Commons:Requests for comment/Hosting files for 3D models

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non admin closure) Stale, RFC began in 2014 and last commented on in August 2015. Riley Huntley (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Tracked in Phabricator
Task T3790

As currently stands, although we have the first w:Wikipedia Monument, and we may get its 3D model freely released as well, as well as other past projects such as the Wikipedia puzzle (note that the Wikipedia logo and others symbols are now free), Commons would not be able to host such a file. Following up on the this VP discussion, I submit to the Commons community the proposal to enable uploads of 3D models, in particular the free format *.AMF which is described at Commons:File_types as not currently supported. On a related note, if anyone would be so kind and to file a Bugzilla request to allow MediaWiki/Commons to host AMF files, it would be appreciated (I tried but I am having trouble figuring out the bugzilla wiki). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment General support of 3D files is tracked in bugzilla:1790, so it may not be necessary to open a specific bug for AMF now. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if people want to enable uploading without the previewing support, bug should be filed after their is community support demonstrated, not before. Bawolff (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 3D models would be great, if we get a static preview upon upload and as a fallback. But I doubt we get anything through security review. @Eloquence, LilaTretikov (WMF), and GYoung (WMF): Do you think one security software engineer is sufficient to run a Wiki farm (with tons of user content, user requests and page views) like the Wikimedia? -- Rillke(q?) 11:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! very nice to have 3D and the way to go to present certain information. If there is a potential issue with security, are there workarounds for now? For example start with some files as a pilot, and check them manually or semi-automatically or use only files imported from a platform where they have implemented security checks ? --Hannolans (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will start a 3d scanning campaign in a natural history museum in Italy soon, making the upload to Commons a very important issue. We might in the meantime host everything on github, but it is a deeply needed feature... --MMo (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely a huge demand by the former Google Earth modeling community (which has been shutdown by Google). While covering the planet with 3d buildings is unachievable, most models depict monuments and iconic landmarks, with similar intentions as Wikipedia. Currently these models don't find an appropriate usage, because 3D Warehouse's license does not allow open source projects to access/embed/re-use models in a generic manner. There have also been not yet fruitful efforts by the OpenStreetMap community to include 3D models, which would require creating a repository first (frequently discussed in recent FOSSGIS conferences). Maybe Wikimedia is the "central" place for an open repository of 3d media files, and efforts would best be joined instead of separate? --Aeglius (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment can we add .blend? That’s the free Blender format and it’s very versatile. You can save photo composition pipelines, 2D animations, 3D animations, renderings, even physical simulations (from water simulation to animated solar system models). It also has an extremely vibrant open source minded community of artists it’d be nice to tap into. 3D is always an enormous server strain though.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 23:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, .blend would be great to have. The problem might be the complexity of the format though. For example, .blend-Files can contain any amount of Python code, and although the code doesn't execute without the user allowing it to, we would still be hosting packaged (and possibly well-hidden, for inexperienced users) source code. On the other hand, something like .obj is quite limited because no textures or shaders can be stored, so it's really only a 3D model and nothing else (not nice to look at). If it is possible to check the file for embedded python code, .blends might be fine. — Julian H.✈ 09:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Python can be stripped. Every public blender renderfarm does this. && the point of hosting .blend is so we can have textures and rendering and compositing and animation all in one well-maintained file format—♥ Kelvinsong talk 02:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we would and will host all open source formats. But, from the developer's perspective, it would help if we could prioritize. Commons:File_types#Unsupported_free_file_formats lists for open 3D formats: AMF, X3D, COLLADA, and BLEND. Is that all? If so, we should decide which we should make a priority.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think blend and afm is more important because blend is more widely used and afm is good for 3d printing—♥ Kelvinsong talk 23:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
phab:T93679 for someone interested in coding it. -- Rillke(q?) 10:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Would it please be possible to add the .SKP for SketchUp models?. It is also a free format and it’s very versatile. Also it can be noted that the 3D Warehouse is a free cloud base repository that has over 2 million models available. Another 2 other reasons why I think it should be considere:
  1. Searching within Commons like in this example it is remarkable to see the number of uploaded files from Sketchup. Those are 2D images (the software can export flat 2D as well), but show the interest in the application/software.
  2. An article like Portus (3rd photo down), is an example where the reader could have a "virtual look" at the way the port looked like back over 2000 years ago interactively as this was made with Sketchup...
Thank you for considering — Ludopedia(Talk) 19:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The .skp format is not exactly a free format (it's non-free) and although it is nice for content creation and available content, it has no free reference implementation and its proprietary SDK is only compatible Windows/OS X servers, which could be a challenge for Wikimedia to render previews or preprocess skp files for a webgl viewer. --Aeglius (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Could we get this rolling again? (2016)

[edit]

Several of our friends in the museum and maker communities have 3D stuff. It would be both cool and educational to be able to share it here (and wherever stuff from Wikimedia Commons ends up). --Palnatoke (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is sad how the wiki movement is falling behind on some tech avenues - mobile, and 3D. Seriously, what is so difficult about making MediaWiki software compatible with some 3D open content file format? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea to re-open this, I am also working with a number of small heritage institutions that are getting started with taking their first steps in the field of 3d photography, would be great if we could get them to make these photo's available through Commons as well. But of course, this then needs to be a possibility first.. Mtmlan84 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Work on this is already in progress. Take a look at the overview on Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/3d/
Unfortunately development could be faster and it serves only very basic features - yet. But however, it's in progress, and that's really nice.
Best regards, --#Reaper (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Reaper35 and Piotrus: Thanks for this, good to know it is in progress, I will follow the developments with anticipation! Best, Mtmlan84 (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/Hosting_files_for_3D_models&oldid=244405449"