Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 531–537 | Cite as

Future trends in computer graphics: How much is enough?

  • A. R. Forrest


Over the forty-year history of interactive computer graphics, there have been continuous advances, but at some stage this progression must terminate with images being sufficiently realistic for all practical purposes. How much detail do we really need? Polygon counts over a few million imply that on average each polygon paints less than a single pixel, making use of polygon shading hardware wasteful. We consider the problem of determining how much realism is required for a variety of applications. We discuss how current trends in computer graphics hardware, and in particular of graphics cards targeted at the computer games industry, will help or hinder achievement of these requirements. With images now being so convincingly realistic in many cases, critical faculties are often suspended and the images are accepted as correct and truthful although they may well be incorrect and sometimes misleading or untruthful. Display resolution has remained largely constant in spatial terms for the last twenty years and in terms of the number of pixels has increased by less than an order of magnitude. If the long-promised breakthroughs in display technology are finally realised, how should we use the increased resolution?


computer graphics displays graphics hardware human vision point-based modelling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Sutherland I E. Sketchpad: A man-machine graphical communication system. InProc. the Spring Joint Computer Conference, AFIPS Press, 1963, pp.329–346.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Forrest A R. Curves and surfaces for computer-aided design [Dissertation]. University of Cambridge, July 1968.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Newell M E, Newell R G, Sancha T L. A solution to the hidden surface problem. InProc. the ACM National Conference, 1972, pp.443–450.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Peng Q S. Volume modeiling for sculptured objects [Dissertation]. University of East Anglia, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Akeley K, Kirk D, Seiler L, Slusallek P B, Grantham B. When will ray tracing replace rasterization? InPanel Session, SIGGRAPH 2002, San Antonio, Texas, July 2002.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Greenberg D P, Torrance K E, Shirley P, Arvo J R, Ferwerda J A, Pattanaik S N, Lafortune E P, Walter B, Foo S C, Trumbore B. A framework for realistic image synthesis. InProc. SIGGRAPH 97, Los Angeles, California, August, 1997). InComputer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 1997,ACM SIGGRAPH, New York, 1997, pp.477–494.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Woodsford P A. The HRD-1 laser display system.ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, Summer, 1976, 10(2): 68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Brooks F P Jr. Comments in “Springing into the fifth decade of computer graphics — Where we've been and where we're going!”. InPanel Session, Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 96, New Orleans, Louisiana, August, 1996, p.513.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Beijing China and Allerton Press Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichU.K.

Personalised recommendations