Please be aware that a significant proportion of the judges will not be
folks who tend to hang around this server. This is intentional. Some will
have no connection to POV-Ray at all.

Also they will not see the registration list or anything of the sort prior
to their votes being cast.

-- Chris

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

> "Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:412bc3b1@news.povray.org...
> <snip>
> 
>>good artists have something known as "style" :)
> 
> 
> Whew!  I should be safely anonymous, then...
> 
> But to be serious again, 

But there is truth to your joke.  The heavy stylists will act as 
lightning rods potentially.  And if they should want to remain anonymous 
they are faced with an obvious dilemma.  The even more obvious answer is 
that they don't seek anonymity, thus the heavy style.

As a postscript to all this, an anecdote:  when I was an undergraduate 
art student I was enrolled in a printmaking course.  Printmaking has 
something of a tradition of humanism and social criticism greater than 
that of painting but less than that of film I would say.  Anyway the 
instructor, who was Chinese and of WW II age, did prints about 
Hiroshima.  In this course he organized class critics in which he would 
put up peoples' work and discuss it in front of everyone.  One student, 
smitten suddenly with social consciousness, made a drawing which 
featured prominently in the composition, a young child with his stomach 
swollen from hunger.  The instructor when on and on, in great detail, 
about the techique the student had employed when modelling the "female 
breast".  You really had to be there.  Irony aside, my point is that 
often the viewer can't even figure out the subject let alone the artist 
and style.

"Chris Cason" <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote in message
news:412cadee@news.povray.org...
> Please be aware that a significant proportion of the judges will not be
> folks who tend to hang around this server. This is intentional. Some will
> have no connection to POV-Ray at all.
>
> Also they will not see the registration list or anything of the sort prior
> to their votes being cast.
>


Wow!  That puts an end to a lot of my speculation.  Thank you for
sharing/clarifying.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:412ba4a8$1@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message
news:412b902b$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > "Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
> > news:412b5d21$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > > Anyway, I was wondering how the artist could reasonably remain
> > anonymous.
> >
> >    I was also wondering about this, and the possibility that my
> > 'style' might be known, (if that's actually possible!)
> >
>
> Yep, we can recognize your stuff from a mile away... ;-)
> (just kidding!)

   (I know!)   ;)  Seriously though, do you think so? My image at the
moment is so different to what I would normally do, but I do wonder...


>
> >    I'm also anxious about what you have to do, to actually
enter...
> > and I haven't registered yet!  :/
>
>
> Get registered!

   Going to, tonight...  :)

>
> What do you mean, "...about what you have to do, to actually enter"?

      Well, to be honest, like I always am, I'm a little perplexed
about the 'zoom-in' side of things. I mean, what if your image shows
the *artistic* side of your mind, and these things show badly in PoV
when zooming in?


> Avoiding the obvious "read the rules and guidelines",

Printed out, and read many times...

I'll try to take a
> stab at your comment:
> If you mean, "What are the judges looking for?"  In a nutshell (and
as
> someone else has stated),

   I think that was me...  ;)

just produce something that is a good showcase for
> POV-Ray's features.  However, I can't imagine a complex scene that
also uses
> isosurfaces, complex textures, glass interiors, media, high focal
blur, high
> radiosity, lots of photons, area lights, etc.  If someone is
producing
> something like that, I hope they've already started rendering.  ;-)

    Heh, yeah, I think I'll give that a miss... ;)

   I think this comp will carry on for some time to come. We haven't
quite got into it yet (I think) - like it's a dream or something...
But, this is the way forward, and you/we will see some amazing images
that can possibly push normal* people to the limit...  :)

 *What's that?

   ~Steve~

>
> -- 
> Jeremy
> www.beantoad.com
>
>

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:412cedfb$1@news.povray.org...
>
>    (I know!)   ;)  Seriously though, do you think so? My image at the
> moment is so different to what I would normally do, but I do wonder...
>

I, personally, would have to review all of your images before noticing
certain similiarities, I suppose.  There are only a handful (a small
handful) of artists that I MIGHT be able to recognize.

