Warp wrote:

<snip />

>   If they allow post-processing then it's not a rendering competition
> anymore. It's a computer graphics competition.
>   I don't think that was the original goal of the IRTC.

I agree with this -- allowing too much post-processing will diminish the 
desire to be more clever with ray-tracers.

-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

<snip />

> "Paint programs may be used for the creation of image maps and the like,
> but may not be used to alter the rendered image."
> 
>   Your principle would mean that you can't use a painting program to
> make textures by hand.
>   What you are saying is that you must make the image completely
> algorithmically and that hand-drawing is not acceptable. This is
> not the IRTC. This is something different.

Right-on -- by it's very name it is a Ray-Tracing competition. For 
example, if a person can correct colors in Photoshop, it means that they 
are not competent enough to do it in the ray-tracer. If they have to 
rescale to get good anti-aliasing, it also means they don't know how to 
get good results from the ray-tracer. It isn't a Photoshop/GIMP/Whatever 
competition. Take it from a guy who /isn't/ competent enough to enter 
the IRTC yet, but wants to -- don't lower the bar on me! :-)

-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

In article <40706087@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

> "Any rendering program is acceptable."

Interesting...I did not realize they allowed non-raytracers.


> "Images must not be enhanced or altered ('post-processed') by use of
> paint programs such as PhotoShop(tm) etc."
> 
> "Examples of unacceptable post-processing would be adding lens-glare,
> tinting skies, or using filters such as motion blur."

Examples of the current rules, the ones which we are discussing changes 
to. I would find tinting the sky acceptable. Lens flare...perhaps. It 
obviously can't be prevented if it is done within the scene as textured 
discs or actual camera optics. I'd say 2D lens flares are OK as long as 
it's not hand-positioned. 

Motion blur (and other types of blur): this really can be used to 
simulate real blur effects caused by scattering in the retina or sensor. 
I'd consider it borderline. If any effect is allowed with one package, 
it should be allowed with all others.


>   If this is not a competition between rendering packages, then what is?

A competition between artists with tight constraints on how the images 
are to be produced. It wouldn't matter one bit to the competition if 
everyone used the same package, because the entries are images, not 
packages. Packages aren't scored, the actual works are. You win by 
having a superior image, not by using superior software.


>   Your principle would mean that you can't use a painting program to
> make textures by hand.

No it wouldn't. Such an image would be a source file, not a modification 
to the generated image. Of course, someone could put an image_map on a 
plane and point the camera at it...I'd rely on human judgment to have 
such entries thrown out.


>   What you are saying is that you must make the image completely
> algorithmically and that hand-drawing is not acceptable. This is
> not the IRTC. This is something different.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is the algorithms 
used to generate the image that matter, not the software packages. The 
final image should be renderable from all source files without human 
editing. (Again, with the exception of signatures/watermarks. Anything 
goes for those, as long as they're unobtrusive.)

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > "Any rendering program is acceptable."

> Interesting...I did not realize they allowed non-raytracers.

  Where have you been living?-) There have been many scanline-rendered winner
images, plus tons of scanline-rendered entries.

> Examples of the current rules, the ones which we are discussing changes 
> to. I would find tinting the sky acceptable. Lens flare...perhaps. It 
> obviously can't be prevented if it is done within the scene as textured 
> discs or actual camera optics. I'd say 2D lens flares are OK as long as 
> it's not hand-positioned. 

  If the irtc becomes a generic computer graphics competition, it
would certainly degrade its interest to the borders of boredom.
It would only enhance the advantage of those people using expensive
several-thousands-of-dollars costing image manipulation programs
(or those using it pirated) which have tons of filters.
  Boring. I want to see renderers in action, not photoshop filters.

-- 
#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 -

Post a reply to this message