Marc Jacquier wrote:

> 
> Jim, I have to say I love your image!

Thanks man.


> The concept, the modeling and texture are great, and the ape's fur, (though
> it suffers artifacts which I think made your image downgraded) is
> wonderfull.
> Maybe the ressources your  image needed and the time you had did not meet
> the deadline?

It was underbaked in several ways.  The technical things involved were 
developing on a timeline a little out of synch with this contest.  But 
again, the contest forced me to think about, and lead me to thematic 
ideas, that I wouldn't have gotten to otherwise.  A number of the ideas 
I tried, but were eventually discarded, *will* provide rich creative 
fodder going forward.

news:4214facd$1@news.povray.org...
> Marc Jacquier wrote:
> > Jim, I have to say I love your image!
>
> Thanks man.
You're welcome but no need to thank an effortless thought :)

> It was underbaked in several ways.  The technical things involved were
> developing on a timeline a little out of synch with this contest.
That's what I guessed

> But again, the contest forced me to think about, and lead me to thematic
> ideas, that I wouldn't have gotten to otherwise.  A number of the ideas
> I tried, but were eventually discarded, *will* provide rich creative
> fodder going forward.

That's a good positive point :)
Do you think improving that image? (just a better quality render...)

Marc

Marc Jacquier wrote:

Marc, when I first opened the entries page and started scrolling, your 
image was the first one that actually stopped me and made me look.  I 
thought your roiling sea and foam was not only very convincing but 
visually rich and narratively dramatic.  It had to make sense in a 
tactile way against the textures of the lighthouse.  And you succeeded 
extremely well.

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:4214facd$1@news.povray.org...
> Marc Jacquier wrote:
>
>>
>> Jim, I have to say I love your image!
>
> Thanks man.
>
>
>> The concept, the modeling and texture are great, and the ape's fur, 
>> (though
>> it suffers artifacts which I think made your image downgraded) is
>> wonderfull.
>> Maybe the ressources your  image needed and the time you had did not meet
>> the deadline?
>
> It was underbaked in several ways.  The technical things involved were 
> developing on a timeline a little out of synch with this contest.  But 
> again, the contest forced me to think about, and lead me to thematic 
> ideas, that I wouldn't have gotten to otherwise.  A number of the ideas I 
> tried, but were eventually discarded, *will* provide rich creative fodder 
> going forward.

I think I agree with the others.  Your scene was great, but the 
unfortunately, the image suffered from some technical problems.  I think you 
imply that you were overly ambitious.  But I get the feeling that this would 
render quite well with a few adjustments, and enough time.

I purposely tried to make my entry rather simple, especially given the 
initially short time frame.  With the extra time, I tried to clean it up, 
and I added a few more objects.   At this point, I'm embarrassed to ever 
display my October entry again.  Radiosity was kicking my behind.  I had no 
idea that the lighting setup would be so difficult, and without doing lots 
of day-long renders, it was difficult to get a handle on.

Incidentally, I adapted your Wings3D women's shoe tutorial for the boots 
near the door.  Unfortunately, the boots aren't the best boots model, but I 
couldn't stand the thought of starting over again, and they're not a major 
focus of the image.

On a lighter note, I sometimes find myself making that same ape face after I 
just finished creating something cool.  I'm such a primate.  ;-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4214f626@news.povray.org...
> Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> > oh, maybe you thought the view of the image would be through the
telescope.
> > it wouldn't be. it was almost the same view as in "Victoria"s World".
>
>   How would you then see the ant and understand the humor?
>

visual cues to bring the eye up to the top of the telescope, where the ant
would be visible from the viewers perspective, and unrealistically large for
an ant anyway.

Marc Jacquier wrote:


> Do you think improving that image? (just a better quality render...)
> 

I don't think it would be a significant enough improvement to make it 
worthwhile.  There is just too much else that falls short. The hair can 
look better but the density and coverage has to be balanced very 
carefully. Out of testing time, and in order to guarantee an entry at 
the last minute, I had to overdo the density, effectively nullifying the 
usefulness of my technique. I may rework that composition just to 
improve the technicals and rerender or I may upgrade the whole concept.

