A couple of images in this round have comments in the textfiles indicating
techniques that I'm not sure are violations or not.

"desertca.jpg" has lens flare added, but doesn't say how.  Does anyone know
if Vue De Espirit has a built in lens flare tool, or would that have to be
post processed?

"irtc4.jpg" states that it had color correction done in photoshop. The image
looks like the color was filtered through an amber filter. While I know the
rules permit certain corrections, to me that goes beyond the corrections
that would be "normal" such as contrast, brightness or gamma, since it
would alter the image produced by the renderer. What does everyone else
think?

RG

Post a reply to this message

"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote:
> A couple of images in this round have comments in the textfiles indicating
> techniques that I'm not sure are violations or not.
>
> "desertca.jpg" has lens flare added, but doesn't say how.  Does anyone know
> if Vue De Espirit has a built in lens flare tool, or would that have to be
> post processed?
>
> "irtc4.jpg" states that it had color correction done in photoshop. The image
> looks like the color was filtered through an amber filter. While I know the
> rules permit certain corrections, to me that goes beyond the corrections
> that would be "normal" such as contrast, brightness or gamma, since it
> would alter the image produced by the renderer. What does everyone else
> think?
>
> RG

Oh man, we went through this a while ago on the e-mail discussions.  I do
think color correction SHOULD be used, as well as other techniques as that
is how it is done professionaly.  The problem is, as you know yourself,
people refuse to read rules.  And each time you try to give the general
population more artistic freedom, it just comes back at us with more people
using it in a way exploited.

Post a reply to this message

The Mad Hatter <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I do
> think color correction SHOULD be used, as well as other techniques as that
> is how it is done professionaly.

  But this is a rendering contest, not a computer graphics contest. There's
a big difference.

  I still strongly oppose the principle of the IRTC team that rescaling
an image should be allowed. In fact, I don't like brightness/contrast
adjusting being allowed either.
  Those things can be used to dramatically increase the quality of the
rendered image, thus what you see is *not* what you get from the renderer,
but what you get from photoshop when you start applying filters to a
rendered image.

  If quality-increasing post-processing is partially allowed, why have
artificial limits? Why not allow *anything*? Why not make IRTC a generic
computer graphics competition?

  IMO the spirit of the competition dictates that no post-processing
whatsoever should be allowed (except for the one single thing which is
a must: a rendered image should be able to be converted to JPG format
with a third-party tool, but *that's all*).
  IMO allowing some types of post-processing and not other types is
arbitrary, artificial and against the spirit of the IRTC.

  But who am I talking to, anyways? The IRTC team does not listen.
They have decided their own way and there's no way in Earth that can
be changed.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Ahem..  Why on earth would re-sizing not be allowed?  There are still render
engines out there that do not support AA very well and the only way to get
decent results without major post processing is to render out large and
then size down.  I find your other points, a little worrisome when
wondering what your own 3D work looks like.  NO offence.

Post a reply to this message

The Mad Hatter <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Ahem..  Why on earth would re-sizing not be allowed?

  First you ask a question and then you answer it yourself:

>  There are still render
> engines out there that do not support AA very well and the only way to get
> decent results without major post processing is to render out large and
> then size down.

  And that's exactly why it should be prohibited.

  The spirit of the competition forbids using post-processing that enhances
the quality of the image generated by the renderer.

  Again: This is a rendering competition, not a computer graphics
competition. The entries should be direct results of the renderer,
not direct results of photoshop.

>  I find your other points, a little worrisome when
> wondering what your own 3D work looks like.  NO offence.

  You seem to miss the point.
  How many times do I have to repeat that the IRTC is not a computer
graphics competition?

  A computer graphics competition has the ideology of "hey, look at
what I can do with my computer, with whatever tools I like".
  A rendering competition has the ideology of "hey, look at what I
can do with this renderer".
  If image-enhancing post-processing is allowed, the latter ideology
gets broken. It simply becomes a generic computer graphics competition.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Every professional contest not only allows color correction, but expects it.
 Those who don't get automaticaly flagged as being a newbie.  I believe the
reason irtc is so against most post processing, is because as mentioned,
too many of the people enetring just don't bother to read the rules.  Every
time I vote I see numours violations, not to mention outright copyright
infringements and fraud.

Perhaps we should open the rules for more artistic freedom nevertheless.
People will still not bother to read the rules or cheat no matter how much
you bring it to attention.  Why should the pros suffer?  After all, I see a
lot of people are upset at the quality degrading in the irtc.  I think it
is time we stop the great artists from running off to the other groups.

Post a reply to this message

The Mad Hatter <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Perhaps we should open the rules for more artistic freedom nevertheless.
> People will still not bother to read the rules or cheat no matter how much
> you bring it to attention.  Why should the pros suffer?  After all, I see a
> lot of people are upset at the quality degrading in the irtc.  I think it
> is time we stop the great artists from running off to the other groups.

  I tend to think it this way: If I want a comp graphics competition,
I go watch the dozens out there. If I want a rendering competition, I go
watch IRTC. It's good to have at least one of those.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message