> With encouragement like this, who needs bad admin to drive people away...

Let me say that I never cared much about the quality of the images. Sure,
every now and then you wonder what made someone think that the image would
actually be able to compete at all (e.g. when the image looks like it's been
made by someone who saw POV-Ray the first time a week ago). And sure does a
professional image (Gilles Tran, anyone?) stun and pull the rug underneath
your feet.

But the IRTC always was (and hopefully always will be) about sharing the
efforts. How was a certain effect achieved? Why choose this composition and
not that? Anything you scripted yourself to achieve something special?
Someone could have a marvellous talent at scripting, but the image won't
necessarily show it. E.g. you see thousands of spheres. The average viewer
would say: well, write a random loop and there you go. It is admirable then
to see that these thousand spheres *never* intersect because of some
ingenious code.

I don't know what Stefan was thinking, but to me, the IRTC always was about
a *fun* competition. Something like a starting ground for the next
generation of Povers, who will eventually submit a few magnificient pieces
of art and then turn to competitions with rewards (which they've earned).
That's how I see it. Aside of that, anyone who even begins to disqualify
beginner's images because it merely is a beginner who made the image, isn't
worthy of comment, IMHO.

As for your image, Derrick, I thought it was a well-deserved 2nd. I'd rather
see my image up in the Top 3, but who doesn't? :-)

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

> Do you mean, without intending to be rude to anyone, the seeming lack of
> time and care that goes into so many of the entries?

Take into account that some rely on the webpage, and if it is updated rather
late, people won't be able to spend as much time as they might have liked.
Additionally, dismissing images because there's someone who can make better
is a flawed point of view. There's *always* someone who can make better.

Not meant to step on your toes, but like Derrick said, posts/threads like
these don't do much good. Do rescue the IRTC, constructive criticism is
needed, not the opposite.

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Nikias" <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> wrote:
>But the IRTC always was (and hopefully always will be) about sharing the
efforts.

I appreciate that it's a positive thing to want to share tips and techniques
with others - after all, we do that here all the time - it's just that it
is the Internet Raytracing *Competition* after all.  As I said, I didn't
intend to be rude to anyone; new users should take encouragement from the
fact that there is a competition that they are welcome to enter and that
they will get their work viewed by people perhaps more experienced or more
technically able than they themselves.

As for the IRTC as a whole, I hope it can keep going strong.  One thing I
think might attract more interest from new POV users might be a 'most
improved artist' award for people who show a sustained development in their
abilities over successive rounds.

L
-

Post a reply to this message

> As for your image, Derrick, I thought it was a well-deserved 2nd. I'd rather
> see my image up in the Top 3, but who doesn't? :-)
> 

Thanks Tim, coming from you, that means a lot to me--I am a great 
admirer of your work (and love working with your macros).

I will admit that some submissions are disappointing, especially when 
little or no effort is put into the description of the work done--leaves 
nothing to really comment on. If a poor image has been the result of a 
steep learning curve for a newbie, and they provide enough of a 
description so that you can experience a little of their creative 
journey; this is enough for me to pat them on the back and give them 
marks for trying. When on the other hand, the description of the tools 
used reads, "Wings3D and a brain", this I find to be totally out of the 
spirit of the competition, and quite annoying.

Submissions should be done with one's best effort, and showing a sense 
of pride and excellence in whatever has been created--which is what I 
aspire to. Generalisations like, "...I have seen little truly deserving 
of the top places.", is just plain upsetting.

But, enough said on the subject. Time to go put up a web site where I 
can start sharing some of my work...

Post a reply to this message

Keep in mind that the IRTC is not a POV-Ray competition. I agree that it 
is a bit POV-Ray centric, and that one good thing about it is sharing 
POV-Ray code and expirence. I think the main reason for people entering 
the cometition is to get feedback.

