Here's an idea.  It is a possible way to "add content" to the 10best CD,
or at least will be a great fun way to advertise povray.

Everyone submits code to some server.
The server parses a 800x600 image, but doesn't tell anyone what the code
is or who did it.
There is voting on the best image where the voters have NO KNOWLEDGE OF
THE CODE!.

There are winners based on best image, and efficiency (image score wrt/
bytes-of-povray-code).

Start thinking.  (If you want to do this, don't post your code to
p.b.i!)

POSSIBLE USES OF THIS MATERIAL:
1) Add to 10best.raytrace.com CD if we come up short on images.
2) "Someone's private web page for fun"  (Me, Rune, whoever wants to
host!).

Again, this would advertise an area where povray puts those
MB-of-meshes,  expensive render packages to shame...

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson <"gregj56590[:-0]"@aol.com> wrote:
: The server parses a 800x600 image,

  What about security issues?

: but doesn't tell anyone what the code
: is or who did it.
: There is voting on the best image where the voters have NO KNOWLEDGE OF
: THE CODE!.

  I don't understand the idea behind this. I don't think many people look at
the source code in IRTC entries either.

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
>   I don't understand the idea behind this. I don't think
> many people look at the source code in IRTC entries either.

I must say I don't find the concept particularly compelling either.

I don't really care if the source code of a nice image is 5 lines or 500
lines of code...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Nov 5)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

> "Warp" wrote:
> >   I don't understand the idea behind this. I don't think
> > many people look at the source code in IRTC entries either.
>
> I must say I don't find the concept particularly compelling either.
>
> I don't really care if the source code of a nice image is 5 lines or 500
> lines of code...

OK fair enough.  Perhaps especially not a good idea to dilute the effort at
this point. I shall however ramble as to why I find this intriguing.

Someone once won the Corel World Design Contest using a vector art program
to make a stunning image of Heddy Lamar, the goddess/ actress/ sonar
physicist.   They took a bitmap image of her at super high resolution and
then made a separate vector object for every group of pixels of every shade
of grey in the image. Tons of work, a stunning image, but  not much to say
about what CorelDraw! is capable of. In the "real world" of commercial art,
sometimes you might have to do this to sell the painting or to impress the
customer (or simply please yourself!), but that misplaced effort didn't make
this graphic arts hobbyist want to run out to buy the next upgrade.  The
more I learned about that image the more disgusted I was with the judges,
especially when there was no compilation CD that year (IIRC).

When I would visit my local computer sale shows, I would always study
closely all the costly software packages ($89 to $$$$$) that claimed to be
able to to 3D.  The cover art often intrigued me, but I'd often ask myself,
"Did this image take a team a manyear to produce?"  Were the objects therein
made by some expensive 3-D laser scan?   If I got the sense that it did, God
Bless 'Em, but I aint' gonna use this image as evidence of what the software
can do, probably not even buy it.

There *is* stunning art out there which involves sophisticated use of a
modeller.  But it IMHO is not a Poster Child for Povray.  This question does
get back to that old debate (always under the table, mind you) of "what is
povray?"  Is it a professional tool for getting exhaustively, exhaustively
photorealistic lighting and texturing on objects modelled in other packages,
or is it something more wonderful-- a toy?

No, I'm not saying I want pov 5.0 to come with built-in blobmen or
Bryce-like instant mountains. But I think the real pov-evangelization
opportunities come in demonstrating what can be done with very little code,
with TEXT TYPING, mind you!  The industry doesn't even know we exist: the
book Digital Character Animation says something like, "Whether you use an
ink pen or a mouse to create the character...."

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" <"gregj;-)56590\""@aol.c;-)om> wrote :
>
>  The industry doesn't even know we exist: the
> book Digital Character Animation says something like, "Whether you use an
> ink pen or a mouse to create the character...."

    Well, I understand and agree with your sentiment, and I like the idea of
small scripts doing big work, but I doubt (as you say) it is time to divert
attention from uploading your <= 10 best.

Post a reply to this message

For the record, I pretty much withdrew the idea in the posting you replied to...

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> There *is* stunning art out there which involves
> sophisticated use of a modeller.  But it IMHO is
> not a Poster Child for Povray.

Why not?

> Is it a professional tool for getting exhaustively,
> exhaustively photorealistic lighting and texturing
> on objects modelled in other packages, or is it
> something more wonderful-- a toy?

It's both, and I won't be the judge of what's more wonderful.

> No, I'm not saying I want pov 5.0 to come with
> built-in blobmen or Bryce-like instant mountains.
> But I think the real pov-evangelization
> opportunities come in demonstrating what can be done
> with very little code, with TEXT TYPING, mind you!

I prefer text typing myself too but I certainly don't want to enforce my
opinion on others.
The arguments you come with are subjective and indeed one can't argue
objectively in this area without first defining a common goal (like
efficiency, having fun, learning, or something different). People have
different goals, and thus no one can say what is the best and most correct
use of POV-Ray.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Nov 5)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" <"gregj56590[:-0]"@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3C04E308.DB8322B6@aol.com...
> For the record, I pretty much withdrew the idea in the posting you replied
to...

    I was pretty much agreeing with you.

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

> I prefer text typing myself too but I certainly don't want to enforce my
> opinion on others.

Sorry if I'm becoming an opinionated bore, but I wasn't trying to force
anything, just give a reason for my interest in one kind of scene as an
advertisemetn for povray.   If I see an image that speaks of superb modelling,
I think wow, cool modelling software.  If I see an image that speaks of high
bang per byte of ascii text, I think wow, cool raytracer.   Just an opinoin.

Post a reply to this message