POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.competition : Detail Views Server Time: 29 Sep 2020 19:25:43 GMT
  Detail Views (Message 1 to 10 of 13)  
Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 3 Messages >>>
From: Jeremy M  Praay
Subject: Detail Views
Date: 26 Aug 2004 14:05:37
Message: <412dee31$1@news.povray.org>
I thought I would make this a new thread, since it had nothing to do with
"anonymity" at this point, and maybe we (I) need some clarification on the
detailed views requirement.

"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:412db26c$1@news.povray.org...
> "Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> a écrit dans le message de
> 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).
>

Quoting the rules (groan):
"The image submitted has to be at least 1280 pixels wide or 960 pixels high,
and containing at least 1,228,800 pixels in total"
and
"The minimum size for each of the detail views is the same as for the main
render ; the area of each detail view must not be larger than 1/100 of the
main image area (meaning no more than 1/10 the width and 1/10 the height)."

To me, that means making two 1280x960* (at least) detail views which are no
more than 1/100 of the picture size.  I realize that we don't have to do a
12,800 x 9,600 render, but that much zoom/detail still surprises me since
I've never heard of anyone creating a render that large (right about now is
when someone claims to have reached gigapixel status ;-) ).

Have I interpreted that (in)correctly?

*A person could make a render without a 4x3 aspect ratio, but they're still
expected to meet the same requirement, and differring aspect ratios could
mean even larger detail views (e.g. a 720x960 picture would meet the size
requirement, but would not have enough overall pixels, so in reality, any
picture must be at least 1280 x 960, and 960 x 1280 may not be wide enough).

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com


-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com
From: Slime
Subject: Re: Detail Views
Date: 26 Aug 2004 17:23:24
Message: <412e1c8c@news.povray.org>
> "The image submitted has to be at least 1280 pixels wide or 960 pixels
high,
> and containing at least 1,228,800 pixels in total"

I'm not looking forward to viewing these submissions.

For one thing, I'm glad that I'll be at school when I do, because
downloading a large number of 1280x960 images on a 56k modem would not be
fun.

But aside from that, my monitor is 1280x1024, and I won't be able to see a
single image all at once. I'll have to scroll to see every single one of
them. I might be able to alleviate this problem by viewing in IE's full
screen mode, but I'm glad my monitor isn't 1024x768.

Are there plans to show sized-down images (perhaps 800x600, or maybe half
the rendered image's original resolution) on the website?

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
From: Samuel Benge
Subject: Re: Detail Views
Date: 26 Aug 2004 18:09:30
Message: <412E2728.20500@hotmail.com>
Slime wrote:

> 
> But aside from that, my monitor is 1280x1024, and I won't be able to see a
> single image all at once. I'll have to scroll to see every single one of
> them. I might be able to alleviate this problem by viewing in IE's full
> screen mode, but I'm glad my monitor isn't 1024x768.


My screen is 1024x768 >:( I could make it have up to 1280x1024 
resolution, but the refresh rate is too annoying to deal with. I guess 
for the really good ones I can download them and resize them with Irfan 
View.... I'm glad the community isn't voting!

-Sam
From: Renderdog
Subject: Re: Detail Views
Date: 26 Aug 2004 18:15:00
Message: <web.412e277f2c3552b96bcddb6d0@news.povray.org>
"Jeremy M. Praay"  wrote:
> Have I interpreted that (in)correctly?

It looks like a correct interpretation to me. That's a lot of
rendering for a contest not much longer than an IRTC round,
especially since many of us will want to push the envelope on
features, etc.

Not to highjack this new thread, but I also have a question
relating to the image sizes...

I notice the guidelines state an image larger than 1600x1200
will be scaled down to screen size for judging. I've decided on
an image that will be around 1.4* taller than it is wide. To meet
the minimum pixel count of 1,228,800 my submission will be
more than 1200 pixels tall, so it will be scaled down to 1200
pixels tall for judging.

The resulting image will be about 857 pixels wide (1200/1.4),
which means tall images will be judged at a lower pixel count
than wide images (unless they're really wide). Am I interpreting
this rule correctly?

