Mike Raiford wrote:
> scott wrote:
> 
>> Hmm, I think you are restricted your view to POV too much, where you 
>> have to do everything by entering text.  There are many other programs 
>> (like Wings, Blender, 3D Studio) where you can achieve great, 
>> technically brilliant works by not entering a single line of code or 
>> script.  If someone had modelled a very complex item in *any* program 
>> I would give them high technical merit. It's all about using the right 
>> tool for the job, POV SDL is great for some things (eg repeated 
>> geometric structures) but totally the wrong tool for others (eg a car). 
> 
> 
> I think you missed my point.
> 
> The technical merit winner had *no* information on how it was made. They 
> may have been very nice models, yes... That deserves artistic merit.
> 
> Its hard to me to award technical merit to meshes, unless that mesh was 
> developed using some means other than simply a modeller.
> 
> Did they take exacting measurements of the object and put the models 
> together point-by-point? Did they develop their own textures? materials? 
> effects? Write shaders? (OOH, that's not POVRAY at all!). Do they have 
> their own work flow tools?
> They left no information, and yet somehow 
> managed to pull off a technical merit score. The image was even rendered 
> with POVRay!
> 
> I see nothing in the image, nor the description that stands out. Its a 
> good image artistically, and deserved to place, just not as technical 
> merit. Nothing out of the ordinary was achieved. UV-Mapped textures and 
> modelling that anyone with experience in a modeler does not earn 
> technical merit. The image is not groundbreaking. They used several 
> tools, but none of their own.
> 
This is highly accomplished, beautifully realized picture.  It more than 
deserves to be the technical merit winner.

Post a reply to this message