"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:41fbdb8b@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41fba244@news.povray.org...
>>
>> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
>> news:41fb9880$1@news.povray.org...
>> > St. wrote:
>> >> How important are the detail images when it comes to judging? What if
>> >> minor things have been missed in one detail image? (And I mean so
> minor,
>> >> that you just can't see them in your main image).
>> >>
>> >>  ~Steve~
>> > Well that is what is so damnable about it, isn't it. You have to 
>> > operate
>> > on two levels of detail. I can even imagine there could be a texture
>> > situation in which the effectiveness on each level called for
> exclusively
>> > different solutions.
>>
>> There is a texture situation in mine. It's almost as if you need to alter
>> the textures in the detail images to actually make them look as good as
> the
>> main image looks.
>>
>>
>>   But I think the idea here is that
>> > *really* you are producing a picture at the high resolution level, it's
>> > just that you don't have to actually submit the high res render, just a
>> > low res render with some details.  Obviously many considerations will 
>> > go
>> > into the judging.  Logically the amount of detail, in the details, 
>> > would
>> > act as a minimum requirement.  ie,  "Great concept, but we can't 
>> > publish
>> > this as poster because the image breaks down at poster resolutions.
> So..."
>>
>>  Well, this is what I'm wondering: will they look at the detail images,
> and
>> then think "Ok, something's missing there, but it doesn't really matter,
> we
>> like the image so much, we'll use it, and the competitor can alter it for
>> the poster size"? Is this the path they'll take when judging, do you
> think?
>>
>> > But as a practical matter, it's a competition, you are being judged
>> > relative to a group.
>>
>>  Yes, thanks Jim. I only ask because I have a chance to re-do my detail 1
>> image, (10 hours), but I 'really' don't want to - it's been hell. ;)
>
> The rules probably help a bit here - particularly the second sentence.
>
> "In addition, two detail views of disparate areas of the main image shall 
> be
> submitted. This is to make sure that the modeling, texturing and level of
> detail are of acceptable quality, and particularly one suitable to print
> media such as magazine covers or posters if the image is re-rendered at an
> appropriate size."

     Yes, thank you Lance. The word 'acceptable' for the detail views, is, 
in my opinion, subjective in contrast to the original, 'main', image. Since 
the start of this competition, I've been thinking 'poster' in a commercial 
sense as this is the intended result of this comp. That's not a problem for 
me, but I think a few more people out there may have had the same results as 
I had - ie, crap detail views. But that's not to say that their image isn't 
fantastic, and their expectations may be high in what they've achieved as 
far as their 'main' image is concerned?

  Hey, I've given it my best shot, and can't wait to see what others have 
done. I already commend them if they've been through the same as me, and I'm 
sure they have.

  Less than two days to go now...  ;)


>
> So my completely unofficial opinion when reading that section of the rules
> is that it means the detail views will be used to see how the image would
> hold up when printed at a much higher resolution - i.e. would it still 
> look
> good, or would it start to look plain due to lack of smaller details, or 
> are
> there modelling flaws that would become visible at higher resolutions, 
> etc.
> So in my opinion that could be taken into consideration when judging... 
> for
> example maybe a judge might think "well that image looks good when 
> rendered
> at a small resolution, but when it's rendered at a large resolution it 
> looks
> quite plain", which could have a negative impact on how the judge 
> perceives
> the overall quality of the submission.

     Yes, I agree, but one contestant could have a **fantastic** skull in 
one, dark, corner, *and* two great close-ups of that skull, but what do the 
judges want? They don't want a poster of a skull in a corner because the 
model is *brilliant* and modeled in csg/sdl - it just won't cut it imo as a 
commercial poster. (But then, who knows?!)



>
>
> "You are invited to chose the areas wisely, so that they participate in 
> the
> global impression of superior quality given by your image, while being
> representative of its general level of detail."
>
> And this to me means, don't deliberately model an area with high detail
> *just* for your detail views, as that wouldn't be representative of the
> overall image detail. This to me would also mean that you shouldn't do
> things like make separate files just for rendering the detail views... 
> i.e.
> you shouldn't make one "high detail" file for rendering your detail views,
> and then another "low detail" file for the main rendered image, as doing 
> so
> would not be representative - they should be rendered from the same source
> file, in my personal opinion.

  And I respect your opinion, you know that. My image 'is' rendered from the 
same source file, using sdl, (repeated four times now in my image, (158 
.incs, 1,992 files, 4 folders)), but I've missed two minor objects out in my 
code on the second unit. <sigh> I'm just wondering whether it's 'worth' the 
effort of another ten hours, that's all. I'm beat, and I just want to enjoy 
modeling/rendering again.

 <delay since typing this>

   Anyway, I've uploaded now. Good luck if you've entered Lance, ('speak' to 
you soon now that my machine is free). Good luck all.

   ~Steve~


>
>
> Lance.
>
> thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
> thehandle - www.thehandle.com
>
>