 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
..or is there anybody else that gets flashbacks
from IRTC 6-8 years ago? I'm talking about the
entries in the competition and rather the artistic
quality of them.. Is this thing qoing to die out?
Stefan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stefan Persson" <azy### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> ..or is there anybody else that gets flashbacks
> from IRTC 6-8 years ago? I'm talking about the
> entries in the competition and rather the artistic
> quality of them.. Is this thing qoing to die out?
>
> Stefan
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? It's strange to me,
because I look at some of the previous winners and I'm amazed by the
quality of the work. Never having entered myself I am in no position to
complain, but looking at the entries for the past few rounds I have seen
little truly deserving of the top places. It's a shame but, as you say,
maybe it's going to die out...
L
-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When admins take 10-15 days to update their oldish website for each step
of the competition (closing, votes, results) it is to be expected that
people will turn toward other internet competition. It's a real pain
because IRTC used to be really a great competition.
Participation regurlarly decreases since 1998:
http://exether.free.fr/irtc/index.php?sub=graph&lang=fr
A big renewal is definitely needed to revive the IRTC.
JC
Stefan Persson wrote:
> ..or is there anybody else that gets flashbacks
> from IRTC 6-8 years ago? I'm talking about the
> entries in the competition and rather the artistic
> quality of them.. Is this thing qoing to die out?
>
> Stefan
>
>
--
http://sibylone.free.fr
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> complain, but looking at the entries for the past few rounds I have seen
> little truly deserving of the top places. It's a shame but, as you say,
Thanks, just what I needed to keep me feeling good about my second place
for my very first entry--after taking three years to build up the
courage to submit an entry in the first place.
With encouragement like this, who needs bad admin to drive people away...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
