povray.competition message digest

[Sven Littkowski] COMPETITION: Jalapeno Chili Pepper with Star War... [3852 days 7 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:02:23 GMT

Hi,

if you like to participate, create a render image with the following specs:

- a huge space station in the shape of a Jalapeno chili pepper
- the realistic texture of the Death Star space station of Star Wars
- realistic shading and highlights
- minimum size: 800x600pixel or larger
- color image
- submitted before October 1, 2015

Optional (not required):
- chili shaped x-wings and y-wing attack fighters and Tie-fighters with
original textures

Submit your render image as answer to this thread or by e-mail (with
your name) to I [ AAATTT ] SvenLittkowski [ DDDOOOTTT ] name, thanks!

The winner will be announced here. There is nothing to win. However, but
fame. And it is a lot of fun doing it, and later to view all contesting
images!

[Warp] Re: ISF.RC (International Science Fiction Raytra... [7281 days 13 hours and 10 minutes ago]

Tue, 9 May 2006 18:22:02 GMT

Sven Littkowski <sve### [at] jamaica-focuscom> wrote:
> No, again: the problem is not the texture name within the SDL, but the file 
> names of texture graphics supplied by each artist. And I, personally, don't 
> have fun to work with many different folders - I prefer just one folder for 
> all POV-Ray texture graphic files.

  So if 100 people send you their submission and each one uses, like 50
image files, you end up having 5000 image files in one directory.

  I seriously think that it would be a good idea to use a more hierarchical
system: Each entry in its own directory. Easier to manage and it's easy
to see what belongs to what project. After all, that's the whole point
in directories.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

[Sven Littkowski] Re: ISF.RC (International Science Fiction Raytra... [7281 days 13 hours and 57 minutes ago]

Tue, 9 May 2006 17:35:24 GMT

Thanks, How Camp, for your answer.

I understand now much better the sense of the #local keyword. But that would 
apply only to texture names within the SDL, but not to the filenames itself 
(*.jpg, *.png, etc.).

And my concern is just the file name on the harddrive. Because if the 
texture JPGs aren't saved on the harddrive, it just won't work and I end up 
being the beta tester for all kind of error messages!   :-)

No, again: the problem is not the texture name within the SDL, but the file 
names of texture graphics supplied by each artist. And I, personally, don't 
have fun to work with many different folders - I prefer just one folder for 
all POV-Ray texture graphic files.

Greetings to everyone,

Sven




"How Camp" <hac### [at] gmailcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:4460a919$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Sven Littkowski" <sve### [at] jamaica-focuscom> wrote in message 
> news:44609aba$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> What does the #local keyword help me within the SDL if the OS overwrites 
>> different files with new ones having the same name?
>
>
> A simple example...  Let's say you've got two files, each defining two 
> different objects (space ships, I gather, in your case):
>
> File #1:
>
> #local MyTexture = texture{ ... Lotsastuff ... }
>
> #declare Ship001 =
> union {
>  blah blah blah
>  texture {MyTexture}
> }
>
>
> File #2:
>
> #local MyTexture = texture { ... Different Lotsastuff ... }
>
> #declare Ship002 =
> union {
>  blah blah blah
>  texture {MyTexture}
> }
>
> Now, you've got to have a main scene file somewhere to utilize these 
> neat-o ships, right?
>
> Main File:
>
> object {Ship001}
> object {Ship002}
>
>
> These ships will come out with different textures, even though the actual 
> files (#1 and #2) have the SAME texture names.  That's all Warp is saying. 
> Take a look at the docs for more info about the #local vs. #declare 
> differences.
>
> It sounds, though, like you may be hinting at having include files that 
> only include the *textures* for other people to use.  A texture 
> repository, instead of an object repository.  Notice in the example above, 
> the '#declare'd ships must have different names (001 vs 002).  If you're 
> looking at giving a bunch of users access to pre-defined textures, then 
> you'll need unique texture names (as you have been saying).  But Warp's 
> point is that you can simply make sure each object (spacecraft) has a 
> unique name, and require everybody to use #local variables when they 
> create their object. Then, it doesn't matter if two people both define 
> 'CoolBlue' in their objects... the local variable space will treat each 
> one separately.
>
> - How
>
>

[How Camp] Re: ISF.RC (International Science Fiction Raytra... [7281 days 16 hours and 55 minutes ago]

Tue, 9 May 2006 14:37:13 GMT

"Sven Littkowski" <sve### [at] jamaica-focuscom> wrote in message 
news:44609aba$1@news.povray.org...

> What does the #local keyword help me within the SDL if the OS overwrites 
> different files with new ones having the same name?


A simple example...  Let's say you've got two files, each defining two 
different objects (space ships, I gather, in your case):

File #1:

#local MyTexture = texture{ ... Lotsastuff ... }

#declare Ship001 =
union {
  blah blah blah
  texture {MyTexture}
}


File #2:

#local MyTexture = texture { ... Different Lotsastuff ... }

#declare Ship002 =
union {
  blah blah blah
  texture {MyTexture}
}

Now, you've got to have a main scene file somewhere to utilize these neat-o 
ships, right?

Main File:

object {Ship001}
object {Ship002}


These ships will come out with different textures, even though the actual 
files (#1 and #2) have the SAME texture names.  That's all Warp is saying. 
Take a look at the docs for more info about the #local vs. #declare 
differences.

It sounds, though, like you may be hinting at having include files that only 
include the *textures* for other people to use.  A texture repository, 
instead of an object repository.  Notice in the example above, the 
'#declare'd ships must have different names (001 vs 002).  If you're looking 
at giving a bunch of users access to pre-defined textures, then you'll need 
unique texture names (as you have been saying).  But Warp's point is that 
you can simply make sure each object (spacecraft) has a unique name, and 
require everybody to use #local variables when they create their object. 
Then, it doesn't matter if two people both define 'CoolBlue' in their 
objects... the local variable space will treat each one separately.

- How

[Warp] Re: ISF.RC (International Science Fiction Raytra... [7281 days 16 hours and 56 minutes ago]

Tue, 9 May 2006 14:36:09 GMT

Sven Littkowski <sve### [at] jamaica-focuscom> wrote:
> Maybe I am not understanding your point right, Warp. How can I (with a 
> Windows system) have in my textures folder different graphic files with 
> maybe the same name? If artists exchange their textures, it will come that 
> they want to store their texture graphic files in their texture folder.

  I though this was an event where people can submit spaceship models as
include files which will be then rendered in one big scene. Since eg. the
textures of the model are intrinsicly bound to that model, why should the
author be worried about his texture names colliding with other texture
names? If I create an iron texture for my model, I see no reason why
I couldn't call it "Iron", as long as I declare it with #local in the
include file.

  If someone sees the rendered model and thinks "woah, that's a really
great iron texture" and wants to use it in his own models, I don't see
what stops him from copying the texture definition to his own project.
If the name "Iron" happens to collide with something he already has,
he can quite easily rename it.
  This is in no way different from me distributing some scene of mine.
Why should I worry if someone somewhere wants to use the same texture?
He can copy it and rename it if needed.
  I didn't think that "sharing textures" is the point in this event, but
to create spaceship models for a scene.

  IOW, I see no point in requiring people to use overly long and
cumbersome identifier names in their include file, as long as they
create the identifiers with #local.
  Naturally if someone *wants* to use unique long identifier names,
he is completely free to do so, but I see no point in requiring
everyone to do it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

[Sven Littkowski] Re: ISF.RC (International Science Fiction Raytra... [7281 days 17 hours and 57 minutes ago]

Tue, 9 May 2006 13:35:54 GMT

Maybe I am not understanding your point right, Warp. How can I (with a 
Windows system) have in my textures folder different graphic files with 
maybe the same name? If artists exchange their textures, it will come that 
they want to store their texture graphic files in their texture folder.

What does the #local keyword help me within the SDL if the OS overwrites 
different files with new ones having the same name?

I think, I am not sure if I understand your point entirely. Maybe you can 
explain it with other words. Bear in mind that I even don't now that #local 
keyword.

Greetings, Warp.

Sven

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:445fdb99@news.povray.org...
> Sven Littkowski <sve### [at] jamaica-focuscom> wrote:
>> Hmm... Not sure. If people exchange their files, many might also have the
>> textures of others on their own system. That's why I suggest these naming
>> rules.
>
>  What does it matter? If the include file declares its own textures
> as #local, they will not interfere with anything else.
>
> -- 
>                                                          - Warp

[Warp] Re: ISF.RC (International Science Fiction Raytra... [7282 days 7 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Tue, 9 May 2006 00:00:25 GMT

Sven Littkowski <sve### [at] jamaica-focuscom> wrote:
> Hmm... Not sure. If people exchange their files, many might also have the 
> textures of others on their own system. That's why I suggest these naming 
> rules.

  What does it matter? If the include file declares its own textures
as #local, they will not interfere with anything else.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

[Sven Littkowski] Re: ISF.RC (International Science Fiction Raytra... [7282 days 15 hours and 18 minutes ago]

Mon, 8 May 2006 16:14:39 GMT

Hmm... Not sure. If people exchange their files, many might also have the 
textures of others on their own system. That's why I suggest these naming 
rules.

Greetings.

Sven




"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:445e9084@news.povray.org...
> Sven Littkowski <sve### [at] jamaica-focuscom> wrote:
>> 8
>> You shall supply your files as include.
>> 10
>> You shall not name your textures with common names but apply names which
>> contain your own name or the scene name, to prevent that you textures may 
>> be
>> mistaken because of identical names with other textures.
>> Example: "SvenLittkowski_SF_SpaceCarrier_Texture_01.jpg"
>
>  Since the model is supplied in an include file, wouldn't it be enough
> to require that all textures (and basically everything except the main
> model which should be used in the scene) are declared #local?
>
>  This is perfectly ok:
>
> #local MyTexture = // It doesn't matter if someone else has a texture
>  texture          // with the same name; it won't collide with this
>  {
>  };
>
> #declare AuthorsNameShip = // This is the only thing which will be seen
>  object                   // outside the include file
>  { whatever
>    texture { MyTexture }
>  };
>
> -- 
>                                                          - Warp

[Warp] Re: ISF.RC (International Science Fiction Raytra... [7283 days 7 hours and 5 minutes ago]

Mon, 8 May 2006 00:27:48 GMT

Sven Littkowski <sve### [at] jamaica-focuscom> wrote:
> 8
> You shall supply your files as include.
> 10
> You shall not name your textures with common names but apply names which
> contain your own name or the scene name, to prevent that you textures may be
> mistaken because of identical names with other textures.
> Example: "SvenLittkowski_SF_SpaceCarrier_Texture_01.jpg"

  Since the model is supplied in an include file, wouldn't it be enough
to require that all textures (and basically everything except the main
model which should be used in the scene) are declared #local?

  This is perfectly ok:

#local MyTexture = // It doesn't matter if someone else has a texture
  texture          // with the same name; it won't collide with this
  {
  };

#declare AuthorsNameShip = // This is the only thing which will be seen
  object                   // outside the include file
  { whatever
    texture { MyTexture }
  };

-- 
                                                          - Warp

[Sven Littkowski] ISF.RC (International Science Fiction Raytracing... [7283 days 10 hours and 20 minutes ago]

Sun, 7 May 2006 21:12:39 GMT

ISF.RC (International Science Fiction Raytracing Competition)


Greetings to everyone!

The idea is to create a POV-Ray universe full of planets, life and 
starships. You are invited to add your starship designs to this project.
A first starship for this project is already on its way, please see the 
"povray.binaries.images" newsgroup: "SF: Preview 11+: Space Carrier".

There are some important guidelines to follow:

1
You shall make each POV-Ray unit equal to one meter.
2
You shall supply me the exact dimensions and ranges on the three axises (x,
y, z).
3
You shall have a sufficient amount of details in order to fit (again: see
image).
4
You shall not make it looking simple, it must look technical - excentrically
colored discs will not be accepted.
5
You shall not use textures without lights (ship windows).
6
You shall not use colors which do not fit the given standard design (see any
of the "Previews" here).
7
You shall not create a ship which is not properly directed: ship front
is -z, ship back is +z, ship top is +y, ship bottom is -y, ship steerboard
is -x, ship backboard is +x (means: if you are located at let's say Z-100,
the ship is flying towards you).
8
You shall supply your files as include.
9
You shall supply your ship objects as meshes or regular shapes (boxes,
cylinders, etc.).
10
You shall not name your textures with common names but apply names which
contain your own name or the scene name, to prevent that you textures may be
mistaken because of identical names with other textures.
Example: "SvenLittkowski_SF_SpaceCarrier_Texture_01.jpg"

Also welcome:

1
Humans in future spacesuits (practical, light-weight suits)
2
Small crafts such as maintenance capsulas, maintenance robots,
atmospherical ferries, space ferries, fighters, corvettes, observers, other
small ships
3
Realistic planets such as seen on the background of some of my previews

On demand, I will supply you with my textures and source code examples how
to use them. That would ensure a certain similarity.

