Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!helios!gordon
From: gordon@cs.tamu.edu (Dan Gordon)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Graphics Texts etc.
Message-ID: <8307@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 17 Sep 90 14:42:13 GMT
References: <23900016@sunc7> <8256@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1990Sep17.015943.18818@cs.UAlberta.CA>
Sender: usenet@helios.TAMU.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Lines: 33

In article <1990Sep17.015943.18818@cs.UAlberta.CA> cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw) writes:
>In article <8256@helios.TAMU.EDU> gordon@cs.tamu.edu (Dan Gordon) writes:
>>why does Hearn & Baker use a most inefficient polygon scan conversion 
>>algorithm? 
>
>Judging from the other mistakes and miscues in the book, H&B give an
>inefficient algorithm either because (1) They didn't understand the 
>algorithm, or (2) they didn't want to lift the perfectly good explanation
>from Foley & vanDam.

Another book that has a similar bad polygon scan-conversion algorithm
is the one by Pokorny & Gerald (Franklin, Beedle & Assoc., 1989). My
impression is that books that avoid linked lists are simply aimed at 
a NON-computer science audience - e.g., engineering students who have
only had an introductory programming course.

On the other hand, one book does an excellent job of explaining this
algorithm. This is the book "Computer Graphics" by F. S. Hill, Jr., 
published by Macmillan, 1990. The book presents the algorithm in one
section in a pedagogically good manner, and in the next section, 
explains how the algorithm can be extended to handle several polygons
at once. Then, in the chapter on hidden surface elimination, it shows
how the latter variation can be used for hidden surface removal.

For those interested in a detailed compendium of graphics algorithms,
I suggest you look at "Procedural Elements of Computer Graphics," by
D. F. Rogers, McGraw-Hill, 1985. In some cases, though, you may need
to go to the original papers in order to understand exactly what is
going on.

A final word: No book that I know beats the new Foley et al. for the
sheer encylopedic extent of the covered material, as well as for
being very up-to-date. A definite must.