>       Well, to be honest, like I always am, I'm a little perplexed
> about the 'zoom-in' side of things. I mean, what if your image shows
> the *artistic* side of your mind, and these things show badly in PoV
> when zooming in?

Then you're judged poorly on the technical end-of-the-stick, I suppose.  I'm
still in shock over producing a 1280x960 "zoom-in".  If the entire image
were rendered at that resolution, it would be 12,800x9,600 (at least) or
about 123 megapixels.  Zazzle wouldn't even have a poster size large enough.

I guess you find 2 good spots and add extra detail?  That's sort of
disregarding the intent, perhaps, but on the other hand, a person would not
want to zoom-in on any obvious (major) flaws, either.  "Gee, there are lots
of exposed triangles on that cloth, I think I'll zoom-in and make myself
look bad."

> > as someone else has stated),
>    I think that was me...  ;)

(Laughing at self ) :-)

>    I think this comp will carry on for some time to come. We haven't
> quite got into it yet (I think) - like it's a dream or something...
> But, this is the way forward, and you/we will see some amazing images
> that can possibly push normal* people to the limit...  :)
>
>  *What's that?
>

The idea of "real prizes" (beyond peer recognition) is a big incentive, and
possibly the reason that the IRTC has been losing some appeal.  I'm very
impressed with the sponsorship.  I'm not sure what was involved in getting
those sponsors, but my hat is off to Chris and the other organizers.

-- 
Jeremy (without a hat)
www.beantoad.com

St. wrote:


> - like it's a dream or something...

ain't that the truth

news:412cfd92$1@news.povray.org...

> Then you're judged poorly on the technical end-of-the-stick, I suppose.
I'm
> still in shock over producing a 1280x960 "zoom-in".  If the entire image
> were rendered at that resolution, it would be 12,800x9,600 (at least) or
> about 123 megapixels.  Zazzle wouldn't even have a poster size large
enough.

I'm not sure I understand your calculation. You can zoom in at 1280x960
whatever the future printable size, it just has to make sense. The zoom-in
is there to make sure that the picture don't turn into a big, low-detail
disappointment if it has to be printed (for instance if it was shown in a
magazine). Just choose upon a theoretical size for rendering (say 6400 x
4800) and extract the zones. The zoom-in is actually a compromise: while
POV-Ray users typically render for screen only, 3D artists creating stills
for the print media (film posters, book covers etc.) have to render in large
sizes, and other challenges reflect this. See for instance
http://www.cgnetworks.com/challenge/machineflesh/instructions.php where the
guidelines consider a 2700 x 3600 image as a good starting point, or the DAZ
calendar contest, which has similar requirements (12 x 12' at 300 dpi).

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

On 2004-08-25 21:00, Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
> I'm still in shock over producing a 1280x960 "zoom-in".  If the entire
> image were rendered at that resolution, it would be 12,800x9,600 (at
> least) or about 123 megapixels.  Zazzle wouldn't even have a poster
> size large enough.

At 300 dpi, that translates to about 100x80 cm, which doesn't sound like
an unusually large poster to me (although 300dpi might be a bit fine for
a poster).

	hp

-- 



__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |   -- Hannes Petersen in desd

"Peter J. Holzer" <hjp### [at] hjpat> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] tealhjpat...
> At 300 dpi, that translates to about 100x80 cm, which doesn't sound like
> an unusually large poster to me (although 300dpi might be a bit fine for
> a poster).

Zazzle prints at 100dpi, which would be 10' 8" by 8'.  It would be cool for
a wall mural, perhaps.  ;-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

> "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp### [at] hjpat> wrote in message
> news:slr### [at] tealhjpat...
> 
>>At 300 dpi, that translates to about 100x80 cm, which doesn't sound like
>>an unusually large poster to me (although 300dpi might be a bit fine for
>>a poster).
> 
> 
> Zazzle prints at 100dpi

Which sounds kind of low for a poster to me given 300 or 250 is the norm 
for publications and magazines I think, though maybe not when you take 
into consideration that posters are meant to be viewed from a distance.