Michael Hunter wrote:

> be considered minimum requirements for the competition. It has been taken over

> remains. We will fail to retain and acquire the most proficient 3D artists if
> we dictate to them how they are allowed to make their art. These people both
> inspire us with their images and teach us with their comments and should be
> highly valued.
> 
> I have argued that we have arrived in this situation because the initial rules

> techniques have been developed that while powerful are in opposition with the
> initial rules. I believe the intent of these rules were to focus work and
> conversation about the creation of 3D images and animations. This is the sole
> intent and we should update the rules to reflect this just as the web site has
> been updated. I have suggested the following as the minimum requirements for a
> submission to the IRTC for your consideration:
> 


> 
> The issue of a particular image or animation showing a good use of 3D is a
> matter I think is best left up to judging and comments and to be done on a case
> by case basis. Whereas the minimum requirements should only be used to maintain
> the focal point on 3D work. Nothing more.
> 
> I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this. It has either been accepted by
> people here or was ignored because I write to much.
> 
> 
> 

I guess I have a couple of reactions.

First, what minimum requirements are you so worried about?  Are these 
posted on the new site somewhere?  (I tried to check, but, as usual, I 
forgot my password.) I would be interested in the particular limitations 
you are reacting to and citing in your historical view.

Your question is seriously posed (twice!) and therefore deserves some 
attention.

I agree with your position although:

1. not always for your reasons, and

2. it flies in the face of some personal creative sentiments.


I recognize that a contest with imposed limitations might discourage 
some possible participants.  I also recognize that those same 
constraints might reassure others or even challenge some to greater 
exertions.  The  povcomp, with its requirement that code be submitted to 
verify the render, was certainly proof of the viable use of constraints.

What bothers me about both imposed limitations, and attempts to 
strategically loosen them, is my desire, echoing Warp, for as much 
logical consistency as possible.  But I end up with a different conclusion.

I think that your formulation provides the best consistency by proposing 
an uncompromising credo of inclusion along with a general statement of 
direction.  I think the boundary cases described by Warp do mount a 
serious critique of your position, particularly your reliance on "3D" as 
a term commonly understood, but I think that that needs to be risked in 
order to gain the intellectual and creative vitality which stems from a 
credo of inclusion.

Now my personal sentiments are more aligned with Warp's.  There is an 
intuitive purity to drawing the line at single-pass rendering with a ray 
tracer, using the ray tracer only, with no post-processing. A relaxed 
version of this standard, (which allows varous means for producing 
objects,) I have continued to impose on myself. It is aligned with my 
own understanding of the internal constraints necessary for producing 
and understanding art. And Warp's chronicling of the exploitation of 
certain 'allowances' in the past makes a strong case for having an 
absolute 'no post-processing' limitation. But it equally demonstrates 
the artificiality, and internal contradictions of any imposed 
limitations.  And ultimately, single-pass rendering is an artificial 
limitation too, an artifact, as you suggest, reflecting the technical 
outlook at a earlier point in time.  So I agree that, while useful, it 
is a standard that should not be enshrined in contest rules.  Instead 
let the experiment proceed unfettered, and the chips fall where they 
may.

Post a reply to this message