Talk:Conversion between quaternions and Euler angles

Are the "Euler angles" in this article really Tait-Bryan_angles?

Canonical form of quaternion?

The equation presented for conversion from Euler angles to Quaternion has several discontinuities that are not necessarily present in the Quaternions themselves.

For instance, for the Euler angles (0,0,-180) and (0,0,180), the conversion would produce the quaternions (0,0,0,1) and (0,0,0,-1). These refer to the same attitude, but linear interpolation or slerp between them would not work well.

It appears that the proper way to handle this is to compute the cosine of the angle between the quaternions (via the dot product) and if this is less than zero to negate one of the quaternions.

Which definition of the Euler angles is being employed in this page?

Absolutely no mention is given as to which (of the 12 possible) definitions of the Euler angles are being employed in this discussion.

Order of angles specified?

Does the order of rotation (described as "in the order yaw, pitch, roll" in first section) match the matrix given in "Rotation matrices" section? That matrix corresponding to rotation with Euler angles can be given by (Rz (Ry Rx)). Isn't that in the order x,y,z instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.212.114.62 (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix convention

It should be stated what the convention being used for the rotation matrices is. Is it supposed to be pre-multiplied by a row vector or post-multiplied by a column vector? Icalanise (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euler Conversion

Is the displayed formula correct? The link in the singularity section (http://www.euclideanspace.com/maths/geometry/rotations/conversions/quaternionToEuler/) displays a different formula ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.153.247 (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]