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).

  ~Steve~

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).
> 
>  ~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 
exclusively different solutions.  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..."  But as a practical matter, it's a competition, you are being 
judged relative to a group.

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:41fb9880$1@news.povray.org...
> 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).
>>
>>  ~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 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. ;)

   ~Steve~

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41fba244@news.povray.org...
>
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
> news:41fb9880$1@news.povray.org...
> > 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).
> >>
> >>  ~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
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. ;)

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
appropriate size."

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.


Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:41fbdb8b@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41fba244@news.povray.org...
>>
>> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
>> news:41fb9880$1@news.povray.org...
>> > 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).
>> >>
>> >>  ~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
> 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. ;)
>
> 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
> appropriate size."

     Yes, thank you Lance. The word 'acceptable' for the detail views, is, 
in my opinion, subjective in contrast to the original, 'main', image. Since 
the start of this competition, I've been thinking 'poster' in a commercial 
sense as this is the intended result of this comp. That's not a problem for 
me, but I think a few more people out there may have had the same results as 
I had - ie, crap detail views. But that's not to say that their image isn't 
fantastic, and their expectations may be high in what they've achieved as 
far as their 'main' image is concerned?

  Hey, I've given it my best shot, and can't wait to see what others have 
done. I already commend them if they've been through the same as me, and I'm 
sure they have.

  Less than two days to go now...  ;)


>
> 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.

     Yes, I agree, but one contestant could have a **fantastic** skull in 
one, dark, corner, *and* two great close-ups of that skull, but what do the 
judges want? They don't want a poster of a skull in a corner because the 
model is *brilliant* and modeled in csg/sdl - it just won't cut it imo as a 
commercial poster. (But then, who knows?!)



>
>
> "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.

  And I respect your opinion, you know that. My image 'is' rendered from the 
same source file, using sdl, (repeated four times now in my image, (158 
.incs, 1,992 files, 4 folders)), but I've missed two minor objects out in my 
code on the second unit. <sigh> I'm just wondering whether it's 'worth' the 
effort of another ten hours, that's all. I'm beat, and I just want to enjoy 
modeling/rendering again.

 <delay since typing this>

   Anyway, I've uploaded now. Good luck if you've entered Lance, ('speak' to 
you soon now that my machine is free). Good luck all.

   ~Steve~


>
>
> Lance.
>
> thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
> thehandle - www.thehandle.com
>
>

St. wrote:

> 
> 
> - it's been hell. ;)
> 

I hope they'll be a chance to trade war stories later.

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:41fc6dde$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> - it's been hell. ;)
>>
>
> I hope they'll be a chance to trade war stories later.

  Oh, that will happen, you watch. Anyway, with 1 day, 21 hours and 58 
minutes to go, I have to do both my detail images again - it says they are 
too small. Detail1 was just over 10 hours and Detail2 was 25 hours to 
render. I can just make it if I start *right* now - but... but...  :/

   ~Steve~

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41fb7c50@news.povray.org...
> 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).
>

Not an answer, since it looks like others have answered quite well...  More 
of a slight ramble...

In many cases, things look best in the detail views and not in the main 
image.  I'm currently rendering "the poster" at 4800x3600 and I'm quite 
pleased with the way many details look in high-rez.  While I hold out a hope 
of winning, I'm planning to buy my own poster regardless, so this will not 
be a wasted effort for me.

I'm quite certain that I've lost nearly all objectivity regarding my image. 
As I've said before, some days I think it's the best thing ever created, and 
other days it looks very mediocre to me.  On the bright-side, it looks quite 
similar to what I thought it would look like (in my head), so I really can't 
complain too much.  Even if it's the best image I have ever created, I'm 
sure that guarantees nothing in this competition.

Anyway, I'm anxious to get started on new projects and to resume old ones. 
It's been a long road.  I feel like I should propose a toast.  ;-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:41fcfc17$1@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41fb7c50@news.povray.org...
>> 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).
>>
>
> Not an answer, since it looks like others have answered quite well... 
> More of a slight ramble...
>
> In many cases, things look best in the detail views and not in the main 
> image.

You've obviously done the 'large image' thing before, and I haven't. My 
detail images look terrible. :/ I used a couple of image_maps and they look 
ok in my main image, but they are SO pixelated in my details, I've got no 
hope... Still, I hope you (all) enjoy the concept.


 I'm currently rendering "the poster" at 4800x3600 and I'm quite
> pleased with the way many details look in high-rez.  While I hold out a 
> hope of winning, I'm planning to buy my own poster regardless, so this 
> will not be a wasted effort for me.

  I would love to buy mine, but not as it is. I'll hold out until I sort it, 
(a coupla tweaks! damn!), and then buy it. Heh, I might even buy yours when 
you win Jeremy!  ;)


>
> I'm quite certain that I've lost nearly all objectivity regarding my 
> image. As I've said before, some days I think it's the best thing ever 
> created, and other days it looks very mediocre to me.

    Well I'm happy with mine for the main image, but this 'detail' thing 
sure knocked the wind out of me... I *WISH* someone would have said 
something beforehand...

On the bright-side, it looks quite
> similar to what I thought it would look like (in my head), so I really 
> can't complain too much.  Even if it's the best image I have ever created, 
> I'm sure that guarantees nothing in this competition.

     True, and I'm looking forward to seeing it.

>
> Anyway, I'm anxious to get started on new projects and to resume old ones. 
> It's been a long road.  I feel like I should propose a toast.  ;-)

    LOL!  :)  "To all PoVers, keep on PoVin'".

   And yes, a 'very' long road indeed.

     ~Steve~

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

St. wrote:
> 

> 
>    Well I'm happy with mine for the main image, but this 'detail' thing 
> sure knocked the wind out of me... I *WISH* someone would have said 
> something beforehand...
> 

I sympathize because I had that happen to me when I got involved with 
Gena's Capriccio project.  I went in thinking in terms of the usual 
resolutions I am used to.  I looked at the source photo and thought, 
"well, I'm very inexperienced with mesh modelling but I think I could 
pull off something believeable for the figures, and I think I am one of 
the few people modelling organically in mesh right now, so maybe I'll 
offer my try"  But then someone started talking poster, and so the 
resolution was boosted to poster resolutions and I was immediately in 
over my head. Having to produce figures in full detail had never been my 
intention. And the inexperience was not not just with the level of 
detail in the modelling but with just knowing how to handle workflow and 
rendering huge images and scrolling around etc.  Basically after I lot 
of desperate effort I had to just throw in the towel.  It was a gruesome 
experience and I was not enthusiastic about working at these large 
resolutions again anytime soon.  So I got involved this time with some 
idea of what would be involved.  But I don't think resolution is a 
trivial issue.  I think an imaged is concieved of at a certain 
resolution.  Whether or not to includethe gun ports on your ship in a 
storm and all that.