 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Le Forgeron" <jgr### [at] free localhost> wrote in message
news:Xns959D97EC1EEE8jgrimbertmeandmyself@203.29.75.35...
:
: What about Framing (adding black border) ?
Seems to me it clearly violates the post-processing rule.
=Bob=
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"=Bob=" <robertUNDERSCOREdobbinsATmailDOTtdsDOTnet> wrote:
> "James A Coons" <jac### [at] ameritechnet> wrote in message
news:web.41909c4ea5a3c645d1d60310@news.povray.org...
> [deletions]
>
> : One entry in the "Toys and Games" competition indicated that the contrast
> : was adjusted, which to me was a violation of the rules. Consequently, I
> : gave it a low rating. The resulting "contrast-adjusted" image might produce
> : an image that would be impossible to achieve directly within the renderer,
> : which should be one criteria for exclusion of the post-processing.
>
> Then you might not have not judged fairly. I would believe judges
> should be aware of the rules, from irtc:
>
> =======================================================
> Images must not be enhanced or altered ('post-processed') by use of
> paint programs such as PhotoShop(tm) etc. There are exceptions to
> this rule:
>
> You may convert images to JPEG format.
>
> You may add text information (name, title, email address, copyright.
> etc...) to your image.
>
> You may gamma-correct and contrast/brightness adjust the image.
> =======================================================
>
> =Bob=
Well, James, I guess it was my image you marked down - perhaps you thought
because I didn't use Povray that I wouldn't come by here :). No hard
feelings but as Bob has pointed out, brightness/contrast correction *is*
allowed - I hope you are able to adjust your score appropriately ? :)
Julian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le Forgeron wrote:
>>=======================================================
>>Images must not be enhanced or altered ('post-processed') by use of
>>paint programs such as PhotoShop(tm) etc. There are exceptions to
>>this rule:
>>
>>You may convert images to JPEG format.
>>
>>You may add text information (name, title, email address, copyright.
>>etc...) to your image.
>>
>>You may gamma-correct and contrast/brightness adjust the image.
>>=======================================================
>
>
> What about Framing (adding black border) ?
While braking the rules if it's done post-processing, it could also be
done in rendering time; fe. adding 4 materialess boxes near the cam in
exactly right place (and, of course, without shadows, hollow etc).
-Aero with 3 IRTC tryouts (but none of them bordered;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
=Bob= wrote:
> Then you might not have not judged fairly. I would believe judges
> should be aware of the rules, from irtc:
>
> =======================================================
> Images must not be enhanced or altered ('post-processed') by use of
> paint programs such as PhotoShop(tm) etc. There are exceptions to
> this rule:
>
> You may convert images to JPEG format.
>
> You may add text information (name, title, email address, copyright.
> etc...) to your image.
>
> You may gamma-correct and contrast/brightness adjust the image.
> =======================================================
>
> =Bob=
While this is permitted by the rules, there is still a "spirit" or
"intent" to those rules.
I certainly don't have a problem with someone making a 5% adjustment of
brightness, which can be simply correcting the difference as seen on 2
different monitors. That is clearly a "normal correction", and well
within the intent of the rules. (And one I wish I had made on my "Great
Inventions" entry which looked great on my girlfriend's LCD when I
submitted it, but was WAY darker on my CRT when I viewed it at home...)
On the other hand, a 50% brightness combined with a 65% contrast would
be completely changing the rendered image and goes well beyond what I
would perceive as the intent of the rules.
Probably (fortunately) not a common occurance, but there was an entry in
one round (surreal maybe, I forget which) that looked like it was a
fairly simple image that had been heavily tweaked with contrast to get a
very striking effect, and I remember marking it down because there just
didn't seem to be any way it could have been rendered like that. I also
recall it getting a few comments about not explaining in the .txtfile
how that was done, so I guess I'm not the only one who thought so.
I guess its all pretty subjective how people score those. Where is the
line between normal corrective adjustments and artistic tweaking? If I
had made the adjustment on my "Great Inventions" entry would anyone have
known the difference? Especially since I later re-rendered the image
myself with a .1 difference in assumed_gamma and got pretty much the
same thing, so it could be done in the renderer.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gonzo <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote:
> =Bob= wrote:
>
> > Then you might not have not judged fairly. I would believe judges
> > should be aware of the rules, from irtc:
> >
> > =======================================================
> > Images must not be enhanced or altered ('post-processed') by use of
> > paint programs such as PhotoShop(tm) etc. There are exceptions to
> > this rule:
> >
> > You may convert images to JPEG format.
> >
> > You may add text information (name, title, email address, copyright.
