Instead of submitting two detailed views, would it be possible to submit 
one poster sized render of at least 5 x 5 the original picture 
dimensions?  Technically this would contain the required two detailed views.

For those whose works do not require weeks to render, this may be a 
valid alternative and would show that the competitor is not concealing a 
lack of detail in areas not selected for a close-up view.

Of course, this would require a change to the submission interface, but 
not necessarily the competition rules.

Thoughts?

Peter Duthie.

Peter Duthie <pd_### [at] warlordsofbeercom> wrote:
> Thoughts?

  OTOH you have to take into account that most judges will be viewing the
images over the internet. A 25-times larger image could take some space...

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Peter Duthie wrote:
> Instead of submitting two detailed views, would it be possible to submit 
> one poster sized render of at least 5 x 5 the original picture 
> dimensions?  Technically this would contain the required two detailed views.
> 
> For those whose works do not require weeks to render, this may be a 
> valid alternative and would show that the competitor is not concealing a 
> lack of detail in areas not selected for a close-up view.

If you have the above, then extracting the two detail views from it and then
submitting a scaled-down version of the main image would be fairly trivial (in
fact IIRC this is the method used by some others). It's quite legal to do it
this way and I'm sure there'd be folks here who would help if need be.

-- Chris

Chris Cason wrote:
> 
> If you have the above, then extracting the two detail views from it and then
> submitting a scaled-down version of the main image would be fairly trivial (in
> fact IIRC this is the method used by some others). It's quite legal to do it
> this way and I'm sure there'd be folks here who would help if need be.

Actually no, rule 4d says:

"Each image submitted has to be the direct result of a POV-Ray render. 
No post processing of any kind is permitted. The images have to be 
submitted in JPEG format. (Note: converting from another image format to 
JPEG is not considered 'post processing')."

Of course extracting the two detail views from one large render is OK 
but scaling down a larger render does not comply with this rule.  While 
you might argue about this making sense or not and making a difference 
or not you should remember - winning entries have to supply the scene 
source and if the result can not be reproduced this might lead to 
disqualification.  So unless you know what algorithm your scaling uses 
and that this can be reproduced with appropriate antialiasing settings 
this can be risky.

Another note about the detail views - among the images submitted for the 
original deadline there have been several ones where the detail views 
obviously were not made with exactly the same scene as the main render 
and some detail views were rendered without antialiasing.  Both things 
are likely to give a negative impression in the eyes of the judges and 
the new extended deadline should give enough time to generate high 
quality detail views.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Of course extracting the two detail views from one large render is OK 
> but scaling down a larger render does not comply with this rule.  While 
> you might argue about this making sense or not and making a difference 

You are correct. My apologies to Peter.

-- Chris