Talk:Visual artifact

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

Computer graphics

	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
???	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.

Needs expansion

Needs more description explanation and list of artifacts, if possible, with pictures.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjenkins52 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 1 January 2009

Artefact or Artifact

The word artifact is spelled incorrectly in the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.180.37 (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you're wrong. Beeswaxcandle says it should be spelled artefact because it is not an object. I initially wrote the article as Artifact but he/she specifically corrected it.

I don't know exactly what to believe because on the internet you find both uses.

Tomjenkins52 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever is used, the article needs to be consistent - if "artefact" is correct the article needs to be moved to change its title. PamD (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been WP:BOLD and changed it - google hits are 23k:1.5k in favour of "Visual artifact", and Oxford English Dictionary makes no distinction between use of the two forms of the word. PamD (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pam, actually that's the title I started the article with, but this Beeswaxcandle bloke came around and changed it. Great that's its back to normal now. Cheers!

Tomjenkins52 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrative picture added (and removed)

I just removed this picture that just got added. The picture, mislabelled as portraying screen tearing, shows a redrawing problem, most probably due to poor video drivers, or excessive CPU utilization in the computer interferring with the correct updating of the screen. --uKER (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a bug with Windows XP, and certain programs do show such artifacts. It is screen-tearing because it is indeed, newer displayed frames overlapping the older. Added back. Discuss changes before removal. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 01:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anyone who read the related article could realize this is certainly NOT screen tearing, which originates when frame generation is out of sync with the display's refresh, causing screen draws to draw information from different frames. BTW, although some people have it as a practice, there's no "discuss changes before removal" rule in Wikipedia. --uKER (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, but my point is that its a good image to show some sort of visual artifact whatever you call it. If you can think of a better caption, please do edit the article. Thank you -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 06:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it can be seen as a software-originated artifact somehow. --uKER (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital to the exclusion of film and other media

Shouldn't this article cover visual artifacts that occur in film and other media? - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]