> > etc...) to your image.
> >
> > You may gamma-correct and contrast/brightness adjust the image.
> > =======================================================
> >
> > =Bob=
>
> While this is permitted by the rules, there is still a "spirit" or
> "intent" to those rules.
>
> I certainly don't have a problem with someone making a 5% adjustment of
> brightness, which can be simply correcting the difference as seen on 2
> different monitors. That is clearly a "normal correction", and well
> within the intent of the rules. (And one I wish I had made on my "Great
> Inventions" entry which looked great on my girlfriend's LCD when I
> submitted it, but was WAY darker on my CRT when I viewed it at home...)
>
> On the other hand, a 50% brightness combined with a 65% contrast would
> be completely changing the rendered image and goes well beyond what I
> would perceive as the intent of the rules.
>
> Probably (fortunately) not a common occurance, but there was an entry in
> one round (surreal maybe, I forget which) that looked like it was a
> fairly simple image that had been heavily tweaked with contrast to get a
> very striking effect, and I remember marking it down because there just
> didn't seem to be any way it could have been rendered like that. I also
> recall it getting a few comments about not explaining in the .txtfile
> how that was done, so I guess I'm not the only one who thought so.
>
> I guess its all pretty subjective how people score those. Where is the
> line between normal corrective adjustments and artistic tweaking? If I
> had made the adjustment on my "Great Inventions" entry would anyone have
> known the difference? Especially since I later re-rendered the image
> myself with a .1 difference in assumed_gamma and got pretty much the
> same thing, so it could be done in the renderer.
>
> RG
Oh great ! So now we have not only to follow the rules of the competition
but also we have to second guess the thoughts of any judges who might read
between the lines of the rules :) While I understand what you are saying,
rules are rules and should be interpreted as the boundaries within which
your image should be judged fairly. If you think the rules are not good
enough then make suggestions to change them - don't unfairly disadvantage
those of us who have spent considerable time and effort making images for
this competition in good faith!
For the record (and not that it should matter), I *did* only make subtle
changes in brightness/contrast. You shouldn't punish honesty - I could
have not even mentioned the fact and you would have been none the wiser
(and maybe would have got a fair vote).
Julian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
macdonaldj <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Oh great ! So now we have not only to follow the rules of the competition
> but also we have to second guess the thoughts of any judges who might read
> between the lines of the rules :)
This is one of the reasons why I strongly think that the only
allowable post-processing should be conversion to jpeg, nothing else.
Having rules of type "you are allowed to do this, but don't overabuse
it" leaves room for controversy.
(And naturally since brightness/contrast adjustment as well as image
resizing can be used to greatly enhance the visual quality of the image,
something which the renderer itself was perhaps uncapable of doing, this
strongly contradicts the spirit of the competition.)
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
macdonaldj wrote:
> Oh great ! So now we have not only to follow the rules of the competition
> but also we have to second guess the thoughts of any judges who might read
> between the lines of the rules :) While I understand what you are saying,
> rules are rules and should be interpreted as the boundaries within which
> your image should be judged fairly. If you think the rules are not good
> enough then make suggestions to change them - don't unfairly disadvantage
> those of us who have spent considerable time and effort making images for
> this competition in good faith!
>
> For the record (and not that it should matter), I *did* only make subtle
> changes in brightness/contrast. You shouldn't punish honesty - I could
> have not even mentioned the fact and you would have been none the wiser
> (and maybe would have got a fair vote).
???? Chill out dude!
I don't think my post in any way suggested unfairly disadvantaging
anyone, nor did I say anything about punishing honesty.
I clearly stated that I didn't have a problem with corrective
adjustments. I was merely pointing out that (as Warp also stated) when
you have rules that prohibit something (post processing) and then turn
around and have rules to make exceptions to those other rules, you also
create potential for someone to abuse the exceptions. You can consider
that either a suggestion for change, or my opinion, whatever.
Personally, I agree with Warp, making no exceptions keeps the field
level and simplifies the judging. And also would prevent these recurring
"is this a violation?" threads. But the rules are what they are, and I
don't have a problem with it.
As far as the fairness of my judging, I certainly don't have time to
spend trying to figure out if you changed the brightness by 6% or the
contrat by 3%. I also do not know all the capabilities of all the
renderers out there, so I sometimes can't tell if something is rendered
or post processed. If your image looks good and there are no obvious
effects added to the rendered image then I score it fully and don't
stress over it, even if you state in your textfile that you added
contrast or whatever.
