POV-Ray : Newsgroups : irtc.stills : Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK? Server Time
12 Jan 2025 16:03:47 EST (-0500)
  Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK? (Message 1 to 10 of 30)  
Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Fabien Mosen
Subject: Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK?
Date: 9 Jul 2000 07:43:12
Message: <396863DD.DB82E889@skynet.be>
Bruce L wrote:
> 
> I've seen a number of postings suggesting that some of the post process
> features available in other renderer's should be considered as violating
> the IRTC guidlines. How does the MegaPOV post_process features fit in
> all this?

It's perfectly "legal" to use the postprocess feature.
However, remember to be tasteful when using it, abuse
of postprocessing rarely gives nice images.

Fabien.


Post a reply to this message

From: Ken
Subject: Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK?
Date: 9 Jul 2000 08:49:48
Message: <396873BB.C13A6BEF@pacbell.net>
Bruce L wrote:
> 
> I've seen a number of postings suggesting that some of the post process
> features available in other renderer's should be considered as violating
> the IRTC guidlines. How does the MegaPOV post_process features fit in
> all this?
> 
> Bruce

It is a feature of the rendering engine rather than a seperate operation
performed by another program. The IRTC admin has decided that this is
acceptable.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/


Post a reply to this message

From: Francois Labreque
Subject: Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK?
Date: 9 Jul 2000 11:16:47
Message: <3968964A.9FBE3251@attglobal.net>
Ken wrote:
> 
> Bruce L wrote:
> >
> > I've seen a number of postings suggesting that some of the post process
> > features available in other renderer's should be considered as violating
> > the IRTC guidlines. How does the MegaPOV post_process features fit in
> > all this?
> >
> > Bruce
> 
> It is a feature of the rendering engine rather than a seperate operation
> performed by another program. The IRTC admin has decided that this is
> acceptable.

So if my rendering engine offers feature X (e.g. motion blur) it's OK,
while if I use some other tool such as Photoshop or The Gimp to achieve
the same, it's not?


> 
> --
> Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

-- 
Francois Labreque |   //\\    Wear an ASCII ribbon!
     flabreq      |  ||  ||   
        @         |   \\//    Support the campain
  attglobal.net        \\     against HTML e-mail!
                      //\\


Post a reply to this message

From: Chris S 
Subject: Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK?
Date: 9 Jul 2000 18:23:49
Message: <3968fb75@news.povray.org>
> So if my rendering engine offers feature X (e.g. motion blur) it's OK,
> while if I use some other tool such as Photoshop or The Gimp to achieve
> the same, it's not?

Yep, that's right.  This rule isn't so much as a condemnation towards the
aforementioned post processing features as it is an attempt to eliminate
someone from creating an image completely without use of a raytracer or
similar program.   For example, if you had two entries each using feature X,
one done with MP and the other with PS, there is no doubt that the former
had to have used a raytracing program whereas the same is not true for the
later.

-Chris-


Post a reply to this message

From: Nathan Kopp
Subject: Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK?
Date: 10 Jul 2000 01:02:20
Message: <396958dc@news.povray.org>
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote...
>
>
> It is a feature of the rendering engine rather than a seperate operation
> performed by another program. The IRTC admin has decided that this is
> acceptable.

...which is a big reason why I think POV needs post-processing built in.
Actually, I think that POV should have post-processing utilities as part of
the distribution, specifically designed to work with POV, though not part of
the primary EXE.  Of course, in that case the IRTC rules would have to be be
changed.

I don't know how to change the IRTC rules, but they currently seem to favor
other rendering engines over POV (I'm talking about the official POV here,
not MegaPov), and to me that seems a bit "backwards".

