"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:45f01e2c$1@news.povray.org...
> "Mike the Elder" <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote in message

  The name "The Interim Pseudo IRTC / TINA CheP Ray Tracing
>> Forum" is unlikely to have potential participants submitting in droves.
>
>   You are correct, and I'm thinking that if the present competition is 
> going to be a world-wide one, (as it is), then how about '3D-IRTC'? I'm 
> just wondering though, are there any copyright issues with using 'IRTC'? 
> Afterall, someone, at some point came up with that name, and I guess it's 
> their copyright?

   Ok, being a jeweller, (as in designer, maker, blah, blah, blah), by 
trade, I do know a little about copyright. ;)

     I'm thinking of dropping the 'I' to leave RTC. So I'm now thinking 
along the lines of  '3D-RTC', or, it could be 'RTC-3D'

     But, I'm still hoping that someone has something to propose. So, if 
anyone is thinking of a suitable name, or can adjust the above to be more 
suitable, please post it, it might be just the right thing.

      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Verm wrote:
>> I would like it if we could change the file size limit so that we can
>> submit reasonable images at least 1024x768 (possibly larger).
>> -- 
> 	I've seen this point raised several times now, so I'd like to point
> out that this is already allowed by the IRTC (and has been for some
> time). Quoting the IRTC rules:
> 
> <quote>
> The JPEG file may have any width or height dimension, though we
> recommend keeping it "reasonable". The only size restriction on
> images now is the file size.
> </quote>

I did say increase the file size limit, I know there's no explicit image 
dimensions limit :-) .

I was suggesting the file size was too low to allow larger images 
without compression artefacts, not that larger images were not allowed.

I've rechecked through the irtc archives and seen that most images don't 
seem have difficulty fitting in the 250k limit, (so the problem isn't 
that great) but still I'd think some images with lots of hard edges 
might have difficulty fitting 1024x768 or 1280x1024 into 250k. I just 
thought now might be a good time to re-raise the issue.

- has anyone found the 250k limit restrictive and does anyone think we 
should soften the limit a bit? (bandwidth allowing of course)

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:

> Hildur K, Sabrina Kilian, Joanne Simpson... and I am sure I forgot several
> :-)
> But, the proportion is way too low indeed.

How very cool! That's way more than I ever thought there were. Not that I
don't like hanging out with the guys ;-) It's just nice to know I can chat
with another woman about something besides scrapbooking or the kids'
soccer.

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> What I forgot to say... You can always show the picture in p.b.i.
> To tell the truth, I am very curious now that you revealed it's existence
> :-)

*blushes and mumbles* Well, it's not that great. I focused a lot more on
technique than actual results. But what the hey *grins* I'll post it this
evening when I get home.

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>      But, I'm still hoping that someone has something to propose. So, if
> anyone is thinking of a suitable name, or can adjust the above to be more
> suitable, please post it, it might be just the right thing.

Something Thomas said really struck my fancy. He used the word "avatar" in
reference to the new competition. How about "Avatar Ray-tracing
Competition" or ARTC (or even ARC, for a pronounceable acronym)? It has the
lovely connotation of IRTC being reborn, and we could use one of the
renditions of TINA CheP as the site avatar...

~Angela

Post a reply to this message

"Verm" <pov### [at] thirteeendynucom> wrote in message 
news:45f09073$1@news.povray.org...

>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Verm wrote:
>>> I would like it if we could change the file size limit so that we can
>>> submit reasonable images at least 1024x768 (possibly larger).
>>> -- 
>> I've seen this point raised several times now, so I'd like to point
>> out that this is already allowed by the IRTC (and has been for some
>> time). Quoting the IRTC rules:
>>
>> <quote>
>> The JPEG file may have any width or height dimension, though we
>> recommend keeping it "reasonable". The only size restriction on
>> images now is the file size.
>> </quote>
>
> I did say increase the file size limit, I know there's no explicit image 
> dimensions limit :-) .

  Yes! Should we give this a go? I was thinking exactly this when Bruno 
re-posted his busy and well-worked-on 'POVLAB' image! Should we increase it 
to 500kb's or slightly lower? Say, 350kb's or 400kb's or so?


>
> I was suggesting the file size was too low to allow larger images without 
> compression artefacts, not that larger images were not allowed.
>
> I've rechecked through the irtc archives and seen that most images don't 
> seem have difficulty fitting in the 250k limit, (so the problem isn't that 
> great) but still I'd think some images with lots of hard edges might have 
> difficulty fitting 1024x768 or 1280x1024 into 250k. I just thought now 
> might be a good time to re-raise the issue.

    And a good time to raise this issue too. Thanks Verm.


>
> - has anyone found the 250k limit restrictive and does anyone think we 
> should soften the limit a bit? (bandwidth allowing of course)

   250k is ok, but let's all face it, in today's present climate with BB, 
<me, late starter>, upping it would be good. Bandwidth *shouldn't* be a 
problem.

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"Angela" <ang### [at] yahoocom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.45f0917bac010f74a8b830d10@news.povray.org...
>
> Something Thomas said really struck my fancy. He used the word "avatar" in
> reference to the new competition. How about "Avatar Ray-tracing
> Competition" or ARTC (or even ARC, for a pronounceable acronym)? It has 
> the
> lovely connotation of IRTC being reborn, and we could use one of the
> renditions of TINA CheP as the site avatar...
>

ARC...!  I like this!!! How about that folks??