Everybody who shares his starship SDL files will also receive, on his
demand, the scene files of other participants.

The first developers of really cool starships will be invited to join the
future "jury", which decides which starships, planets, etc. are accepted for 
the project and which not.

Looking forward to hear from you all!

Sven

[Paul Bourke] Competition idea [7445 days 1 hour and 59 minutes ago]

Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:33:17 GMT

Further to my posting a week or so ago for competition ideas, how about
an animation (preferably with audio) that is suitable for a vodcast? A
vodcast is (generally) a 320x240 pixel animation at 25fps, basically a
match for the ipod-video. (ps: if you haven't seen/heard animation playing 
on the crystal clear ipod-video screen then I recommend you do so). I will
arrange a free podcast through the Apple iTunes Music Store, manage the RSS
feed, encode the movies appropriately etc. There would be a single channel 
with each entry an episode. If you want to have a look at how this works then
get iTunes (or one of the other free alternatives) and go to the Apple Music 
Store and search for "VisTunes", you will find my audio and video podcasts. 
Indeed the Mars, Lorenz, galaxy (6dF), and cosmology vodcasts were all 
rendered with PovRay. This PovRay podcast could even become a permanent 
and ongoing PovRay channel. Note that just because it is an the ITMS doesn't
mean the animations can't be downloaded from a web site and played with just 
the QuickTime player....they are just h264 encoded video with AAC encoded audio.

I imagine the competition being open in terms of subject matter, frame size
limited to 320x240, some limit on the duration (eg: 1 minute = 1500 frames).
Judges will choose the entries that appear as episodes, all entries might appear
on the PovRay server (?). Alternatively all entries might appear on the ITMS
and the public can vote (?). One tricky aspect might be ensuring only copyright
free audio is used, perhaps the competition rules can include a clause that
all audio is original.

Comments?
-- 
Paul Bourke
pdb(NOSPAM)swin.edu.au

[Paul Bourke] Re: christmas competition [7457 days 20 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:40:45 GMT

>   Also note that while it's tempting to run the compo on the theme of
> Christmas, there are people who don't care or even h

Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't actually suggesting "Christmas" 
being part of the theme, only that this time of year some of us
because of tradition may have spare time on our hands.

-- 
Paul Bourke
pdb(NOSPAM)swin.edu.au

[Chris Cason] Re: christmas competition [7459 days 9 hours and 25 minutes ago]

Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:07:22 GMT

Warp wrote:
>   Also note that while it's tempting to run the compo on the theme of
> Christmas, there are people who don't care or even have a disliking about
> that holiday, be it for religious or other reasons. It might be a good
> idea to choose a more neutral topic for the compo.

Well then, in that case it really wouldn't be a "Christmas" competition. You
could call it a 'December' competition perhaps.

Frankly I would dislike seeing something get that PC. If the competition gets
a Christmas theme and someone doesn't like Christmas then they can just not
compete.

-- Chris

[Christoph Hormann] Re: christmas competition [7459 days 21 hours and 8 minutes ago]

Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:24:25 GMT

Paul Bourke wrote:
> Well, christmas is approaching .... lots of time to devote to creativity ....

Yes, sure... ;-)

> who out there thinks it's time for another fun POVray competition? If you do 
> then the harder question is obviously "what sort of competition?".
> ps: I'm offering to run/manage it.

I think something like a shortest code contest would be great, some 
technical restriction providing a special challenge.  Possible directions:

1) only allow the use of a certain primitive.
2) provide a certain object that has to be used in the submissions (this 
could be christmas specific).
3) provide a certain set of base scene elements (light source and camera 
for examle) that has to be used unmodified in the scene.  This could for 
example be a panorama view setup that is then rendered into an image for 
  a panorama viewer.
4) combine any of the above with a code size restriction.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 31 Oct. 2005)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

[Warp] Re: christmas competition [7459 days 22 hours and 41 minutes ago]

Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:51:49 GMT

Paul Bourke <pdb### [at] swineduau> wrote:
> Well, christmas is approaching .... lots of time to devote to creativity ....
> who out there thinks it's time for another fun POVray competition? If you do 
> then the harder question is obviously "what sort of competition?".
> ps: I'm offering to run/manage it.

  It might be wise to not to just replicate an IRTC round (ie. by simply
assigning a certain topic but otherwise having a free compo). There could
be some interesting limitations or other twists (in similar ways as the
short code contests).

  Also note that while it's tempting to run the compo on the theme of
Christmas, there are people who don't care or even have a disliking about
that holiday, be it for religious or other reasons. It might be a good
idea to choose a more neutral topic for the compo.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

[Paul Bourke] christmas competition [7460 days and 33 minutes ago]

Sat, 12 Nov 2005 06:59:12 GMT

Well, christmas is approaching .... lots of time to devote to creativity ....
who out there thinks it's time for another fun POVray competition? If you do 
then the harder question is obviously "what sort of competition?".
ps: I'm offering to run/manage it.
-- 
Paul Bourke
pdb(NOSPAM)swin.edu.au

[Slime] Re: POVComp Zazzle Gallery [7576 days 13 hours and 18 minutes ago]

Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:14:21 GMT

Speaking of which, the "Order Poster" link under the images still goes to a
page that says "if you would like to be notified once a poster becomes
available..."

Just wanted to say this in case it's been forgotten about.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Fa3ien] POVComp Zazzle Gallery [7601 days 19 hours and 23 minutes ago]

Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:09:42 GMT

Is now open :
http://www.zazzle.com/products/gallery/POVcomp.asp

Fabien.

[Kyle] Re: POVCOMP Web Site Issues? [7643 days 6 hours and 31 minutes ago]

Fri, 13 May 2005 01:00:58 GMT

No problem.  Glad I could help.

Kyle


On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:25:01 +1000, Chris Cason
<nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:

>Kyle wrote:
>> I may be talking to myself here...The site is working fine again now.
>
>Thanks for the report, it was forwarded to me via email and I fixed the problem.
>
>-- Chris

[Chris Cason] Re: POVCOMP Web Site Issues? [7643 days 7 hours and 6 minutes ago]

Fri, 13 May 2005 00:26:36 GMT

Kyle wrote:
> I may be talking to myself here...The site is working fine again now.

Thanks for the report, it was forwarded to me via email and I fixed the problem.

-- Chris

[Kyle] Re: POVCOMP Web Site Issues? [7644 days 3 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Thu, 12 May 2005 03:49:59 GMT

I may be talking to myself here...The site is working fine again now.

Kyle


On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:53:53 -0400, hob### [at] gatenet wrote:

>Hi.
>
>Is anyone else having problems with images loading on
>http://www.povcomp.com/ ?  I have tried to access the site from two
>different locations, so I think it is an issue with the site, not on
>my end.  I tried to email web### [at] povcompcom and it was bumped.  I
>hoped that maybe someone involved with POVCOMP would pick up on this
>thread...
>
>Kyle

[hobbes] POVCOMP Web Site Issues? [7644 days 8 hours and 39 minutes ago]

Wed, 11 May 2005 22:53:46 GMT

Hi.

Is anyone else having problems with images loading on
http://www.povcomp.com/ ?  I have tried to access the site from two
different locations, so I think it is an issue with the site, not on
my end.  I tried to email web### [at] povcompcom and it was bumped.  I
hoped that maybe someone involved with POVCOMP would pick up on this
thread...

Kyle

[andrel] Re: 2005? [7670 days 18 hours and 45 minutes ago]

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:47:37 GMT

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Shay wrote:
> 
>> I made a couple of small, sarcastic jabs which only a handful of 
>> people would have even realized were sarcastic (or jabs at all) if 
>> Warp had had the sense to keep his mouth shut and not turn this into 
>> much much more that it was.
> 
> 
> bitter rants is more like it, but, hey what do I know.. I wasn't even 
> involved, I've sat on the sidelines here, watched this whole thing boil 
> in front of me, and have come to the conclusion that the contest was 
> extended because the number of submitted entries was not enough to make 
> the prize worthwhile. Nobody was disenfrachised here, no one was being 
> dishonest in extending the contest. What is so difficult to accept about 
> that?
> 
IMHO this discussion belongs in off-topic (follow up set).

I have had a long discussion with Shay on this. To cut a long discussion
short: the underlying difference of opinion is founded in the believe 
whether 'the person who would have won if the deadline was not extended'
exists or not. Shay firmly believes that that person exists, most of the
people that disagree with him find the concept irrelevant and perhaps
even ridiculous. Any discussion with Shay or me to change our minds is
futile as it is too closely tied to other fundamental beliefs.

I did not intend to contribute to this discussion, but since I
apparently just did: I was anticipating a reaction from Shay and
was curious as to how he would do it this time. I found his actual
reaction quite funny. My only objection is that it was not clear
where this reaction came from if you did not have followed all the
preceding discussions that had mainly taken place in off-topic.

[Mike Raiford] Re: 2005? [7670 days 19 hours and 26 minutes ago]

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:06:00 GMT

Shay wrote:

> I made a couple of small, sarcastic jabs which only a handful of people 
> would have even realized were sarcastic (or jabs at all) if Warp had had 
> the sense to keep his mouth shut and not turn this into much much more 
> that it was.

bitter rants is more like it, but, hey what do I know.. I wasn't even 
involved, I've sat on the sidelines here, watched this whole thing boil 
in front of me, and have come to the conclusion that the contest was 
extended because the number of submitted entries was not enough to make 
the prize worthwhile. Nobody was disenfrachised here, no one was being 
dishonest in extending the contest. What is so difficult to accept about 
that?

-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!

[Mike Raiford] Re: 2005? [7670 days 19 hours and 31 minutes ago]

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:01:03 GMT

St. wrote:
> The really weird thing is that no-one has answered the original posters 
> question.
> 
>  ~Steve~

Does anyone know the answer?

-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!

[Gilles Tran] Re: 2005? [7670 days 19 hours and 43 minutes ago]

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:49:31 GMT

"Ranj" <nomail@nomail> a écrit dans le message de news: 
web.425bf436ddd4ee41c40f76ea0@news.povray.org...
> Hi, guys
>
> Are there any plans of POVcomp 2005

Some ideas for future competitions have been discussed, but in a very 
informal way (for all I know). In fact, POVCOMP 2004 isn't over yet : prizes 
have still to be distributed, the Zazzle gallery of POVCOMP images isn't 
ready, some folks still have to render large versions of their images etc.

There are lots of things that we have to address (organisation, rules, 
publicity etc.) so until we have a complete picture of POVCOMP 2004 it's 
just too early to draw plans.

G.

[St ] Re: 2005? [7671 days 7 hours and 26 minutes ago]

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:06:06 GMT

The really weird thing is that no-one has answered the original posters 
question.

  ~Steve~

[ABX] Re: 2005? [7671 days 17 hours and 6 minutes ago]

Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:26:10 GMT

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:03:54 -0500, Shay <dd### [at] dddd> wrote:
> The sensible ways to reply to a clever jab are either 'in kind' or 'not 
> at all'. The ONLY thing different about my sarcasm (besides it's being 
> more decorous than all of the name-calling) and so many other posts on 
> this server is that mine was directed towards perhaps the only person 
> here who does not know this or isn't capable.

I don't see how "Contest continues until an 'acceptable' entry is received."
is directed "towards perhaps the only person". What I refer here is giving
wrong answer in somehow official tone without smile or anything to mark joke.
Ranj, who asked, is new here, he is interested in hearing answer. Your
sarcastic answer without any visible sign that it is a sarcasm didn't help
him. In the past you complained about your feelings in relation to contest but
now you disinform new users which perhaps influences future feelings of the
new persons here. So I ask you to not spread false facts. If you really have
to talk/comment/have fun about other issues, just go to dedicated place.

ABX

[scott] Re: 2005? [7671 days 18 hours and 41 minutes ago]

Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:51:20 GMT

Shay wrote:
> Ranj wrote:
>> I think I am looking forward to the next one (not
>> that I have anywhere near the skill required to
>> enter, judging from entries).
>
> Perhaps you could judge.

;-)

[ABX] Re: 2005? [7671 days 23 hours and 45 minutes ago]

Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:47:12 GMT

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:16:36 -0500, Shay <dd### [at] dddd> wrote:
> Lighten up a bit. I didn't hijack anything. I just made a couple quips 
> at someone. No crime, and NOT UNUSUAL AROUND HERE.

It was false statement expressed in form of assurance. For somebody who knows
what's your past in this group, knows it IS unusual here. I do not remember
anybody as embittered as you in povray groups nor irtc mailing lists.