But as far as voting is concerned, it still is a _cometition_, and the 
best image should win, no matter how or with which tools it was 
generated. It is about creating a rendered image, not about POV-Ray 
scripting. Some poeple use SDL and CSG to do all their modeling, some 
use GUI modelers, some use other free modelers/renderers, and some use 
professional software like Max or Maya. But IMHO we shouldn't care - 
what counts are the results. It is possible to create stunning images 
with POV-Ray that can compete with images made with professional 
software, so there's no reason to give extra points just for using 
POV-Ray or for writing cool POV-Ray macros. This would only discourage 
users of other renderers and would eliminate the chance to compare 
POV-Ray with other renderers by looking at IRTC entries.

But I agree that if all the models are self-made an entry deserves more 
points than if the models are taken from Poser or downloaded from the 
web - it's difficult to verify though.

Post a reply to this message

Sascha Ledinsky <sas### [at] userssourceforgenet> wrote:
> Keep in mind that the IRTC is not a POV-Ray competition. I agree that it
> is a bit POV-Ray centric, and that one good thing about it is sharing
> POV-Ray code and expirence. I think the main reason for people entering
> the cometition is to get feedback.
>
> But as far as voting is concerned, it still is a _cometition_, and the
> best image should win...

I'm afraid I totally agree with this, no doubt to Derrick's chagrin.

Why does the comeptition only rarely see entries of truly high (i.e.
highend3d.com) quality?  It's because the competition doesn't *want*
entries like that, because they'd just win hands down month after month and
it would be no fun for the people who don't have access to a full
Maya/Renderman rig.  But in its present form there is nothing stopping
industry professionals entering the IRTC with their work.  Perhaps the IRTC
should be rebranded to clarify that it is not in fact a raytracing
competition on the whole, but a POV specific contest.  The way some people
seem to think of it is that it isn't really even a competition.  It doesn't
have any prize associated with it, and it doesn't, I'm afraid to say, carry
any prestige these days.  Perhaps the Internet POV Ray Gallery (IPRG) would
be a more appropriate name?


>Generalisations like, "...I have seen little truly deserving of the top places.", is
just plain upsetting.

The truth hurts sometimes.

L
-

Post a reply to this message

Loki wrote:
> I'm afraid I totally agree with this, no doubt to Derrick's chagrin.
 >
>>Generalisations like, "...I have seen little truly deserving of the top places.", is
just plain upsetting.
> 
> The truth hurts sometimes.
> 

So, the bottom line is that you think I did not deserve my 2nd place, 
yet you offer no solid, pointed criticism as to why. I worked long and 
hard on that image, learning more about Pov in that short while than in 
all the time I have used it, still having self-doubt whether it was good 
enough or not, and whether I should enter it or not. I was elated with 
my placing, which was far beyond what I ever expected, and here you go 
saying it was not deserving of its place. What the hell is your problem?

Post a reply to this message

Loki wrote:

> Why does the comeptition only rarely see entries of truly high (i.e.
> highend3d.com) quality?  It's because the competition doesn't *want*
> entries like that...

I disagree!

If you take a look at recent winners, a lot of them were made with 
POV-Ray (simply because the IRTC is popular among POVers), some with 
other free tools (e.g. AOI) and some with professional software (e.g. Max).

Most entrants are hobbyists, not 3D professionals. They have limited or 
no access to professional tools, limited hardware and limited time. It's 
like complaining about that IRTC animations can't compete with "The 
Incredibles"...

 > because they'd just win hands down month after month...

Well, if it's so easy to win month after month, go ahead and show us!
If your images are of such "truly high quality" that they're just too 
good for the IRTC, try calling Pixar, they may be waiting for you...

If you're only iterested in what can be done with the latest software, 
huge renderfarms and a team of professionals, the IRTC is the wrong 
place to look.

