This was my point.
Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever. Simply because
they are to limited, to hard to control or take to long time to
produce.

Now, using third-party models shouldn't limit, in this case,
the judgement of the picture simply because it's a third party
model. Sure, if the model sucks it will affect the outcome
of the picture and therefor lower the ranking. This will be the
case no matter if the model is self-made, free downloadable
or bought.

In this case, the povcomp, there is a limitation in what renderer
to use. And, ofcourse, there is nothing wrong with that.
That was the whole point of the competition. The issue here,
as I see it, is that the requirements weren't clear.
Was the task to produce a world class image with POV-Ray as
a renderer? Was the task to produce a world class image with
POV-Ray as the only tool? Was the judgement based on just
the product or the product and the process?

If you look on how a professional project is done,
they use several tools simply because some modellers are better
on some things than other. The same with renderers or plugins.
And certainly when it comes to models.
Most of the professional modelling software comes with
possibilities of integrating third-party software. Take the
Terragen for instance. It's bleeding good on what it does, and
therefor you use it to produce out-door plates. Just as an example.
And most professional pictures are post-processed in one
way or the other (read: Photoshopped). That is not a secret.
If Poser is good on what it does, well, that is a another thing.
In my oppinion, it's too amateurish to produce human models
on an industry level. And it, Poser, has certainly made sub-human
models available to the general public. Sidenote: Look at the
gallery on Renderosity.. it's scary. People posting plastic looking
pictures and saying "Hey! Look here what I've done! It looks
like a nude girl!". The comments are even more scary: "Wow!
Nice pic, dude!". *schrug*

To connect back to your posting, yes, I agree. Just putting
a human looking model in the scene surely won't make it
a good picture. I'm not saying that Poser sucks. Gilles Tran has made
several  pictures where he uses Poser models in a splendid way.
Though, correct me if I'm wrong, he spends time tweaking them
to make them look good.

It feels like I'm starting to just ramble here.. but I have a point.

If there will be more povcomps perhaps the requirements for
entering should be clearer. How should the final product be produced?
I think it's more honest to state from the beginning that
a image that is the product of totally self-made objects will
score higher then others. Meshes, CSG e t c. Nothing wrong with it.
But if it is the case, say it. Perhaps even write it into the limitations;
"We don't allow third-party meshes". Or something like that. Problem solved.
Simply because you judge both the product and the process.
Perhaps introduce classes in the competion. Have a class
for POV-Ray only (as for creating the scene and objects)
and one open class where everything is allowed (3rd party
meshes and postprocessing). The overall limitation is still the same,
POV-Ray as a renderer.


End of rambling,
Stefan






"Lance Birch" <-> skrev i meddelandet news:4250a9ad$1@news.povray.org...
> I've avoided commenting in this thread because I didn't feel I should have 
> to
> justify the reasons for my voting or have to defend my integrity as a 
> judge (and
> therefore as a person in this community).  However, there have been many
> comments in this thread that have concerned me, so I'm going to respond 
> just
> this once (since these are the facts and there's no point restating them 
> over
> and over) to try to help clear up these misunderstandings.
>
> The single biggest problem I see is this notion of "process versus 
> product" and
> "meshes versus other objects".  The statements by the judges regarding 
> meshes
> were primarily aimed at meshes that weren't created by the author of the 
> image,
> or which were poorly created.  For example, using meshes excessively from, 
> say,

>
> To say that *any* mesh use was viewed as a bad thing is simply incorrect. 
> Take
> a look at how "Twin Girls With A Pearl Earring" ranked for proof of that: 
> the
> image is basically 100% mesh with texturing, however the meshes and the 
> textures
> were created by the author, and more importantly, the end result was 
> extremely
> good.  Had that model been a Poser model then things probably would have 
> been
> very different - if the author expended little effort in creating the 
> scene
> because they simply took an existing model that someone else created, then 
> it's
> hardly fair to rank that higher than someone who went to the effort of 
> creating
> the model themselves (regardless of the method used, mesh, CSG, etc), 
> especially
> if the end result wasn't as good as an image where the author had created 
> more
> highly detailed models themselves.  However, using many mesh models that 
> someone
> else created doesn't instantly make an image "bad" either, for example,
> "Victoria's World" ranked very well despite it containing many meshes 
> created by
> other people.  The reason it ranked so well was probably due to the end
> result/overall visual appeal of the image and also due to the clever use 
> of
> POV-Ray's features in order to place the objects and create the scene (it 
> also
> showcases POV-Ray's ability to handle huge amounts of instanced mesh 
> data).
>
> To contrast this, take a look at "Evie Evolves".  The image, despite being 
> very
> good from a visual perspective, didn't rank as well.  There are a number 
> of
> reasons for this (these reasons are *my* reasons and don't represent the 
> voting
> of the other judges): the image primarily uses a Poser model (but this 
> isn't the
> sole reason as I'll explain).  Had the author created the model, rather 
> than
> using one from Poser, it probably would have ranked a lot higher. 
> However,
> that's not the only reason - the use of a Poser model or a mesh model 
> doesn't
> necessarily make an image bad, there were other issues that made it (in my
> opinion) not as good as other images.  For example, the hand of the model 
> cuts
> through the sofa.  This is something that would have been very easy to fix
> (simply translate the entire model a small amount through the y axis), and
> similarly the ring cuts through the finger.  These are details that the 
> average
> non-technically-minded person can look at and see, and think "that doesn't 
> look
> right, it looks like the hand is in the sofa", so that had a big negative 
> impact
> on the image for me.  The faceting of the model also didn't help.  I can 
> also
> say that other judges had differing opinions - that's the point of having
> several judges, to ensure that there are different views of each image 
> being
> considered.  Many of these small image details and the overall ranking 
> were
> discussed at length by the judges before a final decision was made - not 
> one
> part of the process was taken lightly by anyone involved in the judging; 
> we
> wanted to be as fair and unbiased as possible, and I think we achieved 
> that.
>
> So I hope that clears up a few misunderstandings.  A basic summary is that 
> using
> mesh models didn't instantly make an image bad (an opinion that was 
> incorrectly
> stated as fact by some people), however using a mesh model (or any other 
> type of
> model, e.g. CSG) for the primary part of an image, which the *author 
> didn't
> create*, would usually have a negative impact, particularly if the *final 
> result
> wasn't visually as good* as it should have been because of it. 
> Ultimately, it
> came down to how good the image looked and how well it represented what 
> POV-Ray
> was capable of.  This is clearly evident when you look at the top 5-6 
> entries:
> these images are visually superior to the rest of the images (and what do 
> you
> know, several of them made extensive use of meshes).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lance.
>
> thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
>
>