> In fact, compared to 
> what IS usual around here, my language was VERY mild.

You fulfill your personal pique by destructive expressing in nice words. Words
are only one part of sentence. Other important are (sometimes hidden) meaning,
timing, placement and audience.

So go into off-topic in peace, please. Pretty please....

ABX

[Warp] Re: 2005? [7672 days 6 hours and 24 minutes ago]

Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:07:58 GMT

Shay <dd### [at] dddd> wrote:
> Lighten up a bit. I didn't hijack anything. I just made a couple quips 
> at someone. No crime, and NOT UNUSUAL AROUND HERE. In fact, compared to 
> what IS usual around here, my language was VERY mild. That three people 
> replied to these quips is what made a "hijack" from a few sarcastic words.

  I believe you are being dishonest here. I believe you knew that you
would cause such a reaction with your post and that it was more or less
intentional.

  You should simply get over it. You are wrong in your views and your
ranting is getting tired, is insultive and benefits no-one.
  What is the purpose of it anyways? Are you trying to get someone
so mad that you will get banned? Are you trying to be some kind of
martyr?

-- 
#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 -

[Ross] Re: 2005? [7672 days 10 hours and 15 minutes ago]

Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:17:48 GMT

"Shay" <dd### [at] dddd> wrote in message news:425d7e26$1@news.povray.org...
> Slime wrote:
> > hijacking threads
> > isn't necessary.
>
> Lighten up a bit. I didn't hijack anything. I just made a couple quips
> at someone. No crime, and NOT UNUSUAL AROUND HERE. In fact, compared to
> what IS usual around here, my language was VERY mild. That three people
> replied to these quips is what made a "hijack" from a few sarcastic words.
>
>   -Shay

i agree, i thought it was kind of funny.

oh well.

[Slime] Re: 2005? [7673 days 1 hour and 45 minutes ago]

Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:47:20 GMT

> A non-issue. Contest continues until an "acceptable" entry is received.


We know you're mad, but your point has been made. I think most of us trust
that the organizers will learn from their mistakes the next time around. If
you don't want to participate then you don't need to, but hijacking threads
isn't necessary.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Stefan Persson] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7673 days 7 hours and 25 minutes ago]

Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:15 GMT

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 -

[ABX] Re: 2005? [7673 days 9 hours and 39 minutes ago]

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:53:18 GMT

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:27:24 -0500, Shay <dd### [at] dddd> wrote:
> Slime wrote:
> > Having a half-year event
> > every year might cause participation to drop. =)
>
> A non-issue. Contest continues until an "acceptable" entry is received.

Please don't spread false facts. Read again Gilles explanation in:

From: "Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr>
Newsgroups: povray.competition
Subject: Competition status
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:13:18 +0200

ABX

[Warp] Re: 2005? [7673 days 9 hours and 45 minutes ago]

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:47:32 GMT

Shay <dd### [at] dddd> wrote:
> A non-issue. Contest continues until an "acceptable" entry is received.

  Seemingly it's impossible to post anything to this group without you
jumping immediately with a sarcastic insultive insinuation.
  I foresee that in the next 30 years this group will get a wide
variety of threads regarding successive povcomps and every single
one of those hundreds or thousands of threads will have at least one
sarcastic comment from you.

  Get a life, will you? Your ranting is getting tired.

-- 
#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 -

[Shay] Re: 2005? [7673 days 10 hours and 4 minutes ago]

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:28:04 GMT

Ranj wrote:
> I think I am looking forward to the next one (not
> that I have anywhere near the skill required to
> enter, judging from entries).

Perhaps you could judge.

  -Shay

[Shay] Re: 2005? [7673 days 10 hours and 5 minutes ago]

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:27:24 GMT

Slime wrote:
> Having a half-year event
> every year might cause participation to drop. =)

A non-issue. Contest continues until an "acceptable" entry is received.

  -Shay

[Ranj] Re: 2005? [7673 days 10 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:05:02 GMT

Thanx for replying, I was just curious. I am new here, but the last
competition seemed so interesting from all the posts ;), I think I am
looking forward to the next one (not that I have anywhere near the skill
required to enter, judging from entries).

[Eli] Re: 2005? [7673 days 11 hours and 19 minutes ago]

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:12:59 GMT

I wouldn't be surprised if the details will be available *here*.

:-)

Ranj wrote:

> Hi, guys
> 
> Are there any plans of POVcomp 2005, and if so then where can I get the
> details?
> 
> Thanks

[Slime] Re: 2005? [7673 days 13 hours and 43 minutes ago]

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:49:14 GMT

> Are there any plans of POVcomp 2005, and if so then where can I get the
> details?

Personally, I wouldn't mind waiting until 2006. Having a half-year event
every year might cause participation to drop. =)

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Ranj] 2005? [7673 days 15 hours and 12 minutes ago]

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:20:00 GMT

Hi, guys

Are there any plans of POVcomp 2005, and if so then where can I get the
details?

Thanks

[Ross] news from the winner? [7678 days 15 hours ago]

Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:32:43 GMT

Has the winner recieved his goods yet? possible followup interview with him?

[Shay] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7678 days 16 hours and 6 minutes ago]

Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:26:37 GMT

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

[scott] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7678 days 17 hours and 59 minutes ago]

Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:33:03 GMT

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.

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7679 days 10 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:30:04 GMT

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 -

[Stefan Persson] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7679 days 11 hours and 58 minutes ago]

Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:34:32 GMT

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 -

[ABX] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7680 days and 19 minutes ago]

Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:13:53 GMT

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

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7680 days 9 hours and 24 minutes ago]

Tue, 5 Apr 2005 22:08:38 GMT

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] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7680 days 12 hours and 5 minutes ago]

Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:27:34 GMT

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

[Nicolas Calimet] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7680 days 14 hours and 36 minutes ago]

Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:56:33 GMT

> 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] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7680 days 15 hours and 54 minutes ago]

Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:38:42 GMT

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,
> 3D Café, instead of creating your own in a modeller and using those.
>
> 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
>
>

[Lance Birch] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7682 days 4 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 02:42:53 GMT

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,
3D Café, instead of creating your own in a modeller and using those.

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

[Stefan Persson] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7682 days 6 hours and 16 minutes ago]

Mon, 4 Apr 2005 01:16:13 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
Newsgroups: povray.competition
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again.

<cut>
> As I understood it, that point was quite far to the pure-SDL end of things
> (ie you couldn't just use 10 meshes from modellers, they made it quite 
> clear
> it was to show off POV's features).  Also, I understood that the idea was 
> to
> generate a world class image, so the judges would be judging the images, 
> not
> the code.  Of course they would check the code afterwards to ensure it 
> was't
> just a bunch of meshes and texture maps, but this wouldn't influence the
> ranking unless an image was disqualified for not being past the point.
</cut>

Yes, I understand the point of the competition. Show off the renderer and
the tools that comes along with it. I have no problem with that.

Still..

I do have a hard time understanding the point of the comment
"just a bunch of meshes and texture maps". For several reasons:
1. What is the most important thing: The product or the process?
As I see it, the product is the only thing that matters. How you did it
is irrelevant. Sure, you can spend 200 hours creating #macros for this and
for that and I can understand the fascination in that too. But, if you can 
do
the same job, with a bit of experience, with a modeller in 20 minutes and
come up with atleast the same result, then what's the point?
And if you think a bit about it, this competition said itself that is was
the product that mattered.

2. "a bunch of meshes" is not as simple as it sounds.
I am in the process of learning 3ds MAX 7. I chose between MAX and
Maya but since MAX seemed to have a more forgiving learning curve
I stuck to that. I can tell you if you haven't tried it; it's no magic tool.
First of all there are numerous things you have to adjust and tinker with
to get a god result. Secondly, mesh creation is an art form in itself.
Go to 3dcafe.com f.i. and have a look at some of the tutorials how
things are done. Then come back and say "just a bunch of meshes" again.
That sounded a bit more harsh then I meant it, but I think you understand
what I mean.

3. Texture shading is also a kind of an art. Not throwing a jpeg at a 
sphere..
that's not my point. But to master UV-mapping is definately not as simple
as that. Have a look at newer games where they use low-poly models and
use the texturing to enhance the graphical effect. I mean, most of the games
nowadays produce better graphics in real-time then I do with POV-Ray.

But, yes, I understand the point of the competition. I truly love to see the
work of you guys that master POV. My hat of to you.
And POV-Ray can with experience produce results as good as the
professional rendering packages. But I don't like comments that
look down on how things are done in the professional world because I think
it's ignorant and silly and just sounds envyous.

Just MHO ;)

Regards,
Stefan

[scott] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7686 days 21 hours and 37 minutes ago]

Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:55:30 GMT

dan B hentschel wrote:
> "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> Of course, but I understood the competition was about creating a
>> world class *image* using POV.  If this really was the case, the
>> judges should have judged the images with no knowledge of how it was
>> created.  Of course afterwards they can check that is was actually
>> created in a way that complied with the rules, but *how* it was
>> created shouldn't have affected the judging or the comments if it
>> was truly an "image" competition, and not a "scene" competition.
>>
>> But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
>> element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I
>> was under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how
>> good an image POV can create.
>
> You know, in these types of debates, I think it occasionally helps to
> take examples to ridiculous extremes, in order to make a point.
> Please don't misinterpret this post as an implication that anyone has
> previously made similarly silly statements during the course of this
> thread.
>
> I think we can all agree that it actually does matter how the scene
> was created. Some hypothetical person could actually generate a very
> beautiful, compelling image with photographs, photo editing programs,
> paint programs, other rendering programs, etc. This wonderful image
> could then be mapped onto a plane, lit, and rendered with POV. The
> result may look very nice, but the image is obviously not eligible
> for any recognition in a POV-Ray competition. Although POV-Ray was
> used to render the image, and it may end up being the "best" image
> that is submitted, it does not at all make good use of POV-Ray's
> capabilities.
>
> If you can agree with me on this, then you must be forced to admit
> that some consideration needs to be given to the method of image
> creation, beyond simply "rendered with POV-Ray". Again, remember that
> this is an intentional exaggeration. Now, you can extrapolate this
> inane example through a series of more sane situations that could
> include some textures created outside of POV, some models created
> outside of POV, all the way out to the other extreme in which the
> entire image is SDL generated. I think that we can all agree that any
> image in which everything that you see in the image was generated
> entirely in SDL would likely be eligible for consideration in a
> POV-Ray competition.
>
> Now, somewhere along that spectrum, you need to make a cutoff point
> that says that anything over here is eligible, whereas anything
> beyond this point is unacceptable. We may not all agree as to where
> that cutoff point is, but I think we can all agree that such a point
> absolutely must exist.

Sorry for the late reply but I've been away for a while.

I agree 100% with what you wrote about there being a "point" whereby the
image is acceptable.  That point should be defined in the rules (as best is
possible).

The question is though, should how far away you are from that point
influence how well you image ranks?  If it does, then they should say so.
If it doesn't, the judges should not look at the source at all until after
the judging (only to check it is past that point).

As I understood it, that point was quite far to the pure-SDL end of things
(ie you couldn't just use 10 meshes from modellers, they made it quite clear
it was to show off POV's features).  Also, I understood that the idea was to
generate a world class image, so the judges would be judging the images, not
the code.  Of course they would check the code afterwards to ensure it was't
just a bunch of meshes and texture maps, but this wouldn't influence the
ranking unless an image was disqualified for not being past the point.

I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway, but if the people running the
next competition take even a little bit of feedback from all the discussion
in here when writing the rules, it will have been worthwhile.

[Sven Littkowski] Render Competition at Terra Romana [7689 days 14 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:30:00 GMT

The Forum Navis Romana (FNR) can be visited now at:
http://Navis.TerraRomana.org and will be lauched by Summer / Autumn 2005.

We invite you for our Render and Art competitions which will start
immediately after the launch.

For elements of our website design we invite interested render artists to
prematurely submit render images focusing on ancient Roman ships (as
already seen at the FNR page). In case you wish to submit, please use the
following e-mail address: "Ent### [at] TerraRomanaorg".

For suggestions or questions, please use "Inf### [at] TerraRomanaorg".

Sven Littkowski
Project TERRA ROMANA

[selsek] Re: Very BIG problem [7698 days 22 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:42:26 GMT

> Just a friendly little note.. :)

Thanks for the advice.
I'll do it.

selsek

[Stefan Persson] Re: Very BIG problem [7699 days 14 hours and 40 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:52:12 GMT

Just some thoughts:
If you have data stored on a computer and send it back
to the vendor/service company or whatever, usually you will
have to either tell them (if they are nice..) or have to buy
an "insurance" for not just doing a reset of the system.
This is usually the case if you have bought a Dell / HP or whatever..
they just wipe the system and won't lose a single second of sleep
over it.. UNLESS you have told them to do otherwise..
I'm not saying that this will be or are the case with your computer
but.. beware.. ok?

