In article <406ee7ca@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   The difference is whether the image was produced by the renderer
> called XYZ or not. It shows "the renderer XYZ can produce images
> like this".

I don't care if it's done by working the math out with paper and pencil.


>   If you post-process the result of the rendering with an external
> program (ie. *you* use the external program, not the renderer) the
> result will be something the renderer is not able to produce.

And so? The algorithms that generate the image can be equivalent to 
those used to generate the image with a single program. What's the 
difference? Again, this is not a competition between rendering packages.


>   And besides, if you want to allow any post-processing with any
> unrelated image manipulation program, why do you want to restrict
> it to only things that can be made "automatically" by the program
> and not things the user can draw by hand? Why this kind of artificial
> limitation? And where do you draw the line between something made
> "automatically" by the program and something made "by hand" by the
> user?

Because a procedure done by hand can not be reproduced. An algorithmic 
procedure can be.


>   It's something you get directly from the renderer. Why it should be
> forbidden? It's not using photoshop or gimp to achieve something the
> program cannot produce.
> 
>   That's the difference: Can this renderer *directly* produce this
> image, or do you need a third-party program for that?

It's the same process. What does it matter how it was produced?
I will not accept that a gaussian blur is "rendering" if it is done by 
the program that generated the original image, but not if it is done by 
a separate program. The result is the same. It looks the same, and was 
generated the same way.


>   If you render a small logo and then use it in a hand-drawn image,
> can you call the image, the whole image, "rendered"? No, only part
> of the image has been rendered.

Of course. Most of the image would be hand drawn. I've said several 
times that hand modification should not be allowed, do you think I'd 
accept a hand drawing?


>   At the point when the result of the rendering is modified.

What's the result of the rendering? The color seen along each ray? The 
gamma correction done by POV-Ray modifies that...no image using gamma 
correction is a legal IRTC image?


>   How much modifications, in your opinion, can be made to a rendered
> image so that it can still be considered "rendered"?

I already answered that. Drawing, painting, and other "by hand" 
manipulation is out. Anything accepted as part of the rendering package 
should also be accepted if done by a program outside the rendering 
package. If a MegaPOV post-process convolution blur is acceptable, than 
any other convolution blur should be acceptable.
Otherwise, limit entries based on the actual algorithms used. Color 
adjustment should be allowed: gamma correction, contrast, etc. Resizing. 
A small overlay for a signature, which should not affect the overall 
image. Judging this would require in-depth knowledge of how the software 
that generated the image works.


>   If you, for example, shuffle the location of all the pixels randomly,
> is it still a "rendered" image? The result is just random noise. It may
> be pseudo-random because it's based on existing data (the rendered
> image), but it's still just noise, not a rendered image.

I can do the exact same thing with just POV-Ray. Does that magically 
make it "rendered"?

To answer your question, yes, I'd still call it a rendered image. It 
just wouldn't be an image of anything, and would be off-topic for pretty 
much any IRTC competition.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message