Gilles Tran wrote:

>news:3f5c92fe[at]news.povray.org...
>> I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
>> post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
>
>From the feature list and screen shots
>(http://www://www.ulead.com/cool3d/screen.htm Cool 3D looks indeed like a 3D
>modeller/renderer, but a highly specialised one for titles and 3D effects to
>be used in websites, presentations and publications. So it's perhaps
>blurring the line a little between 2D and 3D (hard to say without trying it)
>but it's still within the rules IMHO.

I remembered that I have a copy of Cool3d that I used to create a band logo
awhile back. It is essentially the same as an old shareware program called
Xara3d.  It does indeed toe the line between 2d & 3d.  It basically take a
2d image such as a font, and extrudes it into a 3d shape.  The extrusion
and rendering processes allow you to apply effects & filters much like in
2d programs like Photoshop.

Questionable whether it's truly 3d, since many of the effects/filters can
only be applied in the final render, not to the object itself, but I don't
really see any difference between that and post-process effects being done
in a render in for example Mega-POV.  The rules don't say an effect has to
be 3d, they just say they have to be done in a 3d program. For the image in
question, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

RG

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
> news:3f5c8cf5@news.povray.org...
> 
> http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.jpg
> http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.txt
> 
> I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
> post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
> 
>  -Shay
> 
> 
While we're on the topic, what about "Blue Cone".  Does the technical 
description make any sense?  Too technical for me.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3f5d17e2@news.povray.org...
> While we're on the topic, what about "Blue Cone".  Does the technical
> description make any sense?  Too technical for me.

Ermmm... well... ahhhhh... important BFD sampling in a studio with some
models... sounds fun but exhausting...
The image description was more in my league... highly detailed, yet concise
and to the point.

RG

Post a reply to this message

gonzo wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
> news:3f5d17e2@news.povray.org...
> 
>>While we're on the topic, what about "Blue Cone".  Does the technical
>>description make any sense?  Too technical for me.
> 
> 
> Ermmm... well... ahhhhh... important BFD sampling in a studio with some
> models... sounds fun but exhausting...
> The image description was more in my league... highly detailed, yet concise
> and to the point.
> 
> RG
> 
> 
lol  I guess it was the reference to large studio lights that unnerved me.

Post a reply to this message

"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message
news:3f53cddc@news.povray.org...
|
| Gonna be tough to score.

Ahhhhhhh! There are so many!

This is actually tough. I'm trying once again to leave some comment on
every image as I vote. Even keeping those comments very short, I find
that I can only get through a few images without taking a break. I try
to give "constructive" criticism on the images in which I see areas for
improvement, but this is of course awkward because I have done or
accomplished nothing to give myself the authority to do so. One thing is
for certain. If I ever submit a competitive entry for the IRTC, I will
need to do so under a false name in order to have any chance of winning.
My usual goal of 'second to last' place doesn't require such
politicking.lol

Just want to add that my last comment is not meant to be
self-deprecating. I find self-deprecation disgusting. I only meant that
if at least *one* person enjoys seeing one of my submissions (reflected
by my not getting last place) then it was worth rushing to complete an
entry by the deadline. Otherwise, I should have finished on my own time.
If I only wanted to antagonize, I could find more efficient ways of
doing so.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
>This is actually tough. I'm trying once again to leave some comment on
>every image as I vote. Even keeping those comments very short, I find
>that I can only get through a few images without taking a break. I try
>to give "constructive" criticism on the images in which I see areas for
>improvement, but this is of course awkward because I have done or
>accomplished nothing to give myself the authority to do so.

Well, constructive to me isn't a matter of your credentials. Your authority
to do so is that you are a viewer. Even if I totally disagree with your
comment it is still a good reminder that not everyone views an image the
same way I do.

But this is a tough round to score, and even tougher to comment.  The topic
is broad and many images have little or no comparison to anything real.  I
also try to say something constructive but in this round I often can't tell
if what I'm seeing is intentional or not.  I'm giving a lot of benefit of
doubt...

RG

Post a reply to this message

"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message
news:web.3f5e3b4c32318703a0c272b50@news.povray.org...
|
| Well, constructive to me isn't a matter of your credentials.
| Your authority to do so is that you are a viewer.

You've got to admit that it is odd, however, for people in competition
to comment on each other's work. Having created an image yourself, you
have already shown clearly what you believe to be the best
interpretation of the topic. By criticizing someone's image, you are in
effect comparing it to your own, an act which is effectively your
creating a case for your own interpretation. It's really like some type
of twisted, passive-aggressive debate. Very surreal in itself if you
think about it.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

In article <web.3f5e3b4c32318703a0c272b50@news.povray.org>, gonzo wrote:
>Well, constructive to me isn't a matter of your credentials. Your authority
>to do so is that you are a viewer. Even if I totally disagree with your
>comment it is still a good reminder that not everyone views an image the
>same way I do.
>
>But this is a tough round to score, and even tougher to comment.  The topic
>is broad and many images have little or no comparison to anything real.  I
>also try to say something constructive but in this round I often can't tell
>if what I'm seeing is intentional or not.  I'm giving a lot of benefit of
>doubt...
>

I think that a lot of people think of "Surrealism" as pretty much "anything
goes." And so I see a lot of images that I would term abstract instead of
surreal. On the other other hand, I see some images that use abstract
components that are arranged in a surrealistic manner, and this makes it
difficult to judge, and it gets really subjective at that point.