Just a friendly little note.. :)

Cheers
Stefan

"stephen parkinson" <ste### [at] zmemw16demoncouk> skrev i meddelandet 
news:4230ba81$1@news.povray.org...
> selsek wrote:
>> I participated to POVCOMP. I won a prize.
>> I have to submit the source, and a big sized image.
>> I got some problem with my main computer's bios. The latest version of 
>> the source, and the mesh might be definately lost.
>> My second computer is a 350mhz without enough memory to render it.
>>
>> I could upload the files i have, but they may not be up to date 
>> (especially  the mesh, the remaining file are up to date and free to use 
>> on the povcomp website http://povcomp.com/entries/102.php)).
>>
>> The partial rendering of the main character has been rendered in  +w3700 
>> +h2775 (see narcissism2.ini in the source provided with my entry So, is a 
>> 3700x2775 redering will be enough? If yes, can someone render the scene 
>> without the mesh then paste the partial rendering into it?
>>
>> I wanted to provide some modifications to fit the comments. Seems like i 
>> won't. :(
>>
>> selsek
>
> freeze and don't panic
>
> loss of the bios does not affect the hard disk contents
>
> the sources of your entry should be safe
>
> stephen
>

[Gilles Tran] Re: Very BIG problem [7705 days 12 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:40:48 GMT

"selsek" <sel### [at] despammedcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:Xns9616867F4D3F7selsekfreefr@203.29.75.35...
> > Too bad :(
> > I just launched the render at 3700x2775, btw.
>
> Many thanks, Gilles.
> You may try to render the source with may-be-updated mesh i uploaded to
the
> ftp server (not public_source).

Hmm, what FTP server?
The render is 40% done now, so I'll leave it on for the week-end. I'll add
the character on Monday.
About your laptop, what other people said: unless your HD is fried your data
should be fine. A component of my PC motherboard took fire the other day and
I was able to plug the HD on another machine and resume working in a matter
of minutes.

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[John D Gwinner] Re: Very BIG problem [7705 days 17 hours and 6 minutes ago]

Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:26:17 GMT

"selsek" <sel### [at] despammedcom> wrote in message 
news:Xns961686214E2B0selsekfreefr@203.29.75.35...
> I know, but it's a laptop (2'1/2 drive). And i only have 3'1/2 drives on
> standard computers.
> If i open it, and extract the HD, the warranty may be broken. If i send it
> to the dealer, they might change everything...


Most laptops have user removable hard drives; Dell's even now ship 
replacement drives under warranty direct to our consultants who swap out the 
drive themselves.

I've purchased 2 1/2" to regular desktop IDE adapters that work like a champ 
to hook up laptop drives to desktop PC's.  You'd just remove the hard drive, 
plug in the adapter, and plug into a desktop spare IDE connector.

Dell replaceable hard drives used to come with a PCMCIA card that had a 
laptop sized hard drive adapter cable so you could hook up your hard drive 
to another laptop.

There's always options.

       == John ==

[selsek] Re: Very BIG problem [7705 days 19 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:05:46 GMT

> Too bad :(
> I just launched the render at 3700x2775, btw.

Many thanks, Gilles.
You may try to render the source with may-be-updated mesh i uploaded to the 
ftp server (not public_source).

selsek

[selsek] Re: Very BIG problem [7705 days 19 hours and 29 minutes ago]

Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:03:36 GMT

> freeze and don't panic
> loss of the bios does not affect the hard disk contents
> the sources of your entry should be safe

I know, but it's a laptop (2'1/2 drive). And i only have 3'1/2 drives on 
standard computers.
If i open it, and extract the HD, the warranty may be broken. If i send it 
to the dealer, they might change everything...
But if i ever take back these data, may i upload the final image & source 
later? How much later?

selsek

[Eli] Re: Very BIG problem [7706 days 6 hours and 3 minutes ago]

Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:29:37 GMT

Except if you smashed the computer with a shovel, pierced the harddrive with 
a gun, applied a neodymium magnet and put the remains in a baking oven of 
course......

[stephen parkinson] Re: Very BIG problem [7706 days 10 hours and 10 minutes ago]

Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:22:09 GMT

selsek wrote:
> I participated to POVCOMP. I won a prize.
> I have to submit the source, and a big sized image.
> I got some problem with my main computer's bios. The latest version of the 
> source, and the mesh might be definately lost.
> My second computer is a 350mhz without enough memory to render it.
> 
> I could upload the files i have, but they may not be up to date (especially  
> the mesh, the remaining file are up to date and free to use on the povcomp 
> website http://povcomp.com/entries/102.php)).
> 
> The partial rendering of the main character has been rendered in  +w3700 
> +h2775 (see narcissism2.ini in the source provided with my entry 
> 
> So, is a 3700x2775 redering will be enough? If yes, can someone render the 
> scene without the mesh then paste the partial rendering into it?
> 
> I wanted to provide some modifications to fit the comments. Seems like i 
> won't. :(
> 
> selsek

freeze and don't panic

loss of the bios does not affect the hard disk contents

the sources of your entry should be safe

stephen

[Gilles Tran] Re: Very BIG problem [7706 days 14 hours and 15 minutes ago]

Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:17:01 GMT

"selsek" <sel### [at] despammedcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:Xns961576DDF3581selsekfreefr@203.29.75.35...

> I wanted to provide some modifications to fit the comments. Seems like i
> won't. :(

Too bad :(
I just launched the render at 3700x2775, btw.

G.
-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[selsek] Very BIG problem [7706 days 20 hours and 36 minutes ago]

Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:56:14 GMT

I participated to POVCOMP. I won a prize.
I have to submit the source, and a big sized image.
I got some problem with my main computer's bios. The latest version of the 
source, and the mesh might be definately lost.
My second computer is a 350mhz without enough memory to render it.

I could upload the files i have, but they may not be up to date (especially  
the mesh, the remaining file are up to date and free to use on the povcomp 
website http://povcomp.com/entries/102.php)).

The partial rendering of the main character has been rendered in  +w3700 
+h2775 (see narcissism2.ini in the source provided with my entry 

So, is a 3700x2775 redering will be enough? If yes, can someone render the 
scene without the mesh then paste the partial rendering into it?

I wanted to provide some modifications to fit the comments. Seems like i 
won't. :(

selsek

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Computer Graphics World [7709 days 7 hours and 1 minute ago]

Tue, 8 Mar 2005 00:30:59 GMT

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message 
news:web.422caf651506ddb4b8a63dd50@news.povray.org...
> Chris Cason <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
>> [BTW site is http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/mozilla/ ; he's also the 
>> author
>> of the excellent 'nuke anything' extension.]
>
> Very nice, gives more power to the viewer.
>
> On the competition, did anyone submit POVComp as a topic
> on Slashdot? I don't read there often so I may have missed it.
> It might be good place to gain users.
>


IIRC, it was mentioned both initially and after the extension, though I'm 
not positive about the latter.

-- 
Jeremy M. Praay
www.beantoad.com

[Renderdog] Re: Computer Graphics World [7709 days 11 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:50:01 GMT

Chris Cason <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
> [BTW site is http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/mozilla/ ; he's also the author
> of the excellent 'nuke anything' extension.]

Very nice, gives more power to the viewer.

On the competition, did anyone submit POVComp as a topic
on Slashdot? I don't read there often so I may have missed it.
It might be good place to gain users.

[Chris Cason] Re: Computer Graphics World [7709 days 13 hours and 8 minutes ago]

Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:24:31 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> "Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
> news:422a35e4@news.povray.org...
>> Heh, I like how they took a screenshot of the webpage, not even showing 
>> the
>> full first image. Why didn't they just use the image itself?
>>
> 
> ...and they don't directly link to the POVCOMP web page anywhere either. 
> They put a text URL at the bottom of the article that isn't even clickable. 

I see this issue regularly on news sites. Fortunately due to Firefox's 'Plain
Text Links' extension it's no longer a problem for me :=-)

[BTW site is http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/mozilla/ ; he's also the author
of the excellent 'nuke anything' extension.]

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Computer Graphics World [7710 days 15 hours and 19 minutes ago]

Sun, 6 Mar 2005 16:13:26 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:422a35e4@news.povray.org...
> Heh, I like how they took a screenshot of the webpage, not even showing 
> the
> full first image. Why didn't they just use the image itself?
>

...and they don't directly link to the POVCOMP web page anywhere either. 
They put a text URL at the bottom of the article that isn't even clickable. 
*sigh*

-- 
Jeremy M. Praay
www.beantoad.com

[Slime] Re: Computer Graphics World [7711 days 8 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:42:44 GMT

Heh, I like how they took a screenshot of the webpage, not even showing the
full first image. Why didn't they just use the image itself?

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Rune] Re: Computer Graphics World [7711 days 18 hours and 24 minutes ago]

Sat, 5 Mar 2005 13:08:25 GMT

http://tinyurl.com/583sv

[Marc Jacquier] Re: Computer Graphics World [7711 days 19 hours and 5 minutes ago]

Sat, 5 Mar 2005 12:27:33 GMT

"Oleguer Vilella" <ole### [at] infonegociocom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4229996b$1@news.povray.org...
> I can't see the web page.
>
It's because the link line is broken:
When you have clicked the link and got the 404 error message, append the
link ending bit :
_ID=221648&pc=ENL
to the end of your browser adress field

Marc



> Regards,
> Oleguer
>
>
>
> "Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> escribió en el mensaje
> news:web.422757c370175878b8a63dd50@news.povray.org...
> > FYI, official POVComp announcement published by Computer Graphics World:
> >
> >
http://cgw.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=18&ARTICLE
> > _ID=221648&pc=ENL
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Oleguer Vilella] Re: Computer Graphics World [7711 days 19 hours and 57 minutes ago]

Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:35:07 GMT

I can't see the web page.

Regards,
Oleguer



"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> escribió en el mensaje 
news:web.422757c370175878b8a63dd50@news.povray.org...
> FYI, official POVComp announcement published by Computer Graphics World:
>
>
http://cgw.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=18&ARTICLE
> _ID=221648&pc=ENL
>
>
>

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7712 days 17 hours and 33 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:59:40 GMT

dan B hentschel wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>You are right but he is adding nothing that is helpful or new while
>>subtlely reinforcing the prejudice against mesh modeling.  We, on the
>>other side of the table, are willing to let it drop. You also have shown
>>admirable constraint.  Why can't he?
> 
> 
> I'm very sorry. It was not my intention to be at all derogatory or divisive.
> In fact, I was hoping to create a common frame of reference to promote
> consensus. I don’t read these forums every day, and so I didn’t realize
> that this was a dead topic, or that I would be re-opening any wounds. I
> should have looked at the time stamps before responding. Again, I apologize
> if I offended anyone with my post.
> 
> For what it’s worth, I have a high respect (and some envy as well) for those
> who are skilled at third-party modelers. I, myself, have tried Wings3D and
> failed miserably. I am always very impressed (sometimes awestruck) with
> what some people are able to do with modeling programs. I wasn’t at all
> trying to belittle those who use mesh modelers.
> 
>  - dan B hentschel
> 
> 
Apology accepted and I apologize in return, doubly so because your 
apology may not have been strictly necessary and I, meanwhile, knowingly 
exploited your good will. But you may not have understood how I see your 
attempt at a reasoned argument as just one more reinforcement of a 
prejudice. In the end, I didn't know any other way to make my point than 
to attack your intention.  Your discussion wasn't so bad imo, it did 
focus on external v internal rather well.  But my point is that the idea 
that certain modeling techniques are internal, and therefore more 
virtuous somehow, is being used to validate what amounts to prejudice 
against other creative paths, which are equally supported by the 
software.  Also, it seems to me you explored the "external" pole of your 
axis with more assurance than you did the "internal" pole.  What would 
it take to make a picture with a very extreme definition of "internal", 
and would it really amount to virtue?  Also a splinter issue here is 
raytracer support for using empirically collected
data.  If a photo is used to produce a texture map, this is univerally 
deplored.  But if satellite data is used to generate a model of the 
earth's surface, maybe it's not so bad?  They look like the same thing 
to me.

[dan B hentschel] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7712 days 18 hours and 17 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:15:01 GMT

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> You are right but he is adding nothing that is helpful or new while
> subtlely reinforcing the prejudice against mesh modeling.  We, on the
> other side of the table, are willing to let it drop. You also have shown
> admirable constraint.  Why can't he?

I'm very sorry. It was not my intention to be at all derogatory or divisive.
In fact, I was hoping to create a common frame of reference to promote
consensus. I don’t read these forums every day, and so I didn’t realize
that this was a dead topic, or that I would be re-opening any wounds. I
should have looked at the time stamps before responding. Again, I apologize
if I offended anyone with my post.

