"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> "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
> >> that you just can't see them in your main image).
> >> ~Steve~
> > 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
> > 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
> 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.
> Well, this is what I'm wondering: will they look at the detail images,
> then think "Ok, something's missing there, but it doesn't really matter,
> 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
> > 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. ;)
The rules probably help a bit here - particularly the second sentence.
"In addition, two detail views of disparate areas of the main image shall be
submitted. This is to make sure that the modeling, texturing and level of
detail are of acceptable quality, and particularly one suitable to print
media such as magazine covers or posters if the image is re-rendered at an
So my completely unofficial opinion when reading that section of the rules
is that it means the detail views will be used to see how the image would
hold up when printed at a much higher resolution - i.e. would it still look
good, or would it start to look plain due to lack of smaller details, or are
there modelling flaws that would become visible at higher resolutions, etc.
So in my opinion that could be taken into consideration when judging... for
example maybe a judge might think "well that image looks good when rendered
at a small resolution, but when it's rendered at a large resolution it looks
quite plain", which could have a negative impact on how the judge perceives
the overall quality of the submission.
"You are invited to chose the areas wisely, so that they participate in the
global impression of superior quality given by your image, while being
representative of its general level of detail."
And this to me means, don't deliberately model an area with high detail
*just* for your detail views, as that wouldn't be representative of the
overall image detail. This to me would also mean that you shouldn't do
things like make separate files just for rendering the detail views... i.e.
you shouldn't make one "high detail" file for rendering your detail views,
and then another "low detail" file for the main rendered image, as doing so
would not be representative - they should be rendered from the same source
file, in my personal opinion.
thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com