 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just before POVComp was announced I had an idea to award a POV-Ray bonus to
encourage more people to enter the IRTC Stills competition. I shelved the
idea, but now I'd like to carry it forward, beginning with the upcoming
March-April competition. Before I make any official announcement I thought
I'd post here to judge the interest, response, and possible objections.
Basically I could award $100 to one POV-Ray image in each round of the
Stills competition. To motivate artists to donate their POV-Ray source,
only entries that include their POV-Ray source code would be eligible. The
bonus would be awarded one month after the entry deadline (May 31 for the
upcoming March-April round).
What do you think?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I should mention this would not be associated with the IRTC, though I did
consult with them about the idea.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Renderdog wrote:
> Just before POVComp was announced I had an idea to award a POV-Ray bonus to
> encourage more people to enter the IRTC Stills competition. I shelved the
> idea, but now I'd like to carry it forward, beginning with the upcoming
> March-April competition. Before I make any official announcement I thought
> I'd post here to judge the interest, response, and possible objections.
>
> Basically I could award $100 to one POV-Ray image in each round of the
> Stills competition. To motivate artists to donate their POV-Ray source,
> only entries that include their POV-Ray source code would be eligible. The
> bonus would be awarded one month after the entry deadline (May 31 for the
> upcoming March-April round).
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
Initial response: Very positive.
I think it's a wonderful and very encouraging gesture.
I also am chagrined at the falloff in source posting. Yet a lot of us
do use mesh routinely now and posting it does use up a lot of space
while offering no beneficial information. So a clear protocal for
addressing that problem would be the first order of business imo.
I assume you mean to award this completely at your own discretion. That
would seem to be best.
Maybe I'll have more thoughts on it later. To be honest with you, Mark,
I've about had my fill of weighty thinking for today. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks for your input, Jim. I'd like to make the bonus as
inclusive as possible. My main goal is to encourage people
to use POV-Ray and share their work, not make the event
more competitive or limit artistic creativity.
Here's my first pass on judging criteria:
1) Source code must be submitted with the entry to the IRTC
(not including huge meshes, copyrighted models, etc)
2) A tutorial or "Making of" on the web is encouraged
(begun before the bonus award, maybe at the new POV-Ray Wiki)
3) New, innovative and/or useful macros will score well
4) Well-commented POV-Ray code is a plus
5) The image does not have to score highly in the IRTC judging
6) MegaPOV code and external modelers are okay
7) Use of other's code and models will not be penalized
(The very reason I want people to share their work)
8) In the event of a tie, two $100 bonuses will be awarded
(I'm sure three-way ties will be very rare :-)
How's that look?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I see potential problems here. Especially when a winner turns out to be
fraudulent.
I would much rather have money kept into the contest in order to purchase
better hardware etc. This way users would be able to have a bigger file
size for their artwork etc, or better quality due to less compression.
It somewhat pains me when I look at the povray CDs and see some nice images
that are terribly sized or compressed because of max filesize limits, etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mad Hatter,
I've not heard of any fraudulent images in the IRTC recently so I
don't think it would be a problem, especially since I wouldn't be
awarding the bonus until a month after the images are available
for review.
Generally a properly compressed 250k jpeg doesn't have a lot of
compression artifacts and it does allow slower connections to
browse the gallery. I could be wrong but I don't think the IRTC is
hurting for additional server power right now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Renderdog wrote:
> Thanks for your input, Jim. I'd like to make the bonus as
> inclusive as possible. My main goal is to encourage people
> to use POV-Ray and share their work, not make the event
> more competitive or limit artistic creativity.
>
> Here's my first pass on judging criteria:
>
> 1) Source code must be submitted with the entry to the IRTC
> (not including huge meshes, copyrighted models, etc)
>
> 2) A tutorial or "Making of" on the web is encouraged
> (begun before the bonus award, maybe at the new POV-Ray Wiki)
>
> 3) New, innovative and/or useful macros will score well
>
> 4) Well-commented POV-Ray code is a plus
>
> 5) The image does not have to score highly in the IRTC judging
>
> 6) MegaPOV code and external modelers are okay
>
> 7) Use of other's code and models will not be penalized
> (The very reason I want people to share their work)
>
> 8) In the event of a tie, two $100 bonuses will be awarded
> (I'm sure three-way ties will be very rare :-)
>
> How's that look?
>
>
>
>
That looks great to me. I think the formalizing of code posting should
indeed lead to more code posted. I don't think that the reluctance to
post code has necessarily to do with people being secretive or
ungenerous. I expect it is more a matter of shyness and
self-consciousness in many cases. And it really is part of the fun. I
sometimes think some of H. E. Day's code should be framed as art in
itself, just for its sheer over-the-top, manic qualities.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think some users dont like the fact that other users may use some of their
raw files. I couldn't care less myself, as if someone thinks my work is
worth using (stealing?) then I would only feel happy that someone thinks my
work is worth while!
One major bonus that I don't see anyone mention, is that when you include
all assets to the irtc, it somewhat acts as a backup.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The Mad Hatter wrote:
> I think some users dont like the fact that other users may use some of their
> raw files.
Raw files?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"The Mad Hatter" <the### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> I think some users dont like the fact that other users may use some of their
> raw files. I couldn't care less myself, as if someone thinks my work is
> worth using (stealing?) then I would only feel happy that someone thinks my
> work is worth while!
There are situations where people would like to keep their models and
methods to themselves, and I understand that. But, for the most part,
we are not competing against each other (this could be the best
argument *against* a bonus prize :-) and sharing code helps everyone.
I'm like you; I'd be proud if someone used a part of my code to create
something that earned them money or acclaim. I purposely do not
put copyright notices in my code. If someone uses my code "as
is" for a prominent part of their image, it would be nice if they'd let
me know, but I don't see it as a requirement.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