For what it’s worth, I have a high respect (and some envy as well) for those
who are skilled at third-party modelers. I, myself, have tried Wings3D and
failed miserably. I am always very impressed (sometimes awestruck) with
what some people are able to do with modeling programs. I wasn’t at all
trying to belittle those who use mesh modelers.

 - dan B hentschel

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7712 days 18 hours and 35 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:56:58 GMT

Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>That's been pretty much beaten to death.  Had you hoped to add something 
>>new?
> 
> 
>   Your attitude is certainly not helping.
> 
>   He just wrote his thoughts and you are dissing him.
> 
You are right but he is adding nothing that is helpful or new while 
subtlely reinforcing the prejudice against mesh modeling.  We, on the 
other side of the table, are willing to let it drop. You also have shown 
admirable constraint.  Why can't he?

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7712 days 22 hours and 8 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:24:27 GMT

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> That's been pretty much beaten to death.  Had you hoped to add something 
> new?

  Your attitude is certainly not helping.

  He just wrote his thoughts and you are dissing him.

-- 
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 -

[Skip Talbot] Re: Special Mentions [7713 days 3 hours and 24 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Mar 2005 04:08:22 GMT

:)

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7713 days 5 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Mar 2005 02:25:05 GMT

dan B hentschel wrote:


>    The blatant purpose of this competition was
> to show off the power of POV-Ray as an image creation tool. 

Hmmmmmm "image creation tool"


It should come
> as no surprise to people that the images were judged based on how well they
> made use of POV-Ray’s features.

I don't think that is what surprised people.

  Yes, creating mesh objects with third party
> tools does require a lot of skill, and can produce very pleasing results,

Some of us use TPT's and are shooting for a good deal more than that


> but for the purposes of this specific competition, it is no different than
> my Photoshop example above. Photoshop, Illustrator, photography, etc. all
> require a lot of skill as well, and when used effectively, can produce some
> very nice results.

"pleasing" AND "very nice"  hey hey

  Neither one showcases POV-Ray in the way that the
> contest intended.
>
That's been pretty much beaten to death.  Had you hoped to add something 
new?

[JC (Exether)] Re: Special Mentions [7713 days 9 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:42:24 GMT

kwel, thanks !!
congratulation to all !

Chris Cason wrote:
> Here are the special mentions:
> 
>   Mobile Home by Antoine Valentim        - humor
>   African Caprice  by Jim Charter        - concept
>   Jewel Planet by 'JC (Exether)'         - abstract
>   Montezuma's Last Meal by 'Splendor'    - psychedelic
>   Jack in the box  by Kees-Jan Backhuys  - humour, modelling
>   Victoria's world by Douglas Eichenberg - originality
>   Lost in space by Peter Duthie          - detail, sci-fi
>   Calle by 'Pucks'                       - detail, modelling
>   Bat in the Belfry by Skip Talbot       - lighting, modelling
>   Elsa's Dolphin by 'Poussinette'        - new talent
> 
> Each of the above entrants will receive a 12-month PlanetMirror premium
> subscription (www.planetmirror.com).
> 
> -- Chris


-- 
http://exether.free.fr/irtc (more IRTC stats !)

[Shay] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7713 days 11 hours and 13 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:18:57 GMT

dan B hentschel wrote:
 >

Don't want to drag this out into a huge debate, but I just "have" to 
point out that you have made a very good case for *another* argument, 
but not this one. The problem some entrants had is *not* that POV-Ray 
models were (apparently) judged more favorably, but that it was not made 
clear this would happen. In fact, more the opposite.

See this from Gilles Tran:
,--------------------------------------------------------------
| Well, the guidelines say "You are allowed to use any tool
| you want for modeling, texturing etc.". About modeling, they
| say that "self-made models" will be seen in a positive light,
| but it's vs non-self-made models, not 3rd party modelers!
`--------------------------------------------------------------

Note the exclamation point. Now, contrast this with the judges' 
comments, and Warp's comments in this group, which basically say:

(paraphrased)
I (Warp) think modeling things in a modeler is trivial.
I (Warp) think giving more credit to POV models is right.
But don't worry, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Now can you see why some 3rd party modeler users might be upset? This 
has nothing to do with the standards themselves. If you want to write a 
reply, I have set follow-ups to off-topic. No use continuing here. If 
someone still doesn't get it, they're not going to.

  -Shay

[dan B hentschel] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7713 days 11 hours and 37 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Mar 2005 19:55:00 GMT

"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> Of course, but I understood the competition was about creating a world class
> *image* using POV.  If this really was the case, the judges should have
> judged the images with no knowledge of how it was created.  Of course
> afterwards they can check that is was actually created in a way that
> complied with the rules, but *how* it was created shouldn't have affected
> the judging or the comments if it was truly an "image" competition, and not
> a "scene" competition.
>
> But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
> element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I was
> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image
> POV can create.

You know, in these types of debates, I think it occasionally helps to take
examples to ridiculous extremes, in order to make a point. Please don't
misinterpret this post as an implication that anyone has previously made
similarly silly statements during the course of this thread.

I think we can all agree that it actually does matter how the scene was
created. Some hypothetical person could actually generate a very beautiful,
compelling image with photographs, photo editing programs, paint programs,
other rendering programs, etc. This wonderful image could then be mapped
onto a plane, lit, and rendered with POV. The result may look very nice,
but the image is obviously not eligible for any recognition in a POV-Ray
competition. Although POV-Ray was used to render the image, and it may end
up being the "best" image that is submitted, it does not at all make good
use of POV-Ray's capabilities.

If you can agree with me on this, then you must be forced to admit that some
consideration needs to be given to the method of image creation, beyond
simply "rendered with POV-Ray". Again, remember that this is an intentional
exaggeration. Now, you can extrapolate this inane example through a series
of more sane situations that could include some textures created outside of
POV, some models created outside of POV, all the way out to the other
extreme in which the entire image is SDL generated. I think that we can all
agree that any image in which everything that you see in the image was
generated entirely in SDL would likely be eligible for consideration in a
POV-Ray competition.

Now, somewhere along that spectrum, you need to make a cutoff point that
says that anything over here is eligible, whereas anything beyond this
point is unacceptable. We may not all agree as to where that cutoff point
is, but I think we can all agree that such a point absolutely must exist.
Beyond this, I think that it is also obvious that any images that are
“dangerously close” to this cutoff point may be eligible for a prize, but
would probably be upstaged by images that are further down the spectrum
towards the “full POV-Ray” solution, not in terms of actual image
appearance since, remember, we are only talking about very good images
here, but in terms of adhering to the spirit of the competition.

The bottom line is that it is possible to create some dazzling images
without the use of POV-Ray. You can create some dazzling images that just
happen to use POV-Ray to render them, but nothing about them really
demonstrates the power of POV-Ray as a tool. You can also create some
dazzling images that make great use of POV-Ray and the flexibility that
this wonderful program offers. The blatant purpose of this competition was
to show off the power of POV-Ray as an image creation tool. It should come
as no surprise to people that the images were judged based on how well they
made use of POV-Ray’s features. Yes, creating mesh objects with third party
tools does require a lot of skill, and can produce very pleasing results,
but for the purposes of this specific competition, it is no different than
my Photoshop example above. Photoshop, Illustrator, photography, etc. all
require a lot of skill as well, and when used effectively, can produce some
very nice results. Neither one showcases POV-Ray in the way that the
contest intended.

 - dan B hentschel

[Renderdog] Computer Graphics World [7713 days 12 hours and 57 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:35:00 GMT

FYI, official POVComp announcement published by Computer Graphics World:

http://cgw.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=18&ARTICLE
_ID=221648&pc=ENL

[Marc Jacquier] Re: Poster Size image render [7713 days 23 hours and 25 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:07:24 GMT

"Chris Holtorf" <lho### [at] nwlinkcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:1103_1109810724@news.povray.org...
> 5 days into the rendering of my poster size image and it is only 41
percent
> complete. My original only took one day. Yikes !
>
> Chris Holtorf
>
Mine is very slow since it has begun rendering the sea. Still 6 or 7 days
running at "Portfolio" size :-/

Marc

[Slime] Re: Poster Size image render [7714 days 6 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Mar 2005 01:00:27 GMT

> 5 days into the rendering of my poster size image and it is only 41
percent
> complete. My original only took one day. Yikes !


Same deal with me. Mine's at about 56 percent, but for some reason it's
using a lot more memory than it was when it started (or maybe it's just
using it less efficiently). I'm having trouble with it because it's causing
the computer to thrash, so I can't render while I'm on the computer, and
it's loud so I can't render when I'm asleep.

Hopefully this will fix itself or else I might have to find someone with
more RAM to finish it for me.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Peter Duthie] Re: Special Mentions [7714 days 6 hours and 44 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:48:37 GMT

Thanks POVComp, the extra recognition is appreciated!

Peter D.

Chris Cason wrote:

> Here are the special mentions:
> 
>   Mobile Home by Antoine Valentim        - humor
>   African Caprice  by Jim Charter        - concept
>   Jewel Planet by 'JC (Exether)'         - abstract
>   Montezuma's Last Meal by 'Splendor'    - psychedelic
>   Jack in the box  by Kees-Jan Backhuys  - humour, modelling
>   Victoria's world by Douglas Eichenberg - originality
>   Lost in space by Peter Duthie          - detail, sci-fi
>   Calle by 'Pucks'                       - detail, modelling
>   Bat in the Belfry by Skip Talbot       - lighting, modelling
>   Elsa's Dolphin by 'Poussinette'        - new talent
> 
> Each of the above entrants will receive a 12-month PlanetMirror premium
> subscription (www.planetmirror.com).
> 
> -- Chris

[Chris Holtorf] Poster Size image render [7714 days 6 hours and 49 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:43:40 GMT

5 days into the rendering of my poster size image and it is only 41 percent
complete. My original only took one day. Yikes !

Chris Holtorf

[Eli] Why I might enter PoVComp one day [7715 days 8 hours and 8 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:23:57 GMT

I only participate in stuff if I think it's fun. And if it's fun, I will 
might participate if there will be a next time.   <consufed>

[j] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7715 days 8 hours and 17 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:15:00 GMT

Hi Scott, sounds like the discussion we had months ago... again.  You
mentioned the term "world class" for quite a number of times, I am just
curious to know what's your meaning of world class. It appears that you'd
consider photorealistic images to be world class, as compared to something
that looks more "computer generated". And you are probably correct, as I
don't think
there is a right/wrong way to interpret something like this. And too I
believe "The Kitchen" is also worthy of the first prize for the superb
lighting, texture and detail, which are things that you consider as
elements to a world class image. (I do, for a fact, respect the way the
images were judged).

My interpretation of a world class image is somewhat different, largely due
to the kind of works I have been seeing around the 3D community for the
past years.  As the graphics software gets better and better, the artists
can often generate photorealist images that resembles closer and closer to
our physical world. They are very pretty indeed, as I am often amazed at
what CG can do nowadays. But photorealism has a limit, how real can you
make your image when? Until a point when you can no longer distinguish
between a photograph and CG?  Centries ago people don't have the luxury to
do floating point or radiosity calculation on their canvas or oil paints,
but why do people spend thosands of dollar to buy these paintings? My point
is, photorealism does not necessarily equal to an world class image (no
offense to any winning entries), it is an
element that the artist can choose to use to express his/her ideas.  I enjoy
watching graphics in fantasy/mystical games as they often depict worlds
that look real (lighting and physics), yet you as an observer, knows that
it is something that cannot exist in our world. Images that show
originality (Victoria's World for example) and creativity in addition to
photorealism are, in my opinion, world class images.  In fact, I will be
pretty interested to see more abstract images made using CG. What makes
your image stands out from all these other images, when every image is
equally photorealist.

You mentioned "*how* it was created shouldn't have affected the judging or
the comments if it was truly an "image" competition" and you were "under
the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image POV
can create", aren't they a bit contradicting?

Anyhow, your points are valid, though, I would consider anything a waste of
my time if it does not have a purpose. As I mentioned before, my goal was
not to ultimately win anything, and my purpose was the .  When one can
accomplish something that is driven by a purpose in the broader scheme of
things, then it very rewarding as well.