> If there will be more povcomps perhaps the requirements for
> entering should be clearer. How should the final product be produced?
> I think it's more honest to state from the beginning that
> a image that is the product of totally self-made objects will
> score higher then others. Meshes, CSG e t c. Nothing wrong with it.
> But if it is the case, say it. Perhaps even write it into the limitations;
> "We don't allow third-party meshes". Or something like that. Problem solved.

	There was no problem at all if anyone took the time to read
carefully the guidelines that were published almost as soon as the
povcomp website was up:

http://www.povcomp.com/guidelines/

	Particularly the following paragraph:

"Modeling

      * Negative: low detail meshes in foreground, figures floating above ground
or penetrating it, sharp edges where rounded ones are expected in nature, obvious
use of bump mapping, etc.
      * Positive: detailed selfmade models, realistic algorithmically generated
stuff like trees, plants, cloth, etc.

Special focus on how much is self made and what scene elements are based on
3rd party models."

	- NC

Okie, should be settled then :)
As I didn't enter, I didn't read those..

Stefan

"Nicolas Calimet" <pov### [at] freefr> skrev i meddelandet 
news:4252c341$1@news.povray.org...
>> If there will be more povcomps perhaps the requirements for
>> entering should be clearer. How should the final product be produced?
>> I think it's more honest to state from the beginning that
>> a image that is the product of totally self-made objects will
>> score higher then others. Meshes, CSG e t c. Nothing wrong with it.
>> But if it is the case, say it. Perhaps even write it into the 
>> limitations;
>> "We don't allow third-party meshes". Or something like that. Problem 
>> solved.
>
> There was no problem at all if anyone took the time to read
> carefully the guidelines that were published almost as soon as the
> povcomp website was up:
>
> http://www.povcomp.com/guidelines/
>
> Particularly the following paragraph:
>
> "Modeling
>
>      * Negative: low detail meshes in foreground, figures floating above 
> ground
> or penetrating it, sharp edges where rounded ones are expected in nature, 
> obvious
> use of bump mapping, etc.
>      * Positive: detailed selfmade models, realistic algorithmically 
> generated
> stuff like trees, plants, cloth, etc.
>
> Special focus on how much is self made and what scene elements are based 
> on
> 3rd party models."
>
> - NC

Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
> just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.

  The winner image proves you wrong.

-- 
#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 -

On 5 Apr 2005 18:08:38 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
> > just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.
>
> The winner image proves you wrong.

+ from "Reach for the stars" making-of: "image using rather old-fashioned but
fast and not resource-consuming techniques" for 8000 x 6000 rendering.

ABX

No, it doesn't..
I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it's to cumbersome
to create detailed models within a reasonable amount of time.
That image is amazing. No question about it. But I didn't
write about the image, did I? I wrote about the creation
of the models, and therefor, the winner doesn't prove me
wrong. You wouldn't mowe your lawn with a pair of scissors
if you have a lawnmower, would you? That's my point.

Regards,
Stefan

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> skrev i meddelandet 
news:42530c66@news.povray.org...
> Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
>> just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.
>
>  The winner image proves you wrong.
>
> -- 
> #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 -

Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it's to cumbersome

  You said it's not possible:

> > Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
> >> just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.

-- 
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 -

Warp wrote:
> Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it's to cumbersome
>
>   You said it's not possible:
>
>>> Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not
>>>> possible just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.

As had been said many times before, SDL and CSG are perfect for some models,
but most certainly the wrong tool for other models.  It's never impossible
to do it the "wrong" way, just really difficult and a waste of time.

Lance Birch wrote:
> I've avoided commenting in this thread because I didn't feel I should
> have to justify the reasons for my voting or have to defend my integrity
> as a judge (and therefore as a person in this community).

No need to defend yourself here, Lance. Anyone can do a search of the 
p.b.i archives and see FIRST HAND your and Warp's qualifications for 
judging a CG contest at this level.

  -Shay

Allright.. since we are down to semantics level..
I think you know what I meant.

But, please, with the mentioned methods, send me a model
of an Volvo C70. Then I will say that I was wrong.

Stefan

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> skrev i meddelandet 
news:425454dc@news.povray.org...
> Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it's to cumbersome
>
>  You said it's not possible:
>
>> > Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> >> Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
>> >> just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.
>
> -- 
> 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 -