This ain't high diving.

Any ol' fool can throw a bunch of sloppy CSG and isosurface patches and fail
miserably for technical merit in my book.  I think that Annig's earlier post
talked about "appropriate use" of technology.   I have rated images low for
being an obtuse showcasing of a raytracing program's capability.

An entry could use nothing but boxes, cylinders, and one plane, and deserve a
higher rating than another image which used heightfields to texture a
building.   Cross-contamination is one way to describe a vote you disagree with.
Consider the entry a few rounds ago with bald, pale, hairless, identical
(Poser2) cavemen.  I found that detail offensive to its artistry: who'd want
that entry hanging on a wall?  It was offensive to technical merit: it showed
careless use of a canned model.  It was offensive to concept:  WHY ON EARTH
would a group of cavemen be cloned and bald?  What kind of message is the author
trying to convey:  time travel? loss of identity in cults?


Pedro Graterol wrote:

> -I am interested in a scale - I am making one* and I would like you to help
> me-. Who is eager to establish what 'exact' parameters are needed to
> evaluate the technical part? Will you please send me your check points? No
> matter
> how many points you assign; if 100 points are what you are used to, will be
> OK.
> - Maybe CSG use, loops and so on,  modeling (does that scores or not, does
> that is completely neccessary for the image to be what it is?, are we
> evaluating the image as a POVimage or a raytraced image,  which are the same
> but are not the same.etc
>  Thanks in advance,
>
> Marjorie Graterol

Post a reply to this message