0, -1.0,  1.0);
  ( 1.0,  1.0,  1.0);
  ( 1.0, -1.0, -1.0);
  ( 1.0,  1.0, -1.0);
  (-1.0, -1.0, -1.0);
  (-1.0,  1.0, -1.0);
]

input_faces = [
  (0, 1, 2, 3);
  (3, 2, 4, 5);
  (5, 4, 6, 7);
  (7, 0, 3, 5);
  (7, 6, 1, 0);
  (6, 1, 2, 4);
]

# below after one iteration:

output_points = [
  (-0.555556,  0.555556,  0.555556);
  (-0.555556, -0.555556,  0.555556);
  ( 0.555556, -0.555556,  0.555556);
  ( 0.555556,  0.555556,  0.555556);
  ( 0.555556, -0.555556, -0.555556);
  ( 0.555556,  0.555556, -0.555556);
  (-0.555556, -0.555556, -0.555556);
  (-0.555556,  0.555556, -0.555556);
  ( 0.000000,  0.000000,  1.000000);
  (-0.750000,  0.000000,  0.750000);
  ( 0.000000, -0.750000,  0.750000);
  ( 0.750000,  0.000000,  0.750000);
  ( 0.000000,  0.750000,  0.750000);
  ( 1.000000,  0.000000,  0.000000);
  ( 0.750000, -0.750000,  0.000000);
  ( 0.750000,  0.000000, -0.750000);
  ( 0.750000,  0.750000,  0.000000);
  ( 0.000000,  0.000000, -1.000000);
  ( 0.000000, -0.750000, -0.750000);
  (-0.750000,  0.000000, -0.750000);
  ( 0.000000,  0.750000, -0.750000);
  ( 0.000000,  1.000000,  0.000000);
  (-0.750000,  0.750000,  0.000000);
  (-1.000000,  0.000000,  0.000000);
  (-0.750000, -0.750000,  0.000000);
  ( 0.000000, -1.000000,  0.000000);
]

output_faces = [
  ( 0,  9,  8, 12);
  ( 1, 10,  8,  9);
  ( 2, 11,  8, 10);
  ( 3, 12,  8, 11);
  ( 3, 11, 13, 16);
  ( 2, 14, 13, 11);
  ( 4, 15, 13, 14);
  ( 5, 16, 13, 15);
  ( 5, 15, 17, 20);
  ( 4, 18, 17, 15);
  ( 6, 19, 17, 18);
  ( 7, 20, 17, 19);
  ( 7, 22, 21, 20);
  ( 0, 12, 21, 22);
  ( 3, 16, 21, 12);
  ( 5, 20, 21, 16);
  ( 7, 19, 23, 22);
  ( 6, 24, 23, 19);
  ( 1,  9, 23, 24);
  ( 0, 22, 23,  9);
  ( 6, 24, 25, 18);
  ( 1, 10, 25, 24);
  ( 2, 14, 25, 10);
  ( 4, 18, 25, 14);
]

I propose this image to illustrate the article:

Looks good, but I would suggest breaking it into three images and losing the built-in descriptor lines. I would also suggest stretching the contrast ratio such that it's white on black, rather than light-gray on dark-gray. --Michael Mol 08:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tryed to make another set with your suggestions, but I have uploaded the original sizes because I thought IM was able to make nice thumbnails, but it fails, so I will have to make the resize through Gimp and re-upload these. --Blue Prawn 23:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here the new set resized with Gimp:

Algorithm Description Improvements

I've tried to improve the description of the algorithm (making it look more like math and less like computer code) but may have made a few bloopers along the way. A full mathematical version would be even better, except that I doubt that most people would immediately pick up the notation for a centroid and so would go horribly astray. Still, if someone can do some more work on it I'd be glad. Note also that neither the Wikipedia article nor this task are particularly good references; for example, the WP article only handles the hole-free mesh case. –Donal Fellows 15:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove non-working OCaml example

Since nobody seems to be trying to fix the first OCaml example, perhaps it should be removed. Should we check with the original author first? - TobyK 17:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think candidate for deletion should rather be considering if an implementation is poor at the design point of view. Here the code produces wrong output but the error is probably a minor calculation error somewhere. There is also the Tcl example that produces wrong output on the border of the hole. Borders of holes should be smooth, and on the screenshot we can see that it's not. Blue Prawn 23:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Tcl solution is now fixed. It was a problem in the code to update point locations on the edge of the whole (which to be fair isn't actually discussed anywhere on the WP page or in the literature that I found with only a small amount of searching). The formula I picked seems to give nice-looking results.

In general though, only delete a solution if it is “considered harmful”, i.e., actively promoting bad practices not necessary to the solution of the task. Having a bug is not a sin, and there's no way to persuade people to fix things on any exact schedule. (You could try commenting on the original submitter's talk page; they might've configured email notifications.) Or try to learn enough OCaml to be able to fix it; the algorithm is complex enough that it remains itself the major challenge. –Donal Fellows 20:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)