If I see something that is obviously a violation, I give it ones across
the board because I don't think someone who knowingly cheats should get
a valid score. If I see something that may be technically permitted,
but, (as in my one example) clearly exceeds the intent, I will mark down
one category some because it deserves a valid score, but not full marks.
If I see something I'm not sure about (like the lens flare mentioned in
my original post) I give the benefit of the doubt, score it fully and
mention my concern in a comment.
In short, I try to be as fair as possible using as liberal
interpretation of the rules as possible, but if something looks
not-rendered then I will mark it down. Hopefully, everyone else is doing
the same.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gonzo <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote:
> macdonaldj wrote:
>
> > Oh great ! So now we have not only to follow the rules of the competition
> > but also we have to second guess the thoughts of any judges who might read
> > between the lines of the rules :) While I understand what you are saying,
> > rules are rules and should be interpreted as the boundaries within which
> > your image should be judged fairly. If you think the rules are not good
> > enough then make suggestions to change them - don't unfairly disadvantage
> > those of us who have spent considerable time and effort making images for
> > this competition in good faith!
> >
> > For the record (and not that it should matter), I *did* only make subtle
> > changes in brightness/contrast. You shouldn't punish honesty - I could
> > have not even mentioned the fact and you would have been none the wiser
> > (and maybe would have got a fair vote).
>
> ???? Chill out dude!
>
> I don't think my post in any way suggested unfairly disadvantaging
> anyone, nor did I say anything about punishing honesty.
>
> I clearly stated that I didn't have a problem with corrective
> adjustments. I was merely pointing out that (as Warp also stated) when
> you have rules that prohibit something (post processing) and then turn
> around and have rules to make exceptions to those other rules, you also
> create potential for someone to abuse the exceptions. You can consider
> that either a suggestion for change, or my opinion, whatever.
>
> Personally, I agree with Warp, making no exceptions keeps the field
> level and simplifies the judging. And also would prevent these recurring
> "is this a violation?" threads. But the rules are what they are, and I
> don't have a problem with it.
>
> As far as the fairness of my judging, I certainly don't have time to
> spend trying to figure out if you changed the brightness by 6% or the
> contrat by 3%. I also do not know all the capabilities of all the
> renderers out there, so I sometimes can't tell if something is rendered
> or post processed. If your image looks good and there are no obvious
> effects added to the rendered image then I score it fully and don't
> stress over it, even if you state in your textfile that you added
> contrast or whatever.
>
> If I see something that is obviously a violation, I give it ones across
> the board because I don't think someone who knowingly cheats should get
> a valid score. If I see something that may be technically permitted,
> but, (as in my one example) clearly exceeds the intent, I will mark down
> one category some because it deserves a valid score, but not full marks.
> If I see something I'm not sure about (like the lens flare mentioned in
> my original post) I give the benefit of the doubt, score it fully and
> mention my concern in a comment.
>
> In short, I try to be as fair as possible using as liberal
> interpretation of the rules as possible, but if something looks
> not-rendered then I will mark it down. Hopefully, everyone else is doing
> the same.
>
> RG
OK, sorry for directing my frustation at you :) Don't worry, I am "chilled
out" but I think this is an important point.
> I don't think my post in any way suggested unfairly disadvantaging
> anyone, nor did I say anything about punishing honesty.
No, but James Coons *did* mark down an image (?mine) even though it falls
completely within the rules. If I (or whoever) hadn't mentioned the
brightness/correction, he *wouldn't* have marked it down. That's punishing
honesty is it not ? :)
Regards
Julian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It seems that a lot of voters here are not reading the rules correctly
(nothing ever changes). Also, it seems that very little people either
subscribe to the mailing list, or bother to read it. Perhaps this is why
old discussed topics keep ending up here again?
It was my understanding that panel judges agreed a long time ago that there
is nothing wrong with re-sizing an image down. In fact, it was even
mentioned on the irtc site somewhere that it was in fact recomended for
users with a render engine that either has no AA, or poor AA, that they
could use this method. Why should they suffer?
Come on people... If we are going to get all technical on knocking down
people's scores, at least learn the rules before jumping to wrong
conclusions. I have seen many users in the past lose points for going the
extra distance and putting in hard work on certain effects. Why? Because
the person voting didn't have a proper clue on how to vote yet thought they
did.
It just pains me to see this.
Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"The Mad Hatter" <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> It seems that a lot of voters here are not reading the rules correctly
> (nothing ever changes). Also, it seems that very little people either
> subscribe to the mailing list, or bother to read it. Perhaps this is why
> old discussed topics keep ending up here again?
Maybe it's also because mailing lists are really a thing of the past. If the
IRTC had a good forum that would be used by more people then everyone could
look up these things.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