Just another piece of thought
J

[Jim Charter] Re: Special Mentions [7715 days 10 hours and 38 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:54:46 GMT

Chris Cason wrote:
> Here are the special mentions:
> 
>   Mobile Home by Antoine Valentim        - humor
>   African Caprice  by Jim Charter        - concept
>   Jewel Planet by 'JC (Exether)'         - abstract
>   Montezuma's Last Meal by 'Splendor'    - psychedelic
>   Jack in the box  by Kees-Jan Backhuys  - humour, modelling
>   Victoria's world by Douglas Eichenberg - originality
>   Lost in space by Peter Duthie          - detail, sci-fi
>   Calle by 'Pucks'                       - detail, modelling
>   Bat in the Belfry by Skip Talbot       - lighting, modelling
>   Elsa's Dolphin by 'Poussinette'        - new talent
> 
> Each of the above entrants will receive a 12-month PlanetMirror premium
> subscription (www.planetmirror.com).
> 
> -- Chris
Thankyou, humbly.  Naming my entry for special mention was generous on 
the part of the judges.

[Renderdog] Re: Special Mentions [7715 days 15 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:50:00 GMT

Congratulations all!

Here's links...

>   Mobile Home by Antoine Valentim        - humor
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/200.php

>   African Caprice  by Jim Charter        - concept
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/209.php

>   Jewel Planet by 'JC (Exether)'         - abstract
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/158.php

>   Montezuma's Last Meal by 'Splendor'    - psychedelic
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/179.php

>   Jack in the box  by Kees-Jan Backhuys  - humour, modelling
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/141.php

>   Victoria's world by Douglas Eichenberg - originality
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/124.php

>   Lost in space by Peter Duthie          - detail, sci-fi
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/181.php

>   Calle by 'Pucks'                       - detail, modelling
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/203.php

>   Bat in the Belfry by Skip Talbot       - lighting, modelling
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/195.php

>   Elsa's Dolphin by 'Poussinette'        - new talent
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/197.php

[Chris Cason] Special Mentions [7715 days 18 hours and 14 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:18:04 GMT

Here are the special mentions:

  Mobile Home by Antoine Valentim        - humor
  African Caprice  by Jim Charter        - concept
  Jewel Planet by 'JC (Exether)'         - abstract
  Montezuma's Last Meal by 'Splendor'    - psychedelic
  Jack in the box  by Kees-Jan Backhuys  - humour, modelling
  Victoria's world by Douglas Eichenberg - originality
  Lost in space by Peter Duthie          - detail, sci-fi
  Calle by 'Pucks'                       - detail, modelling
  Bat in the Belfry by Skip Talbot       - lighting, modelling
  Elsa's Dolphin by 'Poussinette'        - new talent

Each of the above entrants will receive a 12-month PlanetMirror premium
subscription (www.planetmirror.com).

-- Chris

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7716 days 17 hours and 26 minutes ago]

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:06:42 GMT

Gilles Tran wrote:

  Replace "POV-Ray" with
> "oil painting" and it would be the same. 

Nice analoque! But you know you tempt me Gilles, you know you tempt me. ;)

But let me also reinforce, I agree absolutely with the judging and would 
deeply regret it if any imput I have had in this thread has in anyway 
suggested I did not or cast any kind of aspersion on the contest and 
it's outcome.  The top images provide me with a target to aim for in my 
own development for quality and artistry and I truly hope I might get there.

I do not think it was a mistake to raise the issue I raised, but it is 
entirely separate from questioning the premise of the contest, its 
conduct, judging, and outcome.

[scott] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7716 days 18 hours and 6 minutes ago]

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:26:30 GMT

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> I was
>> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good
>> an image POV can create.
>
>   Basically any renderer supporting meshes and simple lighting models
> can render impressive images if the models and textures are superb.

True, but the real skill lies in being able to decide which way to do
things.  Do you use CSG/mesh? Do you use textures in Photoshop or SDL
pigment? etc etc  In most situations there are many ways of achieving the
same result, there is little point in choosing a method that will take much
more of your time up, it will merely waste your time that could be better
spent on improving your scene further.

Anyway, as with all competitions that are "judged", nobody is ever going to
agree 100% with the results, that's just the way it is.  Everyone had the
same set of rules to work by, it is impossible that it was unfair in any
way.

[Gilles Tran] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7716 days 18 hours and 17 minutes ago]

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:15:04 GMT

"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4222fc01$1@news.povray.org...

> But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
> element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I was
> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an
image
> POV can create.

It's a POV-Ray competition called POVCOMP, so it's a given that how well
POV-Ray is used is unavoidably part of the judgement, cf the mission
statement about the "full potential of POV-Ray" (*). It's also a given that
the final image has to be world-class. The top images, and particularly the
5 top ones, fulfill both expectations so that non-POV people can be wowed
because these are good images that stand on their own AND because they're
made with a free raytracer.

The winners won because they made damn fine pics, and they were able to make
them with POV-Ray because they are skilled artists. Replace "POV-Ray" with
"oil painting" and it would be the same. It's really that simple, and
doesn't warrant further exegesis/speculation/interpretation.

G.

(*) indeed, a competitor entered 2 images that were just a Rhino model
exported to POV-Ray without any change to the default camera, lighting and
texture. These images were not considered to be valid entries.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7716 days 19 hours and 5 minutes ago]

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:27:21 GMT

scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> I was
> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image
> POV can create.

  Basically any renderer supporting meshes and simple lighting models
can render impressive images if the models and textures are superb.

  One of the goals of this competition was to show what POV-Ray can
do *more* than other renderers.

-- 
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 -

[scott] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7716 days 20 hours and 23 minutes ago]

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:09:53 GMT

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> POV is not suitable for creating most models, the main problem I
>> find with using CSG is that it is very hard to produce rounded edges
>> on anything but very simple shapes.  Rounded edges go a long way to
>> make the difference between photorealistic and "computer generated"
>> IMHO.
>
>   Just because St. says that povcomp was a "CSG-only" competition
> doesn't make it so.

Of course, but I understood the competition was about creating a world class
*image* using POV.  If this really was the case, the judges should have
judged the images with no knowledge of how it was created.  Of course
afterwards they can check that is was actually created in a way that
complied with the rules, but *how* it was created shouldn't have affected
the judging or the comments if it was truly an "image" competition, and not
a "scene" competition.

But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I was
under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image
POV can create.

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7716 days 20 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:02:03 GMT

scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> POV is not suitable for creating most models, the main problem I find with
> using CSG is that it is very hard to produce rounded edges on anything but
> very simple shapes.  Rounded edges go a long way to make the difference
> between photorealistic and "computer generated" IMHO.

  Just because St. says that povcomp was a "CSG-only" competition doesn't
make it so.

-- 
#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 -

[scott] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7716 days 20 hours and 55 minutes ago]

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:37:35 GMT

St. wrote:
> 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.

FWIW I agree with your comments.  In order to produce a "world class" image
with POV, it is better to spend the time on lighting / textures than
modelling.

POV is not suitable for creating most models, the main problem I find with
using CSG is that it is very hard to produce rounded edges on anything but
very simple shapes.  Rounded edges go a long way to make the difference
between photorealistic and "computer generated" IMHO.

Of course POV is great for creating certain types of models, the built in
SDL is very powerful and allows you to create certain objects very quickly
and efficiently.  But you have to look hard to find these types of models,
in real life most objects would be easier, faster and more accurate to model
with a modelling package.

In terms of what images look "world class" from the results, I would have
ordered them differently, as would the two people I've spoken to who have
never used POV.

I think it really needs to be made clear whether any future competitions are
to *render* world class images with POV, or create world class scenes with
POV.  I understood the former was most important, but maybe I was a bit
wrong.

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 8 hours and 21 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:11:44 GMT

Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>No I believe one judge in a few comments indulged in proselytizing 
>>against the viability of mesh modeling.  And that that is dangerous 
>>because when stated by an official, can induce a generalized set of 
>>values and preferences.
> 
> 
>   So basically you are saying that the judging principles were
> (probably) ok, but the judges' comments published along the entries
> could have been more mature and careful at some points (because as
> they are they can give the wrong impression to some people)?
> 
>   If that is your point, then I suppose I can't argue.
>   I just got the impression from your post that you were also attacking
> the judging process itself and that you got the impression this was
> an "sdl-only" competition.
> 

That is correct.  I hope that distinction was evident from my first post 
  though I admit that my choice of words there was very strong.  Maybe 
too strong.  I really abhor this particular prejudice as I have 
struggled from the beginning to employ mesh modeling in a continuum with 
other techniques.

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 8 hours and 38 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:54:41 GMT

"j" <phazxero[at]hotmail[dot]com> wrote in message 
news:web.421f9eeecbe05ebac282406a0@news.povray.org...


> Steve do you still remember the rant I had a few months ago?

  Yes, I do. :)

 I was
> complaining that pov models are going to be rated the same as models made
> with 3rd party tools.  And yes I was pretty upset and frustrated at that
> point and made the decision not to enter the competition because it's 
> going
> to be a waste of time. And oh yes I strongly believe that I was right at
> that point and everyone else are wrong. But I do want you to know what
> happened after I made that decision.
>
> To be honest, my initial goal to enter the competition is for the prize, 
> but
> then after knowing that I won't have the advantage of using models made in
> povray, as well as hearing how your modeling skill is close to Mr.
> Rosenman, how the hell do I stand a chance? So I stopped working on my
> image, stopped for two weeks, and during those two weeks I reflected on 
> the
> kind of things I said, and realized that I am not completely correct.
> Gilles was right that modelers are not necessarily easier than povray
> models, it's like having oil painting and watercolour, they are different
> things and both have their own advantages and disadvantages.  If this
> competition involves no prizes would you have entered? Back in September I
> would've said no, but starting in November I realized my goal shouldn't
> simply be chasing after first place. You can say I am just bullshiting
> right now because the contest is over, but my expectation dropped from
> "hopefully winning some poster money to print the poster for my Design
> Project Presentation" to "using this as a chance to show the rest of the
> people that yes, povray is capable of doing things that normally people
> won't do".  That is my principle, and to be precise, my principle is that
> it is not the tool you choose to use, but rather, how you use that tool to
> make your image.  And it's NOT simply using that tool, but using it in an
> innovative and interesting way. At least that's my believe.

 And that's what I think too, hence my image "Immenent". Apart from the 
first table, everything else was placed by hand in pov. That was some 
achievement to do that.


If I give you
> three colours, red yellow and blue, what are you going to do with it? Some
> people may draw really creative patterns with only those three colours, or
> some people may mix the colours and get millions of other colours.

  Not me. I would have a blue tiger eating a green antelope in a red field!

   Heh... I'll HAVE to try that sometime! PoV only, of course... Hmm.  ;)



The
> point is, the art is in you, not what's given. If you perceive this 
> contest
> as a way to explore what haven't been done before, then you, and I, will 
> be
> a lot more happy.

     Yes, I understand that.

>
> I don't use povray "very often", in fact, the only time I get to play 
> around
> with it is during summer break, and now with work + school I can't really
> afford to spend a lot of time of this competition. So for someone like me
> (and probably a lot of other people) who can't dedicate sufficient chunks
> of time in this matter, my hope is that someday, people will recognize my
> work and say, yes, it is something unique, it is something that is
> POSSIBLE.

    Then follow your dream J. For you, it will happen. I already know that 
you are a 'serious' person, and that counts for a lot these days. I respect 
that.


 I was wrong in the first place for looking at things from one
> direction, I was looking at povcomp in the sense that it has large first
> prize. After two weeks of self reflection, it was clear to me that there 
> is
> another way to look at the competition, it's a way to promote mutual
> learning. You too should try to see things with a different perspective,
> perhaps you will get more insight to the true meaning of your values.

   Thank you for that. I enjoy learning from young people too. Quite often, 
they are way above my head with their work, but it's always an 'exciting' 
experience for me to see what you younger people are doing. I applaud you, 
keep at it.


>
>> This has nothing to do with my image. It is to do with principle.
>
> If this is your principle then it's a good thing that you sticked with it. 
> I
> did, at one point, was tempted to use a modeller to make one of the
> objects, because the povray model lacks detail and it is very crappy. But
> no, in the end, i didn't use a modeler because it was the goal of my entry
> to exploit povray as a modeler.

  That's fair enough - I have no argument at all with this. In fact, if the 
truth be known, I should *never* have downloaded Wings at all, and stuck 
with learning pure POV. I'm sure I could come up with all sorts of pretty 
and fascinating patterns, but when it comes to adding a bevel in POV, I 
understand that it's a complete pita. Do I want that? No, is the answer.

>
>> Sure, I understand this, but please, don't think I was unappreciative. I
>> just think it was a waste of time for anyone not using pov only.
>
> My thought WAS the same.

   And I thank you for that. You're an intelligent young person, I wish you 
well with what you want from life. Good luck to you.

  ~Steve~


>
>
> Just a thought.
> J
>
>

[j] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 9 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:00:00 GMT

Steve do you still remember the rant I had a few months ago? I was
complaining that pov models are going to be rated the same as models made
with 3rd party tools.  And yes I was pretty upset and frustrated at that
point and made the decision not to enter the competition because it's going
to be a waste of time. And oh yes I strongly believe that I was right at
that point and everyone else are wrong. But I do want you to know what
happened after I made that decision.

