 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.irtc.org/stills/2006-04-30.html
Thank you irtc admin. It was a long wait this time, but appreciated.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow! *Thanks* for the comments everyone. Now I realise why I like what I'm
doing. Your comments will help me to improve.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> http://www.irtc.org/stills/2006-04-30.html
>
> Thank you irtc admin. It was a long wait this time, but appreciated.
>
> ~Steve~
Just my opinion, here... but, While the winner for technical merit is an
excellent image, There's really not that much "technical merit" to the
picture. All was modeled in Wings3D, with exception of the feather,
which was using a 3rd party tool. Not bad, but, not what I would call
deserving of a technical merit award. Meh, these are judged by
participants and a panel, so, that is what it is... hmm.
Perhaps this was swapped accidentally with one of the place awards?
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:4496b7c2$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> http://www.irtc.org/stills/2006-04-30.html
>>
>> Thank you irtc admin. It was a long wait this time, but appreciated.
>>
>> ~Steve~
>
> Just my opinion, here... but, While the winner for technical merit is an
> excellent image, There's really not that much "technical merit" to the
> picture. All was modeled in Wings3D,
As was mine, and I placed 7th, and I am *well chuffed* with that! :)
Is there a problem with using a modelling prog for the IRTC instead of
CSG in PoV-Ray, Mike? After all, the IRTC is not PoV-Ray related. I thought
that this was a -general- raytracing comp. where any modelling prog and
raytracer would be exceptable regardless of the raytracing program used?
with exception of the feather,
> which was using a 3rd party tool. Not bad, but, not what I would call
> deserving of a technical merit award. Meh, these are judged by
> participants and a panel, so, that is what it is... hmm.
>
> Perhaps this was swapped accidentally with one of the place awards?
Well, all top six look correct to me... <shrug>
~Steve~
>
> --
> ~Mike
>
> Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Is there a problem with using a modelling prog for the IRTC instead of
> CSG in PoV-Ray, Mike? After all, the IRTC is not PoV-Ray related. I thought
> that this was a -general- raytracing comp. where any modelling prog and
> raytracer would be exceptable regardless of the raytracing program used?
Absolutely not! Some of the best images are done with modelers, and
sometimes non-pov. The image in question was made with POV, I just don't
see simply using a modeler as earning a technical merit award. Artistic
merit? Yes. Top 3? Sure! Technical Merit? No way! There's nothing
special about it. Unless they've demonstrated-- and it doesn't appear
they have by looking at the description, which was rather terse-- some
programming feat in Wings3D, such as some sort of customization to
create their models, a script, their own utilities, an inventive process
for creating the image. Anything. None of that was there. It was all
ready made software, and hand made models (that does deserve artistic
merit, the image *is* good, and does deserve to place.)
Unless I'm misunderstanding technical merit...
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Wow! *Thanks* for the comments everyone. Now I realise why I like what I'm
> doing. Your comments will help me to improve.
>
And I can see that it's not so bad thing I didn't enter (I did got an
idea - a speaker from which floats foggy notes, but I never got the
time/hit to start doing the image). Nice images - lots of them!
No, I have no idea for Light and Fog :o.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Unless I'm misunderstanding technical merit...
To me, the IRTC FAQ (stills faq, section 3.10) reads as being very vague on
the meaning of the categories; the results then indicate that a majority of
the voters didn't share your interpretation of technical merit, for whatever
reason.
In my opinion only, the technical score represents the quality of the
"implementation" of the concept, however it was done. I feel that technical
skill in the preparation of an IRTC image does not necessarily have to
involve programming, scripts, or self-written utilities. I suppose I'm
saying that (in a poor analogy) technical skill can involve making brushes,
but it can also involve skill in the use of those brushes (however the
result ends up from an artistic point of view).
That's only my interpretation. Fortunately, I think I've only ever voted
once on the IRTC, a long time ago.
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Is there a problem with using a modelling prog for the IRTC instead
>> of CSG in PoV-Ray, Mike? After all, the IRTC is not
>> PoV-Ray related. I thought that this was a -general- raytracing
>> comp. where any modelling prog and raytracer would be exceptable
>> regardless of the raytracing program used?
>
> Absolutely not! Some of the best images are done with modelers, and
> sometimes non-pov. The image in question was made with POV, I just
> don't see simply using a modeler as earning a technical merit
> award. Artistic merit? Yes. Top 3? Sure! Technical Merit? No way!
> There's nothing special about it. Unless they've demonstrated-- and
> it doesn't appear they have by looking at the description, which
> was rather terse-- some programming feat in Wings3D, such as some
> sort of customization to create their models, a script, their own
> utilities, an inventive process for creating the image. Anything.
Hmm, I think you are restricted your view to POV too much, where you have to
do everything by entering text. There are many other programs (like Wings,
Blender, 3D Studio) where you can achieve great, technically brilliant works
by not entering a single line of code or script. If someone had modelled a
very complex item in *any* program I would give them high technical merit.
It's all about using the right tool for the job, POV SDL is great for some
things (eg repeated geometric structures) but totally the wrong tool for
others (eg a car).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
>
> Just my opinion, here... but, While the winner for technical merit is an
> excellent image, There's really not that much "technical merit" to the
> picture. All was modeled in Wings3D, with exception of the feather,
> which was using a 3rd party tool. Not bad, but, not what I would call
> deserving of a technical merit award.
I have not found ANY modeler in 3D that can do everything well, and
easily. Wings3D has a learning curve like any other tool, as does POV-Ray.
POV-Ray does some things quite easily. Does that mean they are more
technical just because they are hand coded? There are things Wings does
quite easily also, but almost any complex model will require a high
degree of knowledge and familiarity both the object being modelled and
of Wings toolset.
I would give that a higher technical score than some things done in POV
SDL, which although they have lots of parts and look very complex, are
achieved in 12 lines of code by simple nested while() loops. To me,
technical merit is the quality of the objects of your scene, your
texturing and your lighting. If all are good you get a high technical
score regardless of the tool you use to achieve it.
And if you use a variety of tools, it shows me that you know your own
strengths and weaknesses and how to use the tool that best suits you for
the job. Based on my years as a musician I consider that a skill in its
own right. There's nothing worse than a musician with masterful
technical abilities on their instrument, but who doesn't know when to
back off and overplays everything.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Hmm, I think you are restricted your view to POV too much, where you have to
> do everything by entering text. There are many other programs (like Wings,
> Blender, 3D Studio) where you can achieve great, technically brilliant works
> by not entering a single line of code or script. If someone had modelled a
> very complex item in *any* program I would give them high technical merit.
> It's all about using the right tool for the job, POV SDL is great for some
> things (eg repeated geometric structures) but totally the wrong tool for
> others (eg a car).
I think you missed my point.
The technical merit winner had *no* information on how it was made. They
may have been very nice models, yes... That deserves artistic merit.
Its hard to me to award technical merit to meshes, unless that mesh was
developed using some means other than simply a modeller.
Did they take exacting measurements of the object and put the models
together point-by-point? Did they develop their own textures? materials?
effects? Write shaders? (OOH, that's not POVRAY at all!). Do they have
their own work flow tools? They left no information, and yet somehow
managed to pull off a technical merit score. The image was even rendered
with POVRay!
I see nothing in the image, nor the description that stands out. Its a
good image artistically, and deserved to place, just not as technical
merit. Nothing out of the ordinary was achieved. UV-Mapped textures and
modelling that anyone with experience in a modeler does not earn
technical merit. The image is not groundbreaking. They used several
tools, but none of their own.
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
