Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> >   As I have already said in another article, this was a competition to
> > show the capabilities of POV-Ray, 

> Which you associate exclusively with CSG

  You seem to have the same obsession as St. has.

  Since composing the entire scene with third-party models was considered
negative (because it basically uses just one single POV-Ray feature:
mesh rendering), you now are completely convinced that meshes were
completely forbidden and that if an entry used even one single mesh
it would have not won.

  You also seem to know better what I mean by "to show the capabilities
of POV-Ray" than I do, and seemingly no amount of explaining will
convince you otherwise.

  Are you calling me a liar too?

> not a competition to show how POV-Ray
> > can project meshes onto the screen.

> only how it can project primitives onto the screen

  Uh? You call algorithmic programming, isosurface tracing, sphere sweep
generation, procedural texturing and other features "projecting primitives
onto the screen"?
  If so, you have a pretty limited view of what POV-Ray can do.

> How is it, in your opinion, that a mesh, hand-modeled to express 
> sublties of organic form, say the complexities of the flesh around a 
> human eye, is in anyway "cheap"

  Because it shows the power of a third-party modeller program, not the
power of POV-Ray. It's just a cheap way of getting pretty images generated
by POV-Ray, using less than 1% of its features. You could as well use
any other renderer to get the image from the models.
  The animal shown in the winner image can probably be made in 10 minutes
with a graphical nurbs modeller by someone experienced. As such it would
have not shown any talent nor dedication at all. However, using POV-Ray's
own means to create the figure showed creativeness and talent.
  And that was just the simplest part of the image. Using isosurfaces
for the ship was simply awesome. If the entire ship had been a mesh
created in another program, there wouldn't have been anything impressive
about it (at least without knowing how exactly it was done; if it was
done just by moving vertices around with the mouse then there's nothing
impressive in that; it would have been a "cheap" way of doing it, regardless
of how long it took to move all the vertices with a mouse).

> At worst it is proselytizing, even gloating, in light of a known and 
> inflamed controversy.

  You are seeing more than there is in the comments.

-- 
#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 -

news:421f13d1$1@news.povray.org...

> Which was your image, BTW ?

He worked on an image but didn't submit it.

G.

-- 

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

Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>But certain comments strongly suggest 
>>an inbuilt bias that I do not share and find deeply disheartening.
> 
> 
>   You are seeing in the comments something which is not there.

Glad to hear it.


> 
>   We appreciated creative and skillful usage of POV-Ray features and the
> comments just reflected that. You are saying this is bad?
> 

Some comments strongly suggested a selective appreciation for a limited 
set of POV-Ray features, and by extension, a flawed appreciation for the 
whole of what it takes to make a good picture with POV-Ray, and by 
further extension, a predelection for subjects and creative approaches 
that are best supported by these limited set of features.  Is that 
wrong?  No.  Is it bad? Depends. But probably. Because it is reductive 
and views POV-Ray mostly as an end in itself discouraging those who are 
attracted to an open and creative enterprise. But it does provide safe 
harbour for certain people with a narrow set of tastes. If that is good, 
then it's good. Is it disheartening, enervating, angering, and 
discouraging?  For some of us, Yes.  For others, I suppose not, though I 
find that sad.

news:421f19b4@news.povray.org...

>   The animal shown in the winner image can probably be made in 10 minutes
> with a graphical nurbs modeller by someone experienced. As such it would
> have not shown any talent nor dedication at all.

Hmm, don't fan the flames here. Using a modeller is difficult, and it
requires a nice amount of talent and dedication to be (finally) able to
churn out a model like this in 10 minutes.

>If the entire ship had been a mesh created in another program, there
wouldn't
>have been anything impressive about it (at least without knowing how
exactly it
>was done; if it was done just by moving vertices around with the mouse then
>there's nothing impressive in that; it would have been a "cheap" way of
doing
>it, regardless of how long it took to move all the vertices with a mouse).

Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a "cheap" way of modelling complex
objects by just moving vertices around. The concept of modellers being
somehow miracle tools is just an oft-repeated legend somehow popular in
POV-Ray circles (along with the
"miracle-plug-in-that-does-everything-in-the-blink-of-an-eye" one). I guess
every 3D artist out there wishes that the legends were true, but the reality
is that (mesh/Nurbs/SSS) modelling is *** very *** hard work. I'm very much
a beginner after a year of modelling stuff in C4D and it's a very
user-friendly app.

If Johnny Yip had done the ship with a modeller it would still be a superb
modelling effort.

G.

-- 

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

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:421e6be0$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
> Steve you echo a lot of my own anger.
>
> I was trying to find a way to rise above this dispute.  But I guess not.
>
> So I'll say this. I thought that fact that one of the judges would 
> repeatedly use the comments section as a soapbox for this ridiculous bias 
> of his was in extremely poor form.  I was more than a little shocked that 
> such bias was represented on the judging panel at all, and even more so 
> that these petty-minded opinions were allowed to see the light of day. 
> For me it is extremely disheartening, not in the least because I enjoy 
> "pure" csg extremely, and now actually find it hard to use because this 
> "issue" has been so stupidly politicized.  These comments are, in my 
> opinion, low-minded, retrograd, and do not reflect the spirit of POV-Ray.
>


When I read some of the comments on the top images, I felt that way too. 
After the deadline extension, I basically added a few mesh objects to my 
image (and replaced some CSG objects with other CSG objects), which I 
thought would improve it.  Those comments made me wonder if I had actually 
done the wrong thing.

But after reading many of the judges comments (I still have not read them 
all), I realized that in many cases, participants were lauded for their 
effective use of 3rd party modellers.  The position that "Twin girls with a 
pearl earring" achieved is directly contradictory to that kind of thinking. 
While some of the comments came across as being negative and sometimes even 
crass, I think that such things were largely limited to the comments area. 
I have showed the winning entries to several people who know nothing about 
POV-Ray, and overall, they agree with the judging.  To me, that means that 
despite any comments to the contrary, it appears that the judges did not 
apply a CSG-centric bias to any appreciable degree.  And again, those 
comments which implied more weight for CSG seemed rare, in my opinion.

Point blank:
In an impossible to achieve hypothetical situation, if there were 3 
identical images where one consisted completely of 3rd party models 
(purchased or free), one consisted of models the author created using a 
modeller, and one consisted only of CSG (nothing external to POV-Ray), 
should the latter not score highest in competition to show the full 
potential of POV-Ray?  In the big picture, perhaps they should all be given 
equal weight, but this competition had a more narrow goal.  The amount of 
weight that CSG was given seems evident by the judging, and it does not 
appear to me that it was very appreciable.

This is just my opinion and as you know, I do have some CSG bias, along with 
a procedural texturing bias.  My point here is simply that such biases do 
not appear to have impacted the judges decisions any more than what seemed 
relevant given the scope of this competition.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
>  To me, that means that 
> despite any comments to the contrary, it appears that the judges did not 
> apply a CSG-centric bias to any appreciable degree.

  What I don't understand is why some people seem to have got a fanatic
obsession about judges requiring CSG-only entries based on comments
which give negative feedback on using third-party models excessively.
No amount of explanation seems to convince them otherwise.

  It looks like they can think only in binary: Either you accept
scenes modelled 100% in a third-party program, or else you only
accept scenes made 100% in POV-Ray. There's no middle ground and
if anyone (specially a judge) denies that he is a liar.

  I don't understand what is so freaking hard to understand in the
concept that it's perfectly ok to use third-party models but not to
model your entire image with them (because that was really not what
this competition was about).
  I have been trying to say this in a multitude of ways, for no avail.
The only response I get is that it's bullshit, thus effectively calling
me a liar.

> In an impossible to achieve hypothetical situation, if there were 3 
> identical images where one consisted completely of 3rd party models 
> (purchased or free), one consisted of models the author created using a 
> modeller, and one consisted only of CSG (nothing external to POV-Ray), 
> should the latter not score highest in competition to show the full 
> potential of POV-Ray?

  A fourth entry using imported models and other POV-Ray primitives in
a creative and skillful way would have probably be the strongest
candidate. Curious that you didn't give this as an option at all.

