Heckler <hec### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I would say this limits the acceptable software and the
> required image far more strictly than the IRTC.

  I didn't say the competition is exactly like IRTC. I said that in
my opinion it replicates IRTC *too much* (even though it's not
identical). That is, it's just a competition on who makes the
prettiest image about a given subject. There's no real challenge
which would make it markedly different from the IRTC.

> "Visually compelling" also seems
> to exclude the possibility of a "technical merit" award as
> per the IRTC for mere technical achievment.

  There are three voting categories in the IRTC, but in practice they
have no meaning.
  I have seen way too many times people giving 20-20-20 to a
photorealistic image just because it looks so cool, no matter
how non-original and boring it is with regard to concept and
interpretation of the theme, for example (or giving 20 as
technical merit vote to an image which just uses some image
maps put onto a few polygons). And the other way around:
If an image looks like crap, it will not get a 20 eg. in
concept no matter how innovative and original the idea in
the image is.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message