(While the open setting is very pleasing and came off way better than I 
expected, the original idea involved a more oppressive sense of the 
jungle, like described by Ferdinand Celine.)

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:4214f26f$1@news.povray.org...

> Thanks Steve. A little support goes a long way.

  I'm in support of all PoV-Ray users, with *whatever tools they use* to use 
it. It's a powerful renderer, there's no doubt about that.


 My entry was a
> calculated risk all along. I came to the concept rather late. 
> Never-the-less, even though I expected it, I was feeling a little bruised 
> that I couldn't make the top 1/4 in the judging.

 I remember and understand. I think I would have been some places behind you 
with 'Flowers' or 'Imminent'. Lol!

>
> Chris Cason made a point of noting that the ranking outside the winner's 
> circle was just approximate, an attitude I wholehearted support.  If 
> anyone remembers, I have been quite vocal on that subject in the past and 
> believe that a detailed ranking makes little sense in the context of 
> artmaking and expecially so when you enter the middle ranks.  To me it is 
> simply an artifact born of the need to find a winner.

   Yes, and correctly so, if so deserved. One image will always stand out 
from the others, (that's the nature of the beast, no pun intended), but 
overall, I didn't see the 'ground-breaking' image I thought I would see in 
this competition.  (Sorry to be blunt all, but it's just my opinion).


>
> Whatever my need to whine, I must confess that this contest forced me to 
> intensify my thinking about the themes I want to pursue.  And that is a 
> good thing.

   You're not wrong in your thoughts. It IS a good thing. I've got some 
images in my head that I MUST do, and I 'think' I can do. I would describe 
them something like, 'imaginative', but with meaning. So, let's say I'm 
thinking further than I've ever thought before 'because' of this comp.

 Which is a good thing. :)

    ~Steve~

St. wrote:

> 'ground-breaking' image I thought I would see 

maybe: "Hoped you might see?"

The image was exceptional in ways that Povers can learn from.  It is 
true that we value technical, even conceptual "ground-breaking", but we 
perceive it across one maybe two dimensions. This image resulted from 
care and craftmanship through a range of dimensions.  It's that 
accomplishment over a range of technical and pictorial concerns that is 
not often equalled here.  Modeling, composition, lighting, scale, 
orchestration of detail, space, atmosphere, pictorial language are all 
used to modulate our experience and maintain our interest.

Chris Cason wrote:

> [This announcement can also be found at
> [http://www.povcomp.com/results.php]

Neat :)

I personaly find 'The Last Guardian' more suitable for 3 or 4 place, and I
love 'Dissolution' by Ziga Petric  and  'The Kitchen' by Jaime Vives
Piqueres. But perhaps this is because of poor compresion of blue-jpg of
Guardian. I ques judges wanted to show also power of Pov-RAY engine, with
dispersion+scaterring media+photons is perfect example of. 

I would love to see a bit improved versions of 2 and 3 place in examply by
using media to show that image was raytraced on greated engine :)


-- 
Rafal Maj Raf256

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

> I think I agree with the others.  Your scene was great, but the 
> unfortunately, the image suffered from some technical problems.  I think you 
> imply that you were overly ambitious.  But I get the feeling that this would 
> render quite well with a few adjustments, and enough time.
> 

> I purposely tried to make my entry rather simple, especially given the 
> initially short time frame.  With the extra time, I tried to clean it up, 
> and I added a few more objects.   At this point, I'm embarrassed to ever 
> display my October entry again.  Radiosity was kicking my behind.  I had no 
> idea that the lighting setup would be so difficult, and without doing lots 
> of day-long renders, it was difficult to get a handle on.
> 
> Incidentally, I adapted your Wings3D women's shoe tutorial for the boots 
> near the door.  Unfortunately, the boots aren't the best boots model, but I 
> couldn't stand the thought of starting over again, and they're not a major 
> focus of the image.
> 
> On a lighter note, I sometimes find myself making that same ape face after I 
> just finished creating something cool.  I'm such a primate.  ;-)
> 

I'll reply in your O-T pub scene thread