-- 
#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 -

"fa3ien" <fab### [at] meschaussuresskynetbe> wrote in message
news:421f13d1$1@news.povray.org...

>
> > Hey, I *LOVE* PoVRay. Let's get that straight, first and foremost. I
> > think most of you know that.
>
> Which was your image, BTW ?
>
> Fabien.

It was posted recently in p.b.i, i'm pretty sure it was the Pinball scene.
(correct me if i am wrong)

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> So...  If you want to compete, it becomes like running the New York 
> Marathon.  Do all 30,000 people really think they might win?  Certainly not. 
> They do it because it's there, they enjoy finding out what they are capable 
> of.  They enjoy seeing someone else win.
> 
> As I stated in off-topic recently, I think most of us here would be happiest 
> if we simply got a free poster from Zazzle for a top finish.  That creates 
> much less pressure, and in the end, I think there would be more POV-Ray 
> art/renders/stuff to show.  Perhaps POVCOMP "overachieved" in regards to 
> prizes.  It certainly squeezed out some good stuff, though, so my point is 
> debatable.
> 

Why can't you enjoy the competition with a top prize? I don't know if 
*most of us* would like a competition with simply a free poster for the 
winner. Although it is healthy to set your goal realistically (a place 
in the top 10 or top 20, for example), a big prize gives a good 
incentive to give it your best (top 10 would be ok, but winning is 
better:) ). Winning a competition where judging is involved mostly 
incorporates a bit of luck anyway (although in POVcomp the winner is 
apparent, in most competitions the top five can be very close).

As you say most people enjoy the New York Marathon, while there are 
hefty prizes to win.

http://www.ingnycmarathon.org/entrantinfo/prizemoney.html

So, I repeat, why can't you enjoy POVcomp with a top prize?

-Em

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

I agree with your breakdown of this and it is fairly stated. I also 
thank you for re-emphasizing that the commentary was well intentioned 
and much appreciated.  Again, some comments, which may have been very 
well intentioned too, look like editorializing and betray a bias 
strongly enough that one has to believe they are from the same person. 
That was the threshold for me.  I think it was the wrong place to 
indulge in this and justifyably warrented some criticism. Myself, I was 
ready to let it go. But St. reacted and I believe his original feeling 
of anger, at least, was valid. So I made the decision to not let him 
twist alone since I had experienced the same reaction. Now I have stated 
my criticism. I only wished to raise the level of awareness. Nothing 
about this is so egregious to be worth any more of our time here. Like 
Gilles and yourself I am now only interested in manning the firehose.

I will state only one thing further.  I truly regret that any particular 
picture was drawn into the discussion.  In my mind it was never, ever 
about particular pictures.

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f3f60@news.povray.org...
>
>> In an impossible to achieve hypothetical situation, if there were 3
>> identical images where one consisted completely of 3rd party models
>> (purchased or free), one consisted of models the author created using a
>> modeller, and one consisted only of CSG (nothing external to POV-Ray),
>> should the latter not score highest in competition to show the full
>> potential of POV-Ray?
>
>  A fourth entry using imported models and other POV-Ray primitives in
> a creative and skillful way would have probably be the strongest
> candidate. Curious that you didn't give this as an option at all.
>


Good point.  I guess I just didn't want to make the example overly 
complicated.  POV-Ray does meshes.  A CSG-only entry does not show this 
fact.  So, something with CSG and meshes (all other things being equal) 
would probably show off more features of POV-Ray than a CSG-only entry, or a 
mesh-only entry.  I get it.  I think some of these frustrations go beyond 
POVCOMP, but some of the crass comments reinforced certain fears/anxiety 
that many of us had.

This was really just a small competition.  The big prizes made it seem like 
it was more than it really was.  In essence, the prizes dwarfed many of the 
other aspects.  Minor blunders became huge blunders.  Minor nit-picks became 
huge nit-picks.  The participants were elevated to a level of which they 
were not at all accustomed.  Perhaps the same could be said of the judges. 
We were amateurs competing for professional-level prizes.  Many may have had 
unrealistic expectations, given their inexperience.  It has exacted a 
toll... Or many small tolls, perhaps.  I never saw it coming.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com