The full size image will still be used as additional information,
just like the separate detail views, but I wonder if this puts tall
images at a disadvantage in the judging?

-Mark Slone
From: Gilles Tran
Subject: Re: Detail Views
Date: 26 Aug 2004 19:35:48
Message: <412e3b94@news.povray.org>
"Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> a écrit dans le message de
news:412dee31$1@news.povray.org...

> "The minimum size for each of the detail views is the same as for the main
> render ; the area of each detail view must not be larger than 1/100 of the
> main image area (meaning no more than 1/10 the width and 1/10 the
height)."
>

Damn, you're right. I'll see what I can do about this.

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
From: Peter J  Holzer
Subject: Re: Detail Views
Date: 26 Aug 2004 21:00:15
Message: <slrncisjeu.lp.hjp-usenet2@teal.hjp.at>
On 2004-08-26 17:23, Slime <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> But aside from that, my monitor is 1280x1024, and I won't be able to see a
> single image all at once. I'll have to scroll to see every single one of
> them. I might be able to alleviate this problem by viewing in IE's full
> screen mode

Or with Mozilla, which can scale images down to fit into the browser
window.

	hp


-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | Je höher der Norden, desto weniger wird
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | überhaupt gesprochen, also auch kein Dialekt.
| |   | hjp### [at] hjpat         | Hallig Gröde ist fast gänzlich dialektfrei.
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |   -- Hannes Petersen in desd
From: Gilles Tran
Subject: Re: Detail Views
Date: 26 Aug 2004 22:00:19
Message: <412e5d73$1@news.povray.org>
"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> a écrit dans le message de
news:web.412e277f2c3552b96bcddb6d0@news.povray.org...

> The full size image will still be used as additional information,
> just like the separate detail views, but I wonder if this puts tall
> images at a disadvantage in the judging?

Tall images are always at a theoretical disadvantage since computer screens
are horizontal. Now, frankly, I doubt that it will make a difference, since
the judges will have the full one anyway. All my IRTC entries - like most of
my POV-Ray work in the past years - had odd ratios (vertical or panoramas)
that didn't do them justice on screen, and it didn't really hurt them...

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
From: Slime
Subject: Re: Detail Views
Date: 27 Aug 2004 01:11:49
Message: <412e8a55$1@news.povray.org>
> Or with Mozilla, which can scale images down to fit into the browser
> window.


IE can do that too (and actually does by default), but does Mozilla do a
nice job of it? (That is, how does it resample: nearest neighbor or a smooth
averaging of the pixels / linear interpolation?)

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
From: Jim Charter
Subject: Re: Detail Views
Date: 27 Aug 2004 04:33:41
Message: <412eb9a5$1@news.povray.org>
Slime wrote:
>>Or with Mozilla, which can scale images down to fit into the browser
>>window.
> 
> 
> 
> IE can do that too (and actually does by default), but does Mozilla do a
> nice job of it? (That is, how does it resample: nearest neighbor or a smooth
> averaging of the pixels / linear interpolation?)
> 
>  - Slime
>  [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
> 
> 
No, in FireFox at least, it stinks.  Not sure if I would say IE is *as* 
bad but personally I would not use a browzer at all for this purpose.
From: Jeremy M  Praay
Subject: Re: Detail Views
Date: 27 Aug 2004 12:15:10
Message: <412f25ce@news.povray.org>
"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:412e3b94@news.povray.org...
> "Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> a écrit dans le message de
> news:412dee31$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > "The minimum size for each of the detail views is the same as for the
main
> > render ; the area of each detail view must not be larger than 1/100 of
the
> > main image area (meaning no more than 1/10 the width and 1/10 the
> height)."
> >
>
> Damn, you're right.


It was bound to happen sooner or later, I suppose...

> I'll see what I can do about this.

My current test render is running at 5pps, and I still have a ton of work to
do.  Now is the time when I start making sacrifices, I suppose...

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com
Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 3 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2008 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.