Post a reply to this message

Derrick J Houy wrote:
> Loki wrote:
> 
>> I'm afraid I totally agree with this, no doubt to Derrick's chagrin.
> 
>  >
> 
>>> Generalisations like, "...I have seen little truly deserving of the 
>>> top places.", is just plain upsetting.
>>
>>
>> The truth hurts sometimes.
>>
> 
> So, the bottom line is that you think I did not deserve my 2nd place, 
> yet you offer no solid, pointed criticism as to why. I worked long and 
> hard on that image, learning more about Pov in that short while than in 
> all the time I have used it, still having self-doubt whether it was good 
> enough or not, and whether I should enter it or not. I was elated with 
> my placing, which was far beyond what I ever expected, and here you go 
> saying it was not deserving of its place. What the hell is your problem?

Your image certainly deserves it's second place! Please don't let the 
trolls discourage you!
As far as I understand Loki's bottom line is that he's seen better 
images on highend3d.com, made with $6000 software by some professionals, 
and that the IRTC isn't really even a cometition because it fails to 
attract those top artists who could win hands down month after month ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Once more, blood pressure has won out over a reasonable discussion and I get
accused of trolling, again.  What is it about some people here that they
either mistakenly or bloody-mindedly misconstrue my intent?

I'm sure, Derrick, you were more than deserving of second place in a
competition which is a bit of fun, and I'm glad you learned a lot about POV
in the process, well done.  Here's the thing: at no point did I suggest
that you personally are not a good POV artist.  At no point did I suggest
that all the entries to the IRTC are of a poor standard.  At no point,
Derrick, did I suggest that I even know which picture was made by you
personally.  I still don't.  You simply jumped on my *general* comment, my
opinion, which I am of course entitled to hold and express on a free
newsgroup, and took it as a *personal* attack.  Note that you only
commented on this discussion after I had stated my point, in which I made
no mention of your image or any other specific image.  To consider an
opinion of a general trend to be a personal attack on your own work is to
be perhaps a little touchy, wouldn't you agree?

Now Sascha, your post stated "Some poeple use SDL and CSG to do all their
modeling, some use GUI modelers, some use other free modelers/renderers,
and some use professional software like Max or Maya. But IMHO we shouldn't
care -
what counts are the results."  So why, then, am I to be called a troll when
I state truthfully that the images produced and displayed on other
websites, which were made using such professional packages, are of a
generally higher standard than most of those entered in recent rounds of
the IRTC?

You also argue "Well, if it's so easy to win month after month, go ahead and
show us!  If your images are of such "truly high quality" that they're just
too good for the IRTC, try calling Pixar, they may be waiting for you..."
Illogical sarcasm.  If my images were of truly high quality, I would
already be working for Pixar and wouldn't be here discussing the IRTC here
with you - a situation which I'm sure would be favourable to both of us.
My images, for what they are worth, are almost all available on these
newsgroups.

This is my final post on the matter.  Feel free to argue amongst yourselves,
but I have neither the time nor willpower for a protracted debate about
some opinions that you've convinced yourselves are mine.

L
-

PS @Derrick.  To finally try to convince you that I intend no ill will, I
offer some constructive criticism, as you requested.
The image is too dark around the edges.  If I look closely I can just about
make out the sea in the background I think.  I know the single bulb above
the bather is the primary light, but try including a soft shadowless fill
light to one side, probably of a blue tint, in orger to pick out detail in
the dark portion to the bottom right of the image.  The darkness makes the
composition too emtpy and rather oppressive.
Secondly, on texturing.  The moon is an extremely recognisable object.  Use
an image map, there are lots available online.  Metal textures (I presume
the lamppost should be metal) I would use a lower diffuse value, quite high
brilliance and variable reflection with a slightly lowered exponent.
Modelling-wise the image is fine, though sparse.  That is more to do with
composition.  Look at the left hand side of the image.  It's all dark and
empty.  In a film, including that portion would make the viewer tense, as
if a sinister figure were about to walk out of that gloom.  Try moving the
camera closer into the subject of the shot.  You could change the aspect
ratio of the shot to an upright frame, which might play well with the
length of the lamppost too.

Post a reply to this message