-Nathan


Post a reply to this message

From: Jan Walzer
Subject: Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK?
Date: 10 Jul 2000 14:38:16
Message: <396a1818@news.povray.org>
> > So if my rendering engine offers feature X (e.g. motion blur)
it's OK,
> > while if I use some other tool such as Photoshop or The Gimp
to achieve
> > the same, it's not?
>
> Yep, that's right.  This rule isn't so much as a condemnation
towards the
> aforementioned post processing features as it is an attempt to
eliminate
> someone from creating an image completely without use of a
raytracer or
> similar program.   For example, if you had two entries each
using feature X,
> one done with MP and the other with PS, there is no doubt that
the former
> had to have used a raytracing program whereas the same is not
true for the
> later.
But other way around, what were if you paint a nice Pic' with
maybe PS, take it as a texture for the only Object I have in my
Scene, a box, put my camera into the right angle, tweak the

POV...

I'm sure it would perfectly considered as rule violation ....????


--

 ,',    Jan Walzer      \V/  http://wa.lzer.net     ,',
',','   student of      >|<  mailto:jan### [at] lzernet ',','
  '   ComputerScience   /A\  +49-177-7403863         '


Post a reply to this message

From: Ken
Subject: Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK?
Date: 10 Jul 2000 14:41:46
Message: <396A17B8.392A7D2F@pacbell.net>
Jan Walzer wrote:

> But other way around, what were if you paint a nice Pic' with
> maybe PS, take it as a texture for the only Object I have in my
> Scene, a box, put my camera into the right angle, tweak the

> POV...
> 
> I'm sure it would perfectly considered as rule violation ....????

Technically it is not a rules violation. However if you were truthfull
in your description of how the image was created the judges would give
you such poor scores it wouldn't be worth your efforts to even try it.
There would be no chance for you to win.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/


Post a reply to this message

From: Chris S 
Subject: Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK?
Date: 10 Jul 2000 15:56:52
Message: <396a2a84@news.povray.org>
> But other way around, what were if you paint a nice Pic' with
> maybe PS, take it as a texture for the only Object I have in my
> Scene, a box, put my camera into the right angle, tweak the

> POV...

If the result is obviously underhanded, the solution is easy.  1-1-1...

I never take "loopholers" seriously.  It is impossible for the admins to
counteract the antics of a every oddball, therefore the use of the voter's
best judgement is usually a good idea.

-Chris-


Post a reply to this message

From: Fabien Mosen
Subject: Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK?
Date: 10 Jul 2000 16:42:34
Message: <396A33C4.63192B27@skynet.be>
Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> ...which is a big reason why I think POV needs post-processing built in.
> Actually, I think that POV should have post-processing utilities as part of
> the distribution, specifically designed to work with POV, though not part of
> the primary EXE.  Of course, in that case the IRTC rules would have to be be
> changed.
> 
> I don't know how to change the IRTC rules, but they currently seem to favor
> other rendering engines over POV (I'm talking about the official POV here,
> not MegaPov), and to me that seems a bit "backwards".

To me, the true spirit of that rule is that every effect should be
3D-related.  Applying gaussian blur all over, or manually, is not
3D-related.  But if the blur, even post-processed, uses 3D information
to know where and how it applies, it's fine.

That said, every embedded post-processing feature (including MegaPOV's)
also includes non-3D-related processes.  But excluding the use of these
for IRTC would require that every entrant (and voter) understands the 
difference between 3D-related and non-3D-related processing.  Given 
that 5% of them doesn't even understands what is a topic, such a rule
would be useless.

So, even if the current rule may sound somewhat stupid, it seems that
it does its job, avoiding the biggest mistakes.

Fabien.


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: MegaPOV post_process is OK?
Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:08:07
Message: <396a3b36@news.povray.org>
Bruce L <dke### [at] sksympaticoca> wrote:
: I've seen a number of postings suggesting that some of the post process
: features available in other renderer's should be considered as violating
: the IRTC guidlines. How does the MegaPOV post_process features fit in
: all this?

  As someone already noted, the post_process of megapov is really a 3D effect
since it uses the depth information (and also other information as normal
vectors etc). Although they are applied to the final image, in practice they
still use information from the 3D scene to make the job.
  A paint program could not do this. It could not do, for example, focal
blurring because it hasn't the depth information.

-- 
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

Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.