"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
> St. wrote:
>> How important are the detail images when it comes to judging? What if
>> minor things have been missed in one detail image? (And I mean so minor,
>> that you just can't see them in your main image).
> Well that is what is so damnable about it, isn't it. You have to operate
> on two levels of detail. I can even imagine there could be a texture
> situation in which the effectiveness on each level called for exclusively
> different solutions.
There is a texture situation in mine. It's almost as if you need to alter
the textures in the detail images to actually make them look as good as the
main image looks.
But I think the idea here is that
> *really* you are producing a picture at the high resolution level, it's
> just that you don't have to actually submit the high res render, just a
> low res render with some details. Obviously many considerations will go
> into the judging. Logically the amount of detail, in the details, would
> act as a minimum requirement. ie, "Great concept, but we can't publish
> this as poster because the image breaks down at poster resolutions. So..."
Well, this is what I'm wondering: will they look at the detail images, and
then think "Ok, something's missing there, but it doesn't really matter, we
like the image so much, we'll use it, and the competitor can alter it for
the poster size"? Is this the path they'll take when judging, do you think?
> But as a practical matter, it's a competition, you are being judged
> relative to a group.
Yes, thanks Jim. I only ask because I have a chance to re-do my detail 1
image, (10 hours), but I 'really' don't want to - it's been hell. ;)