"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

"emkaah" <emkaah@yahoodotcom> wrote in message 
news:421f47f7$1@news.povray.org...
>
> 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?
>


I did enjoy it.  :-)

Other people apparently didn't. :-(

My point was simply that these large prizes elevated this competition to a 
level that we are not used to seeing around here.  The number of entrants 
was relatively small.

We've had a similar turn-out for the IRTC, which doesn't even have prizes 
anymore.  Sure, I would have liked to have won, and I'm sure that's why we 
had many of our top POVers competing.  But almost all of those people have 
also competed in the IRTC, for nothing.  Much less pressure and (when taken 
as a whole) has produced comparable images.  Something bridging the gap 
between the two competitions seems ideal to me.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:421f49a1$1@news.povray.org...
> Like Gilles and yourself I am now only interested in manning the firehose.
>

For what it's worth, I think your post had more of an impact due to your 
previous restraint.

You can have my hose.  I need to get out of here, and actually do some new 
stuff in POV-Ray...  :-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> I did enjoy it.  :-)
> 
> Other people apparently didn't. :-(
> 
> My point was simply that these large prizes elevated this competition to a 
> level that we are not used to seeing around here.  The number of entrants 
> was relatively small.

I think quality is more important than quantity.

> 
> We've had a similar turn-out for the IRTC, which doesn't even have prizes 
> anymore.  Sure, I would have liked to have won, and I'm sure that's why we 
> had many of our top POVers competing.  But almost all of those people have 
> also competed in the IRTC, for nothing.  Much less pressure and (when taken 
> as a whole) has produced comparable images.  Something bridging the gap 
> between the two competitions seems ideal to me.
> 

I think that POVcomp has many more images of high quality then any IRTC 
round.

If you look for example to what the winner Johnny Yip did for the IRTC,

http://exether.free.fr/irtc/stills/author_johnny_yip.html

then I think that he outdid himself in this competition. And I think 
that many competitors upped their level with POV here (except maybe for 
Jaime Vives Piqueres, who has reach the top of depicting kitchens some 
time ago :) ).

It seems that for many extra incentive can be beneficial, while some 
others have more trouble handling the pressure.

-Em

Warp wrote:
> 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, 
> 

You are welcome to your interpretation of this of course, but some 
broader interpretations may alos be valid.

> 
>>Which you associate exclusively with CSG
> 
> 
>   You seem to have the same obsession as St. has.

I see myself as standing beside St., yes, though I don't agree with all 
he is saying.



> 
>   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.

No I believe one judge in a few comments indulged in proselytizing 
against the viability of mesh modeling.  And that that is dangerous 
because when stated by an official, can induce a generalized set of 
values and preferences.


> 
>   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.
> 

This more than anything confirms my opinion of the situation.


>   Are you calling me a liar too?
> 
Not sure where that came from but my intentions here are simply to raise 
  awareness I denote as articulately as I possibly can how statements 
can reverbiate.


> 
>>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.
>

let's remember one of the quotes:
Big plus for creative use of POV-Ray primitives and CSG (instead just 
using cheap meshes).

The point is that it is the commentor who drew a comparison that appears 
limited.


> 
>>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.

This raises some interesting aspects of the whole promotional dilemma 
because in light of what you say, I am equally unsure that SDL, while a 
unique thing, is really the basket where I'd want to put all of my eggs 
so to speak.  But you are the insider and I am not and that does not 
bear directly on what angered me here anyway.  More helpful to say this. 
  If I understand the intention of your words correctly, in light of a 
desire to see the creative possibilities of sdl as a modeler explored as 
much as possible, the substitution of mesh looks easy or "cheap".  Valid 
to a point, but a couple of things:  The syntax of the comment suggests 
mesh by its nature is always "cheap" not just its use in a contest with 
  prestated preferences.  Also, the reader may not be aware that you 
meant the word in context or have any way of understanding that context. 
  Finally, even when prestated, it really is a bias.


>   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.
> 
Again, glad to hear it.  But again the point is, when spoken in an 
official capacity or even in an official context, words should be chosen 
carefully because they are always going to be interpreted at the 
convenience of the audience.  Every manager learns this nasty lesson.

As someone who entered an image that was almost all 3rd party meshes,
I feel that I need to make a comment here. First, I do not feel that
"POVRAY only" created images were given a big advantage over using
third party modelers. I used Rhino to speed things up so that I could
put my effort into texturing, lighting, etc. I am terrible at using the
more advanced POVRAY geometry functions and didn't feel that I had the
time to learn how to use them and still create a good scene. My failure
to win first prize is obvious to me, not enough artistic expression
or "flare" (not "SDL only" modeling preference). I did a lot of
experimenting to find the right density of meshing to acheive a good look
in the enlarged views and to find textures that looked good enlarged as
well. I do not feel that the effort was wasted in any way by any so-called
preference for SDL only created images.
   Also, I have to take a very mild exception to Gilles'comment about
Rhino not being a hobbyist tool. Compared to what I use at work, Rhino is
more of a toy than a realistic production tool.
   Anyway, I will probably use the same tools and techniques for the next
contest and spend my time between now and then refining my knowledge of
POVRAY. Its a great tool and fun to work with in conjunction with the other
tools that are available.

Chris Holtorf

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

> You can have my hose.  

You gaddamned cabana boy

news:web.421f5b5acbe05eba999befe70@news.povray.org...

>    Also, I have to take a very mild exception to Gilles'comment about
> Rhino not being a hobbyist tool. Compared to what I use at work, Rhino is
> more of a toy than a realistic production tool.

I should have cited CATIA then ;)
Well, yes, a few POV-Ray hobbyists have invested in Rhino (including me), so
it's also a hobbyist tool. I just meant that it wasn't part of the
traditional toolbox of free and low-cost apps since most hobbyists aren't
willing to shell out $900 for a modeller.

G.

-- 

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

St. wrote:
> Hey, I *LOVE* PoVRay. Let's get that straight, first and foremost. I 
> think most of you know that.
> 
>  BUT... but...
> 
> After reviewing the judges comments on the winners excellent image, I 
> know I won't ever have a chance. Ever. It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!

I don't want to repeat what others have already replied but i would 
seriously suggest you have a considerate look at the following aspects 
(in fact this reply is not exclusively at you but also at others who 
might feel strange about the ratings of their/others images or the 
judges comments):

- the organizers and the judges have put quite some work into offering 
the users of POV-Ray this competition and in addition have been able to 
get some sponsors to offer prizes for the winners.  If you don't like 
the contest for some reasons you are welcome to suggest improvements 
(although that's a bit late for POVCOMP 2004) as well as not to enter 
the contest (a bit late as well) but to be frank, i find it somewhat 
unappreciative to criticise the judges for the comments they have made 
(who are only trying to support the artists improving their images with 
those comments) and the organizers for the design of the contest (who 
are only trying to make the contest most useful for the participants, 
the sponsors and POV-Ray).

- as far as i have seen none of the the judges' comments (which - as 
others have already explained - do not necessarily reflect the judges 
criteria to rate the images) in any way contradicts the judging criteria 
that have been put up in the competition guidelines and that have 
received in general a positive reaction before the competition end.

Christoph

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

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f14ec@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> >  The goal of the competition was to show what POV-Ray is capable of.
>
>>    "AS A RENDERER". Get it yet?
>
>  Yes, as a renderer which supports things like isosurfaces, spheresweeps,
> CSG of any solid primitives, procedural textures, algorithmical
> programming etc.
>  Projecting a bunch of meshes to the screen is not showing what POV-Ray
> is really capable of.

    Then what was the point of allowing modellers at all if a "bunch of 
meshes" on the screen is NOT going to have a chance of winning? If this 
wasn't about 'art' and rendering with PoV-Ray, then what was it about?


>
>>      The main goal of povcomp was promotion in a 'pov only' way.
>
>  You clearly have an obsession with this "pov only" thing. No matter
> how many times you are told that imported models are ok (as long as
> the entire scene does not consist of them) and how an image with
> some imported models could have won, you still repeat this "pov only"
> thing over and over like a parrot.
>  The winner image just happened not to have any imported models at
> all. So what? If for example a fish would have been modelled in Wings,
> do you think that would have dropped the image from first place? If
> you think "yes", then you are delusional.
>
>> >  However, regardless of that, and believe or not, that was not the main
>> > reason for choosing The Last Guardian as winner. It was simply, in the
>> > opinion of most judges, the best image. Even most of the judges not
>> > using POV-Ray had this opinion.
>
>>    And I agree, undoubtedly. However, I will still say that I have seen 
>> as
>> good in the IRTC. Don't try to talk me down Warp.
>
>  You are not making any sense here. I don't understand what you mean.