My biggest problem with this round is that many of the really surrealistic-
feeling images recycled old ideas from established artists in the genre.
I got particularly tired of the clock theme from Dali, and one particular
image that I had rated very highly on the first pass, moved down considerably
after going back to it later. My own entry leaned on old cliches; perhaps
the whole topic is a bit worn out.

Anyway - back to your comment - when I see those images that "don't
relate to anything real," as you put it, I get very suspicious that what
I am seeing is in fact an abstract work rather than a surrealistic one. A very
common trait of Surrealism is that the objects are usually very recognizable,
perhaps normal at first glance, but obviously there is something "strange" 
about them. The best surrealistic images, I thought, were the ones where the
author wasn't exactly sure what it meant. Some artists tried to tell a story
with their entries, or tried to make every little thing significant. Upon
reading their descriptions, their work moved from the surreal to the concrete
because the whole thing had been explained to me.
 
Significance in surrealism is accidental, the content is recognizable, yet
bizarre. I found that most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots
of low concept scores. I must admit that there was some beautiful art this 
round, though. I gave out a number of 20s on that aspect. :)

Post a reply to this message

"Peter McCombs" <pmc### [at] xmissionxmissioncom> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] xmissionxmissioncom...

|
| common trait of Surrealism is that the objects are usually
| very recognizable, perhaps normal at first glance, but
| obviously there is something "strange" about them.

<http://images.google.com/images?q=%22Joan+Miro%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=
en&btnG=Google+Search>
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Joan+Miro%22%
2Bsurrealism&btnG=Google+Search>

|
| the content is recognizable, yet bizarre. I found that
| most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots of
| low concept scores.

It's because of this type of attitude that we see round after round
after round of "recycled old ideas from established artists in the
genre."

At the very high risk of making a fool of myself compared to some of the
more artistically aware people here like Jim and Gilles, I will offer
that I feel I'm at least in the ballpark when saying that abstraction is
an attempt to capture the essence or an essence of mundane things
whereas surrealism is an attempt to capture the perceptions and
"awareness" of states of mind where things are perceived which are in
opposition to mundane reality. How recognizable you feel the objects are
in the picture is of no relevance.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Peter McCombs wrote:

> 
> I think that a lot of people think of "Surrealism" as pretty much "anything
> goes."

So do I,... on both counts.

  And so I see a lot of images that I would term abstract instead of
> surreal. 

Historically surrealism had its abstractionist/formalist strain, 
epitomized by artists like Arp and Miro.  Indeed almost every major 
strain of 20th century art has some surrealist analogue.

On the other other hand, I see some images that use abstract
> components that are arranged in a surrealistic manner,
  and this makes it
> difficult to judge, and it gets really subjective at that point

Subjective and self-consuming.

> 
> My biggest problem with this round is that many of the really surrealistic-
> feeling images recycled old ideas from established artists in the genre.
> I got particularly tired of the clock theme from Dali, and one particular
> image that I had rated very highly on the first pass, moved down considerably
> after going back to it later. My own entry leaned on old cliches; perhaps
> the whole topic is a bit worn out.

Yet aren't these cliches precisely how we think of surrealism?

Surrealism had Dadaist roots and its agenda of attacking bourgeois 
values easily devolves into a general license to be garish.  Surrealism 
as an art movement had already become vulgarized when along came the 
psychedelia of the sixties/seventies.  Album covers, posters, and other 
vehicles of pop culture, celebrating the hallucinagenic experiences of 
the mind, revived surrealism in a doppelganger of organic whorls and 
pictorial contrivances. Our view of the movement, refracted through 
these excesses, has little hope of retrieving much. It all seems to 
collapse on itself when the introduction of randomness and process in 
raytracing takes the particular form of noise functions and their 
signature bozo patterns.  Yet with what other topic can we enjoy the
garish appeal?

> 
> Anyway - back to your comment - when I see those images that "don't
> relate to anything real," as you put it, I get very suspicious that what
> I am seeing is in fact an abstract work rather than a surrealistic one. A very
> common trait of Surrealism is that the objects are usually very recognizable,
> perhaps normal at first glance, but obviously there is something "strange" 
> about them. 

Basically that is how Dali revived surrealism the first time.  Art 
historians might point to the fondness for mixing visual and tactile 
pleasure.

The best surrealistic images, I thought, were the ones where the
> author wasn't exactly sure what it meant. Some artists tried to tell a story
> with their entries, or tried to make every little thing significant. Upon
> reading their descriptions, their work moved from the surreal to the concrete
> because the whole thing had been explained to me.

Well put. As if... with pictorial constraints lifted, we can juxtapose 
objects as ideas and finally manufacture a meaning? Not what the 
originators had in mind.  I agree with your analysis, yet with the 
devalued state of surrealism I even found that this approach could be 
permitted if I thought about it too much.

>  
> Significance in surrealism is accidental, the content is recognizable, yet
> bizarre. I found that most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots
> of low concept scores. I must admit that there was some beautiful art this 
> round, though. I gave out a number of 20s on that aspect. :)

A decent attempt on your part to extract some kind of consistency. 
Maybe because I participated myself, or maybe because the topic turned 
out to be quite difficult, I found I was sympathetic to the plight of 
this round's entries. There were, as you say, some beautiful images. But 
I gave few high marks.  Oddly, in the midst of all my analytical 
confusion, I had no trouble deciding which pictures I liked and which I 
didn't.

Post a reply to this message