news:412fac84$1@news.povray.org...

> i guess i was under a different assumption, which is that the detailed
> versions were to show that the winning image would be suitably detailed to
> look good when printed as a poster. and if that were the idea behind it,
> then you would in fact need to provide a detailed view in the same
> perspective to illustrate your attention to detail.

That's it. Typical example: let's imagine that the winning image contains a
mesh textured with an image map (correctly interpolated). It looks perfect
(and it is) at screen size. Now this image is used for the cover of a CG
magazine, and the requirement from the publishers is for a 20x30 cm, 300 dpi
image, roughly 2400 x 3600 pixels. Aw, suddenly the mesh looks coarse and
angular and the texture all blurry. Or (a problem I had in the past when
porting screen-sized image to the print world) objects that looked properly
positioned appear now floating over each other. Also: primitives that look
really primitive, normals that look really flat, this sort of thing.
The main idea is that the image needs to look perfect on something else than
a computer screen, so that modeling, texturing and detailing should be tuned
accordingly.

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters