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"!

   Here are some of the comments if you haven't seen them yet:

   "Highly commendable that it did not rely on any imports but that the 
author made use of POV-ray facitities exclusively"

  "A big plus for using extensively the primitives and features of POV-Ray 
(instead of resorting to cheap meshes created by third-party tools)"

"Cheap meshes"??!! Try it some time buddy. You'll find it hard to get what 
you want after 10+ days...! (This comment, I have great exception to).

  No disrespect to some of those commentors, but after five years+ using 
POV-Ray, I DO feel insulted. Especially when the PoVComp rules state that: 
"To be accepted in the competition an entry has to be rendered with 
POV-Ray", - being the number ONE (1) rule in 4. IMAGES -  For all PoV-Ray 
users... That's me, and 'some' of 'you' too.

  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, (who wouldn't if they don't have the time to work out ALL the 
maths that's NEEDED to produce a 'PoV only' image!!)

  I can accept that, just, BUT, don't *tempt* me to use up my time when it's 
just not going to happen with <whatever> image I might try to submit.

 My dismal, failed, attempts, (two), at an image for the POVCOMP cost 'me' 
money and time for your (not very good, inconsiderate, and naive) gain.

  Say what you like, I know I'm right.

  Later, sometime.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:50:37 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!

Let me just quote invitation message for POVCOMP: "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 is
to show the full potential of POV-Ray."

ABX

"ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message 
news:r4gs1193fnk4fpvkoi3vfa4gjpjcij4485@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:50:37 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!
>
> 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. 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.

 ~Steve~


>
> ABX

"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.

POVComp's existence doesn't prevent you from using POV-Ray however you
wish, it was a voluntary contest. How you were "tempted" and "enticed"
to use it I'm not sure I want to know :-), but you certainly weren't
forced and the rules and guidelines were there for all to read.

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message 
news:web.421e49cfcbe05ebab8a63dd50@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.
>
> POVComp's existence doesn't prevent you from using POV-Ray however you
> wish, it was a voluntary contest. How you were "tempted" and "enticed"
> to use it I'm not sure I want to know :-), but you certainly weren't
> forced and the rules and guidelines were there for all to read.
>


Perhaps I'll comment more on Steve's post later, but I believe that 
POVCOMP's prizes were simply too large for such a relatively small 
community.  That led to a lot of anxiety among the entrants.  Additionally, 
if there is another POVCOMP with comparable prizes, I don't think the people 
at the top will change very much.  Sure, some people may break in and out, 
but it's unlikely that I'm going to suddenly be able to create a scene as 
well as the winners.  It's not that I'm not smart enough (I hope), it's 
simply that I'm not experienced enough.  There is a big quality gap going 
from the first few images to the other images in the top 25.  While 
exceptions occur, it's generally unlikely that most of us will be closing 
that gap in the next few months.

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.

I hope this comment is well-received.  As I've already said, I can guess how 
difficult it was to get sponsors, and I appreciate the work that was done to 
bring POVCOMP to us.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:421e4414@news.povray.org...
>
> "ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message
> news:r4gs1193fnk4fpvkoi3vfa4gjpjcij4485@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:50:37 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> >> It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!
> >
> > 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. 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.
>
>  ~Steve~
>
>
> >
> > ABX
>

I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the contest guidelines, ah found it...

[quote]
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.
[end quote]

3rd party models, and 3rd party modellers are entirely different. You hit
the "special focus on how much is self made", but you missed the
"algorithmically generated", judging by your description in this thread.
Which image is yours though? I was searching the pages for "Steve" and
didn't find anything.

"full potential of povray." doing something entirely in CSG doesn't explore
the full potential one bit (i agree with you here). Neither does using all
mesh models, however the ability to use 3rd party models is a capability of
POV.
While i think you have a right to be upset at the judges bias towards
non-mesh models, i think it's a bit overly dramatic. Still, I was sort of
surprised by their bluntness in this area.

I was going to say, "Look at 'Victoria's World'. It uses non-pov things
pretty extensively and got 3rd place", then i noticed this comment basically
saying, "It would never win because it used so many things not directly made
in POV." So i guess, the more I talk, the more i'm siding with you.

[quote]
The detail level is extremely high and there is good use made of POV-Ray's
features, but the predominant use of external models (e.g. Victoria, the
Dosch houses, Chris Colefax's Lens Effects include, Gilles Tran's MakeGrass)
prevented it from making it further in my mind.
[quote]

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message 
news:421e54f5$1@news.povray.org...
<snip>
> While i think you have a right to be upset at the judges bias towards
> non-mesh models, i think it's a bit overly dramatic. Still, I was sort of
> surprised by their bluntness in this area.
>
> I was going to say, "Look at 'Victoria's World'. It uses non-pov things
> pretty extensively and got 3rd place", then i noticed this comment 
> basically
> saying, "It would never win because it used so many things not directly 
> made
> in POV." So i guess, the more I talk, the more i'm siding with you.
>
> [quote]
> The detail level is extremely high and there is good use made of POV-Ray's
> features, but the predominant use of external models (e.g. Victoria, the
> Dosch houses, Chris Colefax's Lens Effects include, Gilles Tran's 
> MakeGrass)
> prevented it from making it further in my mind.
> [quote]
>

Yeah, I noticed that too.  That made me uncomfortable mostly because I felt 
like it was saying, "Had you re-invented the wheel, you would have gone 
farther."  I understand the point being made, but I felt that it was worded 
poorly.
Also, despite the judge's comments, "Victoria's World" did get a 
well-deserved 3rd place.