   Without risk of getting personal, you are talking down to me as though 
you are some kind of elevated level above me. You are not. You are on the 
same level as me and anyone else here.


>
>  What do you mean by "I will still say that I have sen as good in the
> IRTC"? Firstly you haven't even mentioned IRTC before this, and secondly
> I don't understand what you mean by that. As good as what? And what does
> that have to do with anything?

    Ok, what was "ground-breaking" in this contest? Was there *anything* 
"ground-breaking" at all? No. That was one of the criteria of even entering 
the contest, and yet, it wasn't there in my opinion.



>
>> >  Not true. If you had made a definitely better image than The Last
>> > Guardian, you would have won.
>
>>      BS, and you know it.
>
>  Ah, I didn't realize you were part of the judging team and that you
> know what were the principles by which the images were judged. In fact,
> you know them better than me. Perhaps I was part of a different judging
> team?
>
>  You are calling me a liar. Is that really what you want?

     I'm not calling *anyone* a liar. If you lied to me, and I knew it, THEN 
I'd call you a liar - no problem, so please quit it with the 'lying' facade. 
Heck, Warp, can't you see what my real problem with this whole thing is? It 
was judged by *some* people that in my opinion shouldn't have been judges. 
For instance, what qualified you as a judge? Are you an artist? What media 
do you use for applying your art, and what type of canvas? None? PoV only? 
Or do you use external modellers too? My point is that I am no more a judge 
than you are.

   If it was me, I would have asked some of the *best* CG artists out there, 
(with whatever tools *they* use), very nicely if they would like to be a 
judge, and wouldn't have *anyone* from PoV-Ray itself - someone 'neutral'. 
It's a well known fact that this happens all the time with any competition 
in the public domain.



>
>> the competition would have been very hard against superb
>> > images using more of POV-Ray's features, but the main judging principle
>> > was still how the image looks. The method of production was only
>> > secondary.
>
>>   Exactly.
>
>  So you agree with me now? Now you do agree that your image could have
> won if it was clearly superior to the other images, regardless of the
> method of production?
>  You are not making any sense.

    I meant 'exactly', as in, it wasn't secondary. The method of production 
in 'your' eyes was 'pov only'. Tell the truth Warp, did you judge *solely* 
on what the image looked like? Or did you take into account that an image 
used pov only?



>
>>   No, but you, (povray), asked, (pleaded?). I entered within the rules - 
>> but
>> there was *no way* I would win using an image made up of Wings models 
>> only,
>> however good it would be.
>
>  Yeah, you know this thing better because you were a judge and I was not.
> Or I am just a liar. And you know I'm lying because... because... well,
> just because.

    Now you're not making sense.


>
>> >  It's you who seem quite naive. Were you expecting to win because 
>> > making
>> > your image "costed you money"?
>
>>   I'd never expect to win in any contest, but trust me, it cost me money. 
>> I
>> 'paid' in time to enter this comp. I could have been doing other things 
>> at

>
>  Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps we should give you a refund?

    Don't be pedantic. I only earn that around Christmas time, and most of 
the other time, I probably earn less than the minimum wage here in the UK. 
My analogy is sound because I compare it with the effort that I put in only 
to see that "(instead of resorting to cheap meshes created by third-party 
tools)" is the *real* cludge here.


>
>> >>   Say what you like, I know I'm right.
>> >
>> >  Self-righeousness is the way to go, yeah.
>
>>    Yeah. Self-righteousness in the 'right' way. I have no problem with 
>> that.
>> And nor did other big artists in their day.
>
>>    I'm *still* right.
>
>  You are still an idiot, it seems.

  <sigh> And there you go. A judge calling someone an idiot. So you 
concluded that I was an idiot before, then? That's the first time you've 
called me an idiot, but it was already in your head. I rest my case with you 
being a judge, and biased towards me. I've met you before. If I'd have 
entered, and everyone else thought my image was the best, I bet you would 
have argued against them. Tell me you wouldn't have.


>  You are not making any sense, you are unable to give rational arguments
> about your claims, you have an idiotic principle of not listening to any
> arguments against your claims and you are calling people liars just 
> because.

  There's that elevated level again. You won't go far Warp.

   ~Steve~