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:45f09f1c@news.povray.org...
>

>> I did say increase the file size limit, I know there's no explicit image 
>> dimensions limit :-) .
>
>  Yes! Should we give this a go? I was thinking exactly this when Bruno 
> re-posted his busy and well-worked-on 'POVLAB' image! Should we increase 
> it to 500kb's or slightly lower? Say, 350kb's or 400kb's or so?
>
>
>>
>> I was suggesting the file size was too low to allow larger images without 
>> compression artefacts, not that larger images were not allowed.
>>
>> I've rechecked through the irtc archives and seen that most images don't 
>> seem have difficulty fitting in the 250k limit, (so the problem isn't 
>> that great) but still I'd think some images with lots of hard edges might 
>> have difficulty fitting 1024x768 or 1280x1024 into 250k. I just thought 
>> now might be a good time to re-raise the issue.
>
>    And a good time to raise this issue too. Thanks Verm.
>
>
>>
>> - has anyone found the 250k limit restrictive and does anyone think we 
>> should soften the limit a bit? (bandwidth allowing of course)
>
>   250k is ok, but let's all face it, in today's present climate with BB, 
> <me, late starter>, upping it would be good. Bandwidth *shouldn't* be a 
> problem.
>

If it's no problem for you, Steve, I think it would be a good idea. 250k was 
no problem for me, but some more room to move in would be more confortable 
:-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:45f09f1c@news.povray.org...
> 
>>> I did say increase the file size limit, I know there's no explicit image 
>>> dimensions limit :-) .
>>  Yes! Should we give this a go? I was thinking exactly this when Bruno 
>> re-posted his busy and well-worked-on 'POVLAB' image! Should we increase 
>> it to 500kb's or slightly lower? Say, 350kb's or 400kb's or so?
>>
>>
>>> I was suggesting the file size was too low to allow larger images without 
>>> compression artefacts, not that larger images were not allowed.
>>>
>>> I've rechecked through the irtc archives and seen that most images don't 
>>> seem have difficulty fitting in the 250k limit, (so the problem isn't 
>>> that great) but still I'd think some images with lots of hard edges might 
>>> have difficulty fitting 1024x768 or 1280x1024 into 250k. I just thought 
>>> now might be a good time to re-raise the issue.
>>    And a good time to raise this issue too. Thanks Verm.
>>
>>
>>> - has anyone found the 250k limit restrictive and does anyone think we 
>>> should soften the limit a bit? (bandwidth allowing of course)
>>   250k is ok, but let's all face it, in today's present climate with BB, 
>> <me, late starter>, upping it would be good. Bandwidth *shouldn't* be a 
>> problem.
>>
> 
> If it's no problem for you, Steve, I think it would be a good idea. 250k was 
> no problem for me, but some more room to move in would be more confortable 
> :-)

Hi,

i'm really looking forward to the new "*RTC" (whatever it's 
going to be called - as long as it's not "the competition 
formerly known as IRTC" ;)

Now this may be a bit much to ask for, but just as a thought 
- if you're going to automate the whole site anyway, could 
this new page accommodate the animations, too...?

-Markus

Post a reply to this message

"Markus Altendorff" <maa### [at] anthrosphinxde> wrote in message 
news:45f11b49@news.povray.org...

> Hi,
>
> i'm really looking forward to the new "*RTC" (whatever it's going to be 
> called - as long as it's not "the competition formerly known as IRTC" ;)

   Yes, this is the plan, because for all we know, the IRTC may come back in 
a few months, it's just that nobody knows what's happening. So, we either do 
this to keep us trundling along, or we use Chris Casson' (kindly offered) 
POVCOMP code where it will need 4 people to keep it working. Or... we do 
nothing.

  Hopefully, the exact same rules will apply with the addition of a higher 
file-size limit for the stills, which will now be 350kb's.


>
> Now this may be a bit much to ask for, but just as a thought - if you're 
> going to automate the whole site anyway, could this new page accommodate 
> the animations, too...?

     Yes, this is the plan too Markus.  :)

       ~Steve~


>
> -Markus

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:45f117a2@news.povray.org...
>
> "Angela" <ang### [at] yahoocom> schreef in bericht 
> news:web.45f0917bac010f74a8b830d10@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Something Thomas said really struck my fancy. He used the word "avatar" 
>> in
>> reference to the new competition. How about "Avatar Ray-tracing
>> Competition" or ARTC (or even ARC, for a pronounceable acronym)? It has 
>> the
>> lovely connotation of IRTC being reborn, and we could use one of the
>> renditions of TINA CheP as the site avatar...
>>
>
> ARC...!  I like this!!! How about that folks??

      Yes, Angela's suggestion is a good one. Although, I'm not so sure 
about 'avatar' as to me, it means that little still or animated logo at the 
side of a post in a forum. I might be wrong about that. But, the 'A' could 
mean 'Artists'?

        ~Steve~


>
> Thomas
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Angela" <ang### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message 
news:web.45f0917bac010f74a8b830d10@news.povray.org...

 It has the
> lovely connotation of IRTC being reborn, and we could use one of the
> renditions of TINA CheP as the site avatar...

     This is being done already. Malcolm Findlay has given us kind 
permission to use his 'Tina Chep - Evolution' image to use as the logo 
(which looks good).

      Thank you for your input Angela!  :)

        ~Steve~


>
> ~Angela
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message