From one of Gilles' posts:
"Most judges won't be familiar with POV-Ray but the judges who know it will
able to add some balance to the discussions so that POV-Ray specific
features can be properly judged. However, the goal is still to make great
pictures, which means that quality remains central. As a judge, I would not
give extra points to a bad model because it's done in SDL. I would only
reward good models, whatever the tool used."

I really don't think that there was a lot of "SDL" bias, though.  Jaime's 
picture used several Wings models.  Much of Chris Holtorff's scene was done 
in Rhino.  I could list many others.  But making a 3rd party model the main 
focus of an image is not as impressive as what Rene Bui did with Wings.  Had 
that been a Poser model, the image would certainly have scored lower. 
Nevertheless, had it been a badly made model (which it wasn't!), it would 
have placed lower.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message 
news:421e54f5$1@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:421e4414@news.povray.org...
>>
>> "ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message
>> news:r4gs1193fnk4fpvkoi3vfa4gjpjcij4485@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:50:37 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> >> It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!
>> >
>> > 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. 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.
>>
>>  ~Steve~
>>
>>
>> >
>> > ABX
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the contest guidelines, ah found it...
>
> [quote]
> 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.
> [end quote]

    Ross, no third party models were used in my image. They were all mine. 
Around 150+ made in Wings.


>
> 3rd party models, and 3rd party modellers are entirely different. You hit
> the "special focus on how much is self made", but you missed the
> "algorithmically generated", judging by your description in this thread.

  No, self made in six weeks, not five months, (see below this). I'd like to 
see the same (close) resulting image made in pov using 'algorithmically 
generated'  pov code.


> Which image is yours though? I was searching the pages for "Steve" and
> didn't find anything.

   It's this if you didn't find it. Search: Pov, "Immenent"

   Still can't find it? I missed the deadline by minutes in the end, ( I 
tried, literally), but to no avail, ask the comp compilers.


>
> "full potential of povray." doing something entirely in CSG doesn't 
> explore
> the full potential one bit (i agree with you here). Neither does using all
> mesh models, however the ability to use 3rd party models is a capability 
> of
> POV.
> While i think you have a right to be upset at the judges bias towards
> non-mesh models, i think it's a bit overly dramatic. Still, I was sort of
> surprised by their bluntness in this area.

    Then I'm right with what I said.


>
> I was going to say, "Look at 'Victoria's World'. It uses non-pov things
> pretty extensively and got 3rd place", then i noticed this comment 
> basically
> saying, "It would never win because it used so many things not directly 
> made
> in POV." So i guess, the more I talk, the more i'm siding with you.

    Thank you. Don't be afraid to talk, some people here use PoV, (like me), 
for a hobby, but then, something worthwhile comes along, and you, me, 
(unselfishly) feel that you want to give your best with what you've learnt 
with ANYTHING related to POV.


>
> [quote]
> The detail level is extremely high and there is good use made of POV-Ray's
> features, but the predominant use of external models (e.g. Victoria, the
> Dosch houses, Chris Colefax's Lens Effects include, Gilles Tran's 
> MakeGrass)
> prevented it from making it further in my mind.
> [quote]

    Well, obviously, that wasn't my image, but that's what would have been 
said about my image after a lot of hard work. So, back to my point. Why 
entice PoVRay users, (generally), to enter this contest if it was worthless 
to the external modeler?

  Why did so many good CG artists enter this comp knowing that external 
models would fare badly?

   ~Steve~


>
>

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>  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"!

>    Here are some of the comments if you haven't seen them yet:

>    "Highly commendable that it did not rely on any imports but that the 
> author made use of POV-ray facitities exclusively"

>   "A big plus for using extensively the primitives and features of POV-Ray 
> (instead of resorting to cheap meshes created by third-party tools)"

> "Cheap meshes"??!! Try it some time buddy. You'll find it hard to get what 
> you want after 10+ days...! (This comment, I have great exception to).

  The goal of the competition was to show what POV-Ray is capable of.

  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.

  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.

  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.
  Granted, 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.

>  My dismal, failed, attempts, (two), 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.
  It's you who seem quite naive. Were you expecting to win because making
your image "costed you money"?
  Can't you simply accept that some people are able to do better images
than you?

>   Say what you like, I know I'm right.

  Self-righeousness is the way to go, yeah.

-- 
#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:
>   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?

-- 
#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 -