Hildur K. <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote:
> The reason for aliasing is usually shortcomings in the software and/or hardware.

  And that's what I want to see: What rendering software can do. I'm not
interested in seeing what Photoshop can do.

  As I said, if you want to see what Photoshop can do, just google for
"photoshop contest". You should get plenty of results.

> It has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the artist.

  A talented artist can probably create better images with a physical brush,
paint and canvas than most people with all the rendering software in the
world, and the work of these talented artists is extremely admirable. However,
I don't think the IRTC in particular is the proper website for their work.

> Is it illegal to render big and then scale the image down? Because in the past
> people did recommend that to me in comments, on a scene with a difficult AA
> situation. Is it?

  IMO it should be (for the IRTC). Of course I'm not the one making the
decisions, so my opinion is rather inconsecuential.

> If I do gamma corrections and add my name, is it then still a direct output from
> the rendering software?

  What did you use to make gamma corrections and add your name? Photoshop or
Gimp? Then it's *not* the direct output from the rendering software.

> Is adjusting Levels a acceptable method of gamma correction?

  All kinds of external post-processing can be abused to create images
which the rendering software itself might not be capable of producing.

> Adding post effects in a 3D software is NOT raytracing, it??s an effect added on
> top of the image after it??s finished rendering.

  Writing the image to a file in PNG format (or, for that matter, in any
format, even raw RGB) isn't raytracing either. So what? It's still something
which the *rendering software itself* is doing, rather than an external,
unrelated software.

> > > My recommendation would be to allow any kind of post-processing
> > > which is of a "general" nature
> >
> >   That's the problem: Defining what's allowed and what isn't becomes
> > really complicated, and you end up with a rule book thicker than the one
> > in Formula 1 racing. Don't you think *that* is going to discourage people?

> Not necessary to make it thick. Simply make a short list of allowed effects.

  Then the rules become rather arbitrary and illogical. Why those effects
in particular, and not others?

  And as said, any such effects can be abused to produce visual effects
which the original rendering software might be unable to produce directly.

> The
> rule of thumb could be (like it already is) that the process should affect every
> pixel in the image.

  A lens flare effect affects every pixel in the image, and thus it becomes
allowed by that rule of thumb.

  And no, "it should affect every pixel the same amount" does not fix the
problem. For example gamma correction applies a different amount of change
to different pixels. And overall, it becomes difficult to define what is
meant by "the same amount of change".

> Then you could write down several options, like scaling,
> blurring, gamma (how?), color correcting etc. How about glow? That is a post
> effect in some raytracers.

  Yes, let's make this a Photoshop contest while we are at it.

  Or a contest about who can abuse the rules the most to achieve things
which have nothing to do with the rendering software.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message