At least twice photoshop has been named as rendering tool for 
the IRTC. Before I vote on these pics I have to know if
Photoshop 5.5 has a render machine I didn't know of. If not
these pics might be produced totally by the means of 
postprocessing and should be removed ...

canyon.jpg
caazi.jpg

Anyone with information?

Marc

-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

Marc Schimmler <sch### [at] icauni-stuttgartde> wrote:
: At least twice photoshop has been named as rendering tool for 
: the IRTC. Before I vote on these pics I have to know if
: Photoshop 5.5 has a render machine I didn't know of.

  AFAIK it hasn't (and less a raytracer!).
  I think they should be disqualified.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Juha wrote:
> 
> Marc Schimmler <sch### [at] icauni-stuttgartde> wrote:
> : At least twice photoshop has been named as rendering tool for
> : the IRTC. Before I vote on these pics I have to know if
> : Photoshop 5.5 has a render machine I didn't know of.
> 
>   AFAIK it hasn't (and less a raytracer!).
>   I think they should be disqualified.
> 
	That's what I think too, moreover they are completely
off-topic and don't even try to pretend they are:
<quote>
TOPIC: No topic, Its just nuts!
</quote>

		Jerome
-- 

* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* to Hyde...                  * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************

Post a reply to this message

Marc Schimmler wrote:
> 
> At least twice photoshop has been named as rendering tool for
> the IRTC. Before I vote on these pics I have to know if
> Photoshop 5.5 has a render machine I didn't know of. If not
> these pics might be produced totally by the means of
> postprocessing and should be removed ...
> 
> canyon.jpg
> caazi.jpg
> 
> Anyone with information?

 I don't personally have Photoshop installed on my system but I did do
a thorough search of their web site and could find nothing to indicate
that Photoshop has any kind of rendering options be it raytraced or any
other method. There are some 3D plugins for extruded text ect. but
Photoshop itself remains a paint program and no more as near as I can
tell.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
>  I don't personally have Photoshop installed on my system but I did do
> a thorough search of their web site and could find nothing to indicate
> that Photoshop has any kind of rendering options be it raytraced or any
> other method. There are some 3D plugins for extruded text ect. but
> Photoshop itself remains a paint program and no more as near as I can
> tell.
> 

This is what I still had in the back of my head. As Jerome said, they
are 
also totally off-topic but that's not the point here. I guess it's time
to 
contact the admins so that they can investigate further and decide on
it.

Thank you,

Marc

-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

Just out of curiosity, would a picture created by a robot using PhotoShop
5.5 be okay?

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:
> 
> Just out of curiosity, would a picture created by a robot using PhotoShop
> 5.5 be okay?

No Tom, it would not be ok. If it were an AI such as myself then the
answer is yes.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Well, he wouldn't be the first clueless submittor.  Some while ago
(Elementals?) we saw what looked like a DnD character painted by an
adolescent.

I suggest contacting the creator; I'd do it myself but he might take
offense that I, not an official nor yet a participant, should wag my
finger at him.  Who knows, he might withdraw them when he learns that
there are rules.

On yet another hand, "caazi" looks very Brycelike.

-- 
Anton Sherwood  *\\*  br0### [at] p0b0xcom  *\\*  http://www.jps.net/antons/

Post a reply to this message

Marc Schimmler <sch### [at] icauni-stuttgartde> wrote in message
news:38C4D988.F8E59594@ica.uni-stuttgart.de...
> At least twice photoshop has been named as rendering tool for
> the IRTC.

I use PhotoShop almost everyday at work -- no it is not a
rendering tool (and I submitted votes accordingly for the pieces
that claimed it as their rendering tool).  It does have a native
"3d" filter (more of an extrusion tool, IMO), but it is not a
renderer.

Third-party plug-ins were used extensively in at least one of the
images, but they're not "renderers" either.

I don't think the person who submitted them was trying to be
deceptive (if he was, he wasn't very good at it -- as anyone who
read his text file will testify ;), I'm guessing that he just
didn't read a single thing at the IRTC site and does not know
what raytracing is.

Claire

Post a reply to this message

jivvy wrote:
> 

> I don't think the person who submitted them was trying to be
> deceptive (if he was, he wasn't very good at it -- as anyone who
> read his text file will testify ;), I'm guessing that he just
> didn't read a single thing at the IRTC site and does not know
> what raytracing is.
> 

Either that, or he tried to be able to vote more than one time,
using different adresses... relying on an automated procedure,
it may succeed.

After all, on previous round, only 31 votes were completed
 (for 86 images). If he voted three times, it would have make
 a 10%. Using 20/20/20 for his, and 1/1/1 for others, it 
may represent a variation of two points (not sure, may be more,
may be less, I leave it to the math-people), boosting his ranking!

--
It's not because I'm paranoid that the world is not after me!

Post a reply to this message