Warp 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

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

only how it can project primitives onto the screen


> 
>   How does it, in your opinion, show the full potential of POV-Ray if
> an entire scene is modelled and created in a third-party tool, textures
> are created in photoshop, everything is exported to POV-Ray meshes
> and the POV-Ray is just used to project those meshes to screen with
> some basic lighting effects?

It doesn't, but that is not what I take issue with.

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"

> 
>   The comments basically say "yes, it's a great image, but it's not
> better than the winner, and by the way, we were not really looking
> for who can use POV-Ray as a mesh renderer, we were looking for who
> can use POV-Ray as a raytracer with tons of features".
> 

The artist used the particular features of POV-Ray that facilitated his 
particular vision.  He made the best image he possibly could with 
POV-Ray and entered it, in good faith, into a contest. But the judge 
chooses to reprimand him for using a technique the judge doesn't favor.
At best it is an insensitive use of the comments section.

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

Gilles Tran wrote:

> 421e3e20@news.povray.org...
> 
> 
> Of the 5 top images, 4 were made using external modelers or use commercial 
> meshes. One is mostly a Wings-only image. It's not like using meshes was 
> considered a no-no in POVCOMP. Some of the comments are dissing mesh use 
> (thus honouring a long-time tradition in POV-Ray circles, even though 
> POV-Ray renderings of 3DS models were featured in the previous HOF...), but 
> overall the results say otherwise and acknowledge that tools like Wings are 
> here to stay.
> 

For the record, I personally harbor no acrimony over the results.  Nor 
do I think the judging in any way lacked integrity. I was a spendid 
contest with a splendid show of  talent and the winners without 
exception deserved their victory. But certain comments strongly suggest 
an inbuilt bias that I do not share and find deeply disheartening.

> The comments on Twin Girls and Model Expo praise the modelling done in these 
> pictures (and in the latter case it's made with Rhino, which is not a 
> hobbyist tool, something that people may frown about).

It seemed a little grudging once the atmosphere was poisoned.

  If either of these
> had won, the competition would have been heavily criticised for promoting 
> mesh use and a lot would have been said about POVCOMP being the final nail 
> in CSG's coffin. 

Well, that pretty much admits it.


The mesh vs CSG is an old, heated debate in this community
> and this is not going to change anytime soon. However, an image *** had *** 
> to win, OK?
> 

But this old debate need not have been dragged into the presentation of 
results and rubbed in the faces of partisans of this controversy or 
those whose skills sets may actually limit them to certain techniques.

> The winner is a POV-only picture AND it also happens to be a fantastic 
> picture. 

I truly admire the picture, I am not seeing this issue in terms of any 
of the pictures.


As I've said already in this group, what counts is whether or not
> the author uses the right tools to reach his/her artistic and technical 
> goals. 

That's a little shaky now.


The winning image used CSG very wisely with superior results, that's
> all.

The winning image was a superior image.


> 
> About the comments: they reflect the opinions of the judges who felt like 
> commenting on this or that image, but they are not representatives of all 
> the judges. 

I have no doubt of it.

These are personal opinions, not official statements.
> 

That one is a little harder to swallow. While that may be technically 
true, they case a pall.

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421e665d@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?


>
>  POV-Ray is more than just a renderer. Modelling your entire scene
> in a third-party mesh modeller and your textures in photoshop and then
> simply using POV-Ray to get those meshes on the screen in basically
> the same way as any other renderer would do is certainly not the best
> way to show what POV-Ray is capable of.
>  This really was a *POV-Ray* competition, not the IRTC. If you just want
> to use POV-Ray for projecting your meshes and textures to the screen, then
> you can do it in the IRTC or any other computer graphics competition.
> The main goal of povcomp was not that.

     The main goal of povcomp was promotion in a 'pov only' way.


>
>  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.


>
>  There were other images which came very very close. If The Last
> Guardian would have been just a bunch of meshes it would certainly
> have been a very difficult choice, but I'm quite sure it would still
> have been in the top4 at least. The creative use of POV-Ray features
> just hit the spot there.
>
>  The Last Guardian is just a superb image, and it also shows that
> superb images are possible to do with POV-Ray without the aid of
> expensive third-party graphical modellers, and it also uses creatively
> the features available in POV-Ray.
>  Shortly, that was about exactly what the povcomp was looking for.
>
>>   I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of 
>> winning
>> even if my image was better than anyone elses because I solely use Wings 
>> for
>> my models now
>
>  Not true. If you had made a definitely better image than The Last
> Guardian, you would have won.

     BS, and you know it.


>  Granted,

   Thank you.


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.


>
>>  My dismal, failed, attempts, (two),

(Three attempts in the end, actually).

> at an image for the POVCOMP cost 'me' money and time for your (not very 
> good, inconsiderate, and naive) gain.

>
>  Nobody forced you to participate.

  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.


>  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 



>  Can't you simply accept that some people are able to do better images
> than you?

 I really can't believe you said that Warp. I'll leave it at that for now. 
We'll see what happens.


>
>>   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.

  ~Steve~


 - Warp -

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message 
news:web.421e7e56cbe05eba4c7dbec50@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> I know that, but wouldn't ever have won *anyway* with the way I WANTED TO
>> USE IT.
>
> Let me get this straight, you're complaining you wouldn't have won,
> based on a few judges comments, when you didn't even *enter*?

    Does it matter if I entered or not? What did I post in my first post? It 
wasn't a "Great image" contest, it was merely a "Great PoV-Ray" contest. 
Full stop.


> You just don't know that. As others have pointed out, many of the top
> rated images used a lot of meshes.

     Yes, and as good as they were, not one of them won. *Pure* PoV won. So 
what was the point of anyone else entering?


>
>> POVCOMP won't happen again, (I haven't had answers to my question about
>> if POVCOMP will happen again).
>
> Again, you don't know that. However if I'd worked hard to bring this
> event about and had to read unappreciative rants like yours I'd seriously
> reconsider whether it was worth it.

   Then you carry on, you fall into the trap too. "unappreciative". Please.


>
>> I hope you're not taking the #### with that statement. Seriously. ;)
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this.

   I'd rather not swear here, but the hashes mean "Piss" so that you know. 
Now read it in the context that you got my answer, (see my next sentence 
below).


>
>> I wanted to enter to try and get a computer for my daughter for 
>> Christmas.
>> That was my drive, nothing else, (think how pissed-off I am with messing 
>> my
>> detail images up!)  I'll find it easy to NOT enter another povcomp now,
>> unless of course, I use pure SDL. (Which might happen. Just because I use
>> Wings mostly now, it doesn't mean I *can't* do the *pure* thing - 
>> although
>> people just forget in here. I 'do' have the patience to do it).
>>
>>  My ART would be extremely limited though. PoV doesn't adjust profusely 
>> for
>> this, art-wise, generally.
>>
>>   Go Figure. ;)
>
> You're posts read very emotional and you aren't responding to some
> very good points Warp and Gilles have made.

    Yes, emotional, but they understand, they 'know' MY points. Listen RD, I 
sent my image to one of the *judges* on a friendly basis, not knowing that 
person was one of the judges, how do you think I feel now?! How do you think 
he feels??

   I'm glad I didn't enter, I respect the person I sent it to, and wouldn't 
want to spoil that. This is why I'm arguing that it should have been set-up 
properly.

    ~Steve~

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:16:07 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> > Let me just quote invitation message for POVCOMP: "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 
> > is
> > to show the full potential of POV-Ray."
>
> Then I was right.

Yes you are right in noticing that POV-Ray maintainers and developers which
spend more than 10 years on hard making it, could organize contest to
encourage people to explore flexibility of this tool in various fields.

> So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX?

To learn tool better.

> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour 
> grapes", you're SO wrong.

I do not understand "sour grapes" in the above sentence, sorry. I do not
understand all the phrases available in english. And I do not understand why
did you addressed it to me. I wasn't maintainer of the contest.

> I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn it, 
> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.

Go in peace and do not destroy the happy time of the awarded povers then.
There is so many contests in the world I want to participate but I don't
because I do not meet their audience, requirements or timelines. I can give
you urls to them if you wish. Find your place youself and allow others to be
happy :-)

ABX

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>     Does it matter if I entered or not? What did I post in my first post? It 
> wasn't a "Great image" contest, it was merely a "Great PoV-Ray" contest. 
> Full stop.

  And your point is?

  Perhaps we should have allowed 3DStudioMax renderings as well to
satisfy your needs?

>      Yes, and as good as they were, not one of them won. *Pure* PoV won.

  Because it happened to be the best image.
  It did not win because it did not use any external models. It won
because it was the best image. The fact that it did not use any
external models at all was commendable, but basically a coincidence.
It could have used some external models and still have won.

>     Yes, emotional, but they understand, they 'know' MY points. Listen RD, I 
> sent my image to one of the *judges* on a friendly basis, not knowing that 
> person was one of the judges, how do you think I feel now?! How do you think 
> he feels??

>    I'm glad I didn't enter, I respect the person I sent it to, and wouldn't 
> want to spoil that. This is why I'm arguing that it should have been set-up 
> properly.

  You are not making any sense here. I don't understand what do you mean.

-- 
#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 -

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
> news:421e67b3@news.povray.org...
> > St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> >>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers 
> >> maybe?
> >> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour
> >> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn 
> >> it,
> >> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.
> >
> >  I don't really understand what your POV-Ray learning preferences have
> > to do with povcomp.
> >  You are pissed off because the organizators were not looking primarily
> > for the kind of expertise you have practiced?

>   Maybe, but I didn't enter. What are you saying here?

  First you make a big fuss about "I want to learn POV the way I want
to learn it" in the context of the povcomp wanting images which use
povray features, from which can be deduced that you are not happy that
the povcomp did not want the type of images where you are strong, ie.
most or all models made in third-party programs.
  Now you say "maybe, but I didn't enter". You are not making any sense.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

> 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.

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.

>      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.

  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?

> >  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?

> 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.

>   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.

> >  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?

> >>   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.
  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.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

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.

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

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -