Should technical votes for Tom's entries take into account the fact that he
wrote his own tracer? I think it is very appropriate that he got top
technical score in Oceans, but it's going to get a bit repetitive month
after month.

Taken to an absurd conclusion, it would mean giving a v. high technical
score to anyone on the POV development team who submits, irrespective of the
technical merits of the entry.

Post a reply to this message

Can you elaborate?
Tom Melly wrote:

I think it is very appropriate that he got top

> technical score in Oceans,
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"J Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3A65C43A.7933F141@aol.com...
>
> Can you elaborate?

Tom Dahl wrote his own raytracer - therefore rightly scored very high in the
Oceans round  for his entry.

However, to keep on giving him v. high technical scores seems to me
counter-intuitive.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:

> Tom Dahl wrote his own raytracer - therefore rightly scored very high in the
> Oceans round  for his entry.
> However, to keep on giving him v. high technical scores seems to me
> counter-intuitive.

(the following is IMO, IMHO, and the rest...)

The ratings are only aimed at the resulting image.  How difficult it
was doesn't count.  The technical score adresses technical coherence,
the pertinence of the use of some techniques,..  Does slick things
looks slick ?  Are relative scales right ?  etc,...

I know some people have a look at the sources to rate tech, but I
think it's wrong : would one rate down Leonardo's painting because
X-Rays shows he often painted over another existing canvas ?

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Okay, here is what I think.  You have correctly identified a tendency, on my
part also, to be impressed in some unmitigated way, with the fact that the
artist created the ray tracer he is using and to therefore honour that
accomplishment when marking the image.  And like you, according to some
unconscious sense of fairness, I was moved to award a kind of first-time bonus
with a blowout technical score.  But I found my visceral response easy to
rationalize because I was equally impressed with some discussion he had there
about how he was able to base the interference patterns in the waters surface on
the physical attributes of the scene and he mentioned as I recall some research
into the behavior of  water, waves and so on.  I remember looking back at the
scene and not really being able to verify if it made much difference to the
picture but I took him at his word.  So it seemed to me that it wasn't
impressive merely because he could program a ray tracer, but because his
handwritten tool allowed him to explore a quite difficult subject ( behavior of
water ) with a degree of penetration and verity that other tools may not
afford.  Not to mention that merely trying to model the appearance of  water
based on some underlying physical description just boggles my mind whatever the
tool or technique.  ( Jaime's winning entry "Running" still leaves me shaking my
head in amazement ).

With this round's entry, I did find I was less inclined to award a kind of
technical 'bonus' just because the ray tracer was self-written.  But what again
seemed present was the use of the tool to get at a particular level of modeling
verity which requires that the subject be modeled through a high degree of
simulation within the scene and which attempts to make underlying physical laws
manifest. And again I couldn't discount that the accomplishment of the
self-written tool may facilitate that end and therefore be factored into the
technical score.

So I guess that while I recognize a tendency to be simply impressed with the
fact that the guy wrote a ray tracer, so far I have found each image, as a
modeling effort, to rank pretty high as a technical  accomplishment.  In concept
I also find them of some interest just because of the extreme paradigm they
embody from a modelling/simulation perspective.  A paradigm that I suspect is
quite highly valued among ray tracing enthusiasts and overlaps with muchsome of
my own interest in the enterprise. As of yet, I haven't found I have had to
trade off the knowledge that he wrote his own raytracer against my concept of
what is technically impressive, but I do look for how the particular strengths
of the tool may play into a unique result before awarding extra.

(From an artistic consideration btw, both entries left me luke warm.)



Tom Melly wrote:

> "J Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:3A65C43A.7933F141@aol.com...
> >
> > Can you elaborate?
>
> Tom Dahl wrote his own raytracer - therefore rightly scored very high in the
> Oceans round  for his entry.
>
> However, to keep on giving him v. high technical scores seems to me
> counter-intuitive.

Post a reply to this message

One hopes we can value and recognize good craftmanship, where it contributes,
without penalizing poor Leanardo

Fabien Mosen wrote:

> would one rate down Leonardo's painting because
> X-Rays shows he often painted over another existing canvas ?
>
> Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:
> 
> "J Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:3A65C43A.7933F141@aol.com...
> >
> > Can you elaborate?
> 
> Tom Dahl wrote his own raytracer - therefore rightly scored very high in the
> Oceans round  for his entry.
> 
> However, to keep on giving him v. high technical scores seems to me
> counter-intuitive.

I did what was mentioned here before, if you don't know the program
used, you can't very well judge the difficulty of achieving good
results.  I know POV, a little bit of Blender and even less 3DS,
therefore gave 10's to everyone who used something other than what I
knew, unless it was blatantly easy or unseemingly complex.

While this method might show my bias towards POV, I think it's better
this way than giving high (or low) technical marks to a picture based on
the complexity of achieving the same results with POV.   For example,
reflections are child's play in POV, whereas - from what I understand -
are nightmarishly complicated with scanline renderers.


-- 
Francois Labreque | In the future, performance will be measured
    flabreque     | by the size of your pipe.
        @         |             - Dogbert, on networking
   videotron.ca

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote in message <3a64188f$1@news.povray.org>...
>Should technical votes for Tom's entries take into account the fact that he
>wrote his own tracer?

I gave him a high technical merit score for this round because he used
exactly the right tool for the job -- a spectral raytracer to generate a
spectrum.  Compare the rainbows in his image to the ones in mine
(fiatlux.jpg) and you'll see the difference.

--
Mark

Post a reply to this message