To be honest, my initial goal to enter the competition is for the prize, but
then after knowing that I won't have the advantage of using models made in
povray, as well as hearing how your modeling skill is close to Mr.
Rosenman, how the hell do I stand a chance? So I stopped working on my
image, stopped for two weeks, and during those two weeks I reflected on the
kind of things I said, and realized that I am not completely correct.
Gilles was right that modelers are not necessarily easier than povray
models, it's like having oil painting and watercolour, they are different
things and both have their own advantages and disadvantages.  If this
competition involves no prizes would you have entered? Back in September I
would've said no, but starting in November I realized my goal shouldn't
simply be chasing after first place. You can say I am just bullshiting
right now because the contest is over, but my expectation dropped from
"hopefully winning some poster money to print the poster for my Design
Project Presentation" to "using this as a chance to show the rest of the
people that yes, povray is capable of doing things that normally people
won't do".  That is my principle, and to be precise, my principle is that
it is not the tool you choose to use, but rather, how you use that tool to
make your image.  And it's NOT simply using that tool, but using it in an
innovative and interesting way. At least that's my believe. If I give you
three colours, red yellow and blue, what are you going to do with it? Some
people may draw really creative patterns with only those three colours, or
some people may mix the colours and get millions of other colours. The
point is, the art is in you, not what's given. If you perceive this contest
as a way to explore what haven't been done before, then you, and I, will be
a lot more happy.

I don't use povray "very often", in fact, the only time I get to play around
with it is during summer break, and now with work + school I can't really
afford to spend a lot of time of this competition. So for someone like me
(and probably a lot of other people) who can't dedicate sufficient chunks
of time in this matter, my hope is that someday, people will recognize my
work and say, yes, it is something unique, it is something that is
POSSIBLE. I was wrong in the first place for looking at things from one
direction, I was looking at povcomp in the sense that it has large first
prize. After two weeks of self reflection, it was clear to me that there is
another way to look at the competition, it's a way to promote mutual
learning. You too should try to see things with a different perspective,
perhaps you will get more insight to the true meaning of your values.

> This has nothing to do with my image. It is to do with principle.

If this is your principle then it's a good thing that you sticked with it. I
did, at one point, was tempted to use a modeller to make one of the
objects, because the povray model lacks detail and it is very crappy. But
no, in the end, i didn't use a modeler because it was the goal of my entry
to exploit povray as a modeler.

> Sure, I understand this, but please, don't think I was unappreciative. I
> just think it was a waste of time for anyone not using pov only.

My thought WAS the same.


Just a thought.
J

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 9 hours and 35 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:57:29 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
> C'mon Warp.  You're not helping yourself at this point.

  I know, but when someone goes on and on with insults, I find it
hard to just stop.

-- 
#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 -

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 9 hours and 40 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:52:27 GMT

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> No I believe one judge in a few comments indulged in proselytizing 
> against the viability of mesh modeling.  And that that is dangerous 
> because when stated by an official, can induce a generalized set of 
> values and preferences.

  So basically you are saying that the judging principles were
(probably) ok, but the judges' comments published along the entries
could have been more mature and careful at some points (because as
they are they can give the wrong impression to some people)?

  If that is your point, then I suppose I can't argue.
  I just got the impression from your post that you were also attacking
the judging process itself and that you got the impression this was
an "sdl-only" competition.

-- 
#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 -

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 9 hours and 51 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:41:14 GMT

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> >  Projecting a bunch of meshes to the screen is not showing what POV-Ray
> > is really capable of.

>     Then what was the point of allowing modellers at all if a "bunch of 
> meshes" on the screen is NOT going to have a chance of winning? If this 
> wasn't about 'art' and rendering with PoV-Ray, then what was it about?

  Since no amount of repetition will make you understand, then why
should I bother repeating it once again?

  You really, really don't understand what is the difference between
using third-party models and composing your entire image with them?

>    Without risk of getting personal, you are talking down to me as though 
> you are some kind of elevated level above me. You are not. You are on the 
> same level as me and anyone else here.

  You started insulting me, and I'm a person who can't take much of that
without getting angry, so you get a response according to that.

> >  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?

>     Ok, what was "ground-breaking" in this contest? Was there *anything* 
> "ground-breaking" at all? No. That was one of the criteria of even entering 
> the contest, and yet, it wasn't there in my opinion.

  "Ground-breaking" and using modellers seem to have some relation, at
least from your point of view. Sorry if I'm too dumb to understand it.

> >> >  Not true. If you had made a definitely better image than The Last
> >> > Guardian, you would have won.
> >
> >>      BS, and you know it.

>      I'm not calling *anyone* a liar.

  It's rather clear that you are calling me a liar above. I know how
the images were judged because I was part of the process and I know
that an image much better than the current winner would have won
regardless of how it had been made. You are saying that this claim
of mine is BS. Thus I'm lying to you.

> Heck, Warp, can't you see what my real problem with this whole thing is?

  Yes, but can you?

  Your real problem is that there was a lot of $$$money$$$ involved,
you missed the deadline by a quite short margin and did not get into
the competition and you are now pissed off because of that, and you
are now seeking some kind of revenge on the whole competition.
  You will of course deny that, but I am quite sure.

> It 
> was judged by *some* people that in my opinion shouldn't have been judges. 

  So now that your "csg-only" argument is not really holding water,
you start attacking the competence of the judges?
  What next? Will you start attacking the sponsors perhaps? The pov-team?
The contestants? Something else?

> >> > The method of production was only secondary.
> >
> >>   Exactly.

>     I meant 'exactly', as in, it wasn't secondary.

  Oh, sorry. I must have some reading comprehension problem. Perhaps your
English is a bit different than mine?

> The method of production 
> in 'your' eyes was 'pov only'. Tell the truth Warp, did you judge *solely* 
> on what the image looked like? Or did you take into account that an image 
> used pov only?

  I judged mainly on how the image looked like and secondarily on how
it was done. I had picked my favorites before I even looked how they
were done exactly (my initial top 6 was approximately the same as the final
result).
  But of course because I'm full of BS you don't have to believe me.

> >> 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.

>     Now you're not making sense.

  I think it's pretty clear. What are you not understanding?
  (Btw, it's sarcarsm, if you know what that means.)

> >  You are still an idiot, it seems.

>   <sigh> And there you go. A judge calling someone an idiot. So you 
> concluded that I was an idiot before, then? That's the first time you've 
> called me an idiot, but it was already in your head. I rest my case with you 
> being a judge, and biased towards me. I've met you before. If I'd have 
> entered, and everyone else thought my image was the best, I bet you would 
> have argued against them. Tell me you wouldn't have.

  I knew you would quote that line alone, separated from its context,
and that's exactly why I wrote it in its own line, so I could say this.

  Your paranoia is reaching ridiculous extents.
  Firstly, I succumbed to the temptation of calling you an idiot only
because of your attitude in this thread. I do not have any memory of
any previous texts you have written to me or anyone else and I do not
have any concept of your personality. Even if you have fooled around
in the past, I don't have any memory of that (it's very rare that I
remember people by name/nickname because of their texts).
  Secondly, judges did not know the authors of the images. Even if you
had entered and even if I had negative feelings about you personally
(which I did not), I would have had no way of knowing which image was
yours.

-- 
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 -

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 10 hours and 10 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:21:57 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f94ab@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> >  There's a big difference between using external models and composing
>> > your entire scene solely of external models.
>> >  The objective of the competition was not to show how POV-Ray can be
>> > used to project meshes onto the screen.
>
>>    Blah blah blah... (and so it goes on). Yawn.
>
>  So I was right: No amount of explaining will convince you, but you
> will not even try to understand anything and keep with this holy war of
> yours.

  I've apologised to you and all in here. Leave it at that.

    ~Steve~

>
> -- 
> 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 -

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 10 hours and 16 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:16:28 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f944a@news.povray.org...
<snip>
>
>  I am a liar full of bullshit and all judges except one were incompetent
> and not qualified to be judges. What next? Will you start defining
> our parentage in full detail?
>


Yes, and you raped our families, too.

C'mon Warp.  You're not helping yourself at this point.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 10 hours and 20 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:12:11 GMT

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> >  There's a big difference between using external models and composing
> > your entire scene solely of external models.
> >  The objective of the competition was not to show how POV-Ray can be
> > used to project meshes onto the screen.

>    Blah blah blah... (and so it goes on). Yawn.

  So I was right: No amount of explaining will convince you, but you
will not even try to understand anything and keep with this holy war of
yours.

-- 
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] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 10 hours and 22 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:10:34 GMT

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>       My point is that if it was a 'pure pov only' contest, you wouldn't, 
> and couldn't, have had the entries that you did. You 'had' to allow 
> modellers. I bet you sighed with relief when you found out that image was 
> pov only?

  And where exactly have I or anyone else said that third-party models
are not ok in the competition?

  And why would I have sighed with relief? I don't understand that.
Do you think the images were first classified and then the descriptions
were read? Of course we were fully aware of their descriptions.

>   It's simple. The judges *shouldn't* have been disclosed for a start. Of 
> the ones I know, I can *only* see one in that list that I would say is 
> actually qualified to judge

  Now you are starting to directly insult the judges?

  I am a liar full of bullshit and all judges except one were incompetent
and not qualified to be judges. What next? Will you start defining
our parentage in full detail?

-- 
#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 ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 10 hours and 26 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:06:47 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:421f874f$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>
>> "Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
>> news:421f83a4$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>>
>>> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de
>>> news:421e3e20@news.povray.org...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of
>>>
>>> winning
>>> Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...
>>
>>
>>  I thought better of you.
>>
>>   ~Steve~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>
> Steve, he's just giving you a "read".  Stop taking swings at people. You 
> gotta calm down.

   Yes, I know that Jim. And I appreciate your guidance - I'll listen to 
anyone that's worth listening to, whether they be my senior, or are of a 
higher intellect than me, (not that I have any intellect it seems).

   But yes, you're right. I can only apologise, fellow povers, for my 
behaviour. I will bow-down to all and say sorry. When I saw those comments 
though, they did indeed infuriate me, and let's just say that I lost my grip 
a little which is unusual for me.

    Sorry all.

   ~Steve~

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 10 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:02:53 GMT

"Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
news:421f9133@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de
> news:421f856f@news.povray.org...
>>
>> > Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...
>
> Sorry I should have wrote "Maybe" instead of "Nope"
>
>>   I thought better of you.
>
> So did I.
> I am not a native English speaker and it's not easy for me to express what 
> I
> mean but I made this conpetition mostly for the fun, so I cant share your
> point of view.

  That's not a problem for me Marc. You are entitled to your opinion as is 
anyone in here.

    ~Steve~

>
> Marc
>
>

[Marc Jacquier] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 10 hours and 35 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:57:23 GMT

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:421f856f@news.povray.org...
>
> > Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...

Sorry I should have wrote "Maybe" instead of "Nope"

>   I thought better of you.

So did I.
I am not a native English speaker and it's not easy for me to express what I
mean but I made this conpetition mostly for the fun, so I cant share your
point of view.

Marc

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 10 hours and 56 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:36:22 GMT

"ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message 
news:a22v11tv1rm1ucjljqd0ceg7k2erlo1m31@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:57:44 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

>> I'm not about contests. I'm about PoV-Ray.
>
> This is wrong group then.

    Maybe.  :(

   ~Steve~


>
> ABX

[ABX] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 11 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:25:28 GMT

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:57:44 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> I did not like the end result of the contest, I wasn't happy with it.
> (...) I agree with the judges, and yes,
> Johnny's image was fantastic! Fair play to him, he deserved it.

IMO judges and award to Johny == end result of the contest.
I can't help you I'm affraid, sorry :-(

> I'm not about contests. I'm about PoV-Ray.

This is wrong group then.

ABX

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 11 hours and 15 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:17:01 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421e6be2@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>     Ross, no third party models were used in my image. They were all 
>> mine.
>> Around 150+ made in Wings.
>
>  So, is it your opinion that since you made 150+ objects in Wings you
> should have won the competition?

    Don't be silly.


>
>>    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.
>
>  And still you dare to argument that you would have not won because
> you were using too many imported models?
>  Pretty big assumptions you make...

     This has nothing to do with my image. It is to do with principle.


>
>>     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?
>
>  There's a big difference between using external models and composing
> your entire scene solely of external models.
>  The objective of the competition was not to show how POV-Ray can be
> used to project meshes onto the screen.

   Blah blah blah... (and so it goes on). Yawn.

   ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> #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 -

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 11 hours and 17 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:15:11 GMT

St. wrote:
> 
> "Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
> news:421f83a4$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>
>> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de
>> news:421e3e20@news.povray.org...
>>
>>>
>>>   I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of
>>
>> winning
>> Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...
> 
> 
>  I thought better of you.
> 
>   ~Steve~
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
> 
Steve, he's just giving you a "read".  Stop taking swings at people. 
You gotta calm down.

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 11 hours and 25 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:07:11 GMT

"Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
news:421f83a4$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de
> news:421e3e20@news.povray.org...
>>
>>   I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of
> winning
> Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...

  I thought better of you.

   ~Steve~




>
> Marc
>
>

[Marc Jacquier] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 11 hours and 33 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:59:32 GMT

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:421e3e20@news.povray.org...
>
>   I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of
winning
Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...

Marc

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 11 hours and 34 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:57:59 GMT

"ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message 
news:fftt11tt3t7t1g6iaegu6tc28tnip4gmqq@4ax.com...
> 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.

   'Flexibility' being the operative word here.

>
>> 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.

    The first part of the sentence, (before the 'dash'), was addressed to 
you, and the rest was aimed at everyone. 'Sour grapes' means that I did not 
like the end result of the contest, I wasn't happy with it. I felt 
'let-down'. Bemused, etc. For the record, I agree with the judges, and yes, 
Johnny's image was fantastic! Fair play to him, he deserved it.


>
>> 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.

  Nice try ABX. ;)  But, if you haven't noticed yet, I'm here to stay, so 
get used to it? :)


> 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 :-)

  I'm not about contests. I'm about PoV-Ray. Heck, I even put PoV-Comp on 
our website to get more people interested. I don't know if that worked, but 
I hope it got a few more people knowing POV. :)

    ~Steve~


>
> ABX

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 12 hours and 22 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:10:26 GMT

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message 
news:cvnq3t$3jc$1@chho.imagico.de...
> St. wrote:
>> 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"!
>
> I don't want to repeat what others have already replied but i would 
> seriously suggest you have a considerate look at the following aspects (in 
> fact this reply is not exclusively at you but also at others who might 
> feel strange about the ratings of their/others images or the judges 
> comments):
>
> - the organizers and the judges have put quite some work into offering the 
> users of POV-Ray this competition and in addition have been able to get 
> some sponsors to offer prizes for the winners.  If you don't like the 
> contest for some reasons you are welcome to suggest improvements (although 
> that's a bit late for POVCOMP 2004) as well as not to enter the contest (a 
> bit late as well) but to be frank, i find it somewhat unappreciative to 
> criticise the judges for the comments they have made (who are only trying 
> to support the artists improving their images with those comments) and the 
> organizers for the design of the contest (who are only trying to make the 
> contest most useful for the participants, the sponsors and POV-Ray).

    Sure, I understand this, but please, don't think I was unappreciative. I 
just think it was a waste of time for anyone not using pov only.



>
> - as far as i have seen none of the the judges' comments (which - as 
> others have already explained - do not necessarily reflect the judges 
> criteria to rate the images) in any way contradicts the judging criteria 
> that have been put up in the competition guidelines and that have received 
> in general a positive reaction before the competition end.

    I agree with you, it's a *great* competition! BUT, I think totally 
'neutral' judges should have been used.

   ~Steve~


>
> Christoph
>
> -- 
> POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
> HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
> Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 12 hours and 22 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:10:24 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f0fbd$1@news.povray.org...
> 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?

      My point is that if it was a 'pure pov only' contest, you wouldn't, 
and couldn't, have had the entries that you did. You 'had' to allow 
modellers. I bet you sighed with relief when you found out that image was 
pov only?

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

     No. I understand why this competition came about, and endorse any 
promotional media to do with pov.


>
>>      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.

  It's simple. The judges *shouldn't* have been disclosed for a start. Of 
the ones I know, I can *only* see one in that list that I would say is 
actually qualified to judge, and whatever you say, if I'd have entered, I 
would most certainly have felt that there was a bias towards myself by one 
of them. Sometimes it's difficult to tell what kind of 'mood' someone is in 
when they post, but you can *always* tell what attitude they have by *what* 
they post.

   ~Steve~




>
> -- 
> #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 ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 12 hours and 22 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:10:22 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f14ec@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?
>
>  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.

    Then what was the point of allowing modellers at all if a "bunch of 
meshes" on the screen is NOT going to have a chance of winning? If this 
wasn't about 'art' and rendering with PoV-Ray, then what was it about?


>
>>      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.

   Without risk of getting personal, you are talking down to me as though 
you are some kind of elevated level above me. You are not. You are on the 
same level as me and anyone else here.


>
>  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?

    Ok, what was "ground-breaking" in this contest? Was there *anything* 
"ground-breaking" at all? No. That was one of the criteria of even entering 
the contest, and yet, it wasn't there in my opinion.



>
>> >  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?

     I'm not calling *anyone* a liar. If you lied to me, and I knew it, THEN 
I'd call you a liar - no problem, so please quit it with the 'lying' facade. 
Heck, Warp, can't you see what my real problem with this whole thing is? It 
was judged by *some* people that in my opinion shouldn't have been judges. 
For instance, what qualified you as a judge? Are you an artist? What media 
do you use for applying your art, and what type of canvas? None? PoV only? 
Or do you use external modellers too? My point is that I am no more a judge 
than you are.

   If it was me, I would have asked some of the *best* CG artists out there, 
(with whatever tools *they* use), very nicely if they would like to be a 
judge, and wouldn't have *anyone* from PoV-Ray itself - someone 'neutral'. 
It's a well known fact that this happens all the time with any competition 
in the public domain.



>
>> 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.

    I meant 'exactly', as in, it wasn't secondary. The method of production 
in 'your' eyes was 'pov only'. Tell the truth Warp, did you judge *solely* 
on what the image looked like? Or did you take into account that an image 
used pov only?



>
>>   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.

    Now you're not making sense.


>
>> >  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
>> £50 an hour.
>
>  Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps we should give you a refund?

    Don't be pedantic. I only earn that around Christmas time, and most of 
the other time, I probably earn less than the minimum wage here in the UK. 
My analogy is sound because I compare it with the effort that I put in only 
to see that "(instead of resorting to cheap meshes created by third-party 
tools)" is the *real* cludge here.


>
>> >>   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.

  <sigh> And there you go. A judge calling someone an idiot. So you 
concluded that I was an idiot before, then? That's the first time you've 
called me an idiot, but it was already in your head. I rest my case with you 
being a judge, and biased towards me. I've met you before. If I'd have 
entered, and everyone else thought my image was the best, I bet you would 
have argued against them. Tell me you wouldn't have.


>  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.

  There's that elevated level again. You won't go far Warp.

   ~Steve~

[Christoph Hormann] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 13 hours and 12 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:20:02 GMT

St. wrote:
> 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"!

I don't want to repeat what others have already replied but i would 
seriously suggest you have a considerate look at the following aspects 
(in fact this reply is not exclusively at you but also at others who 
might feel strange about the ratings of their/others images or the 
judges comments):

- the organizers and the judges have put quite some work into offering 
the users of POV-Ray this competition and in addition have been able to 
get some sponsors to offer prizes for the winners.  If you don't like 
the contest for some reasons you are welcome to suggest improvements 
(although that's a bit late for POVCOMP 2004) as well as not to enter 
the contest (a bit late as well) but to be frank, i find it somewhat 
unappreciative to criticise the judges for the comments they have made 
(who are only trying to support the artists improving their images with 
those comments) and the organizers for the design of the contest (who 
are only trying to make the contest most useful for the participants, 
the sponsors and POV-Ray).

- as far as i have seen none of the the judges' comments (which - as 
others have already explained - do not necessarily reflect the judges 
criteria to rate the images) in any way contradicts the judging criteria 
that have been put up in the competition guidelines and that have 
received in general a positive reaction before the competition end.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

[Gilles Tran] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 13 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:05:34 GMT

"Chris" <lho### [at] nwlinkcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:web.421f5b5acbe05eba999befe70@news.povray.org...

>    Also, I have to take a very mild exception to Gilles'comment about
> Rhino not being a hobbyist tool. Compared to what I use at work, Rhino is
> more of a toy than a realistic production tool.

I should have cited CATIA then ;)
Well, yes, a few POV-Ray hobbyists have invested in Rhino (including me), so
it's also a hobbyist tool. I just meant that it wasn't part of the
traditional toolbox of free and low-cost apps since most hobbyists aren't
willing to shell out $900 for a modeller.

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 14 hours ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:32:31 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

> You can have my hose.  

You gaddamned cabana boy

[Chris] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 14 hours and 22 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:10:00 GMT

As someone who entered an image that was almost all 3rd party meshes,
I feel that I need to make a comment here. First, I do not feel that
"POVRAY only" created images were given a big advantage over using
third party modelers. I used Rhino to speed things up so that I could
put my effort into texturing, lighting, etc. I am terrible at using the
more advanced POVRAY geometry functions and didn't feel that I had the
time to learn how to use them and still create a good scene. My failure
to win first prize is obvious to me, not enough artistic expression
or "flare" (not "SDL only" modeling preference). I did a lot of
experimenting to find the right density of meshing to acheive a good look
in the enlarged views and to find textures that looked good enlarged as
well. I do not feel that the effort was wasted in any way by any so-called
preference for SDL only created images.
   Also, I have to take a very mild exception to Gilles'comment about
Rhino not being a hobbyist tool. Compared to what I use at work, Rhino is
more of a toy than a realistic production tool.
   Anyway, I will probably use the same tools and techniques for the next
contest and spend my time between now and then refining my knowledge of
POVRAY. Its a great tool and fun to work with in conjunction with the other
tools that are available.

Chris Holtorf

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 14 hours and 26 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:06:53 GMT

Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>>  As I have already said in another article, this was a competition to
>>>show the capabilities of POV-Ray, 
> 

You are welcome to your interpretation of this of course, but some 
broader interpretations may alos be valid.

> 
>>Which you associate exclusively with CSG
> 
> 
>   You seem to have the same obsession as St. has.

I see myself as standing beside St., yes, though I don't agree with all 
he is saying.

> 
>   Since composing the entire scene with third-party models was considered
> negative (because it basically uses just one single POV-Ray feature:
> mesh rendering), you now are completely convinced that meshes were
> completely forbidden and that if an entry used even one single mesh
> it would have not won.

No I believe one judge in a few comments indulged in proselytizing 
against the viability of mesh modeling.  And that that is dangerous 
because when stated by an official, can induce a generalized set of 
values and preferences.

> 
>   You also seem to know better what I mean by "to show the capabilities
> of POV-Ray" than I do, and seemingly no amount of explaining will
> convince you otherwise.
> 

This more than anything confirms my opinion of the situation.

>   Are you calling me a liar too?
> 
Not sure where that came from but my intentions here are simply to raise 
  awareness I denote as articulately as I possibly can how statements 
can reverbiate.

> 
>>not a competition to show how POV-Ray
>>
>>>can project meshes onto the screen.
> 
> 
>>only how it can project primitives onto the screen
> 
> 
>   Uh? You call algorithmic programming, isosurface tracing, sphere sweep
> generation, procedural texturing and other features "projecting primitives
> onto the screen"?
>   If so, you have a pretty limited view of what POV-Ray can do.
>

let's remember one of the quotes:
Big plus for creative use of POV-Ray primitives and CSG (instead just 
using cheap meshes).

The point is that it is the commentor who drew a comparison that appears 
limited.

> 
>>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"
> 
> 
>   Because it shows the power of a third-party modeller program, not the
> power of POV-Ray. It's just a cheap way of getting pretty images generated
> by POV-Ray, using less than 1% of its features. You could as well use
> any other renderer to get the image from the models.

This raises some interesting aspects of the whole promotional dilemma 
because in light of what you say, I am equally unsure that SDL, while a 
unique thing, is really the basket where I'd want to put all of my eggs 
so to speak.  But you are the insider and I am not and that does not 
bear directly on what angered me here anyway.  More helpful to say this. 
  If I understand the intention of your words correctly, in light of a 
desire to see the creative possibilities of sdl as a modeler explored as 
much as possible, the substitution of mesh looks easy or "cheap".  Valid 
to a point, but a couple of things:  The syntax of the comment suggests 
mesh by its nature is always "cheap" not just its use in a contest with 
  prestated preferences.  Also, the reader may not be aware that you 
meant the word in context or have any way of understanding that context. 
  Finally, even when prestated, it really is a bias.

>   The animal shown in the winner image can probably be made in 10 minutes
> with a graphical nurbs modeller by someone experienced. As such it would
> have not shown any talent nor dedication at all. However, using POV-Ray's
> own means to create the figure showed creativeness and talent.
>   And that was just the simplest part of the image. Using isosurfaces
> for the ship was simply awesome. If the entire ship had been a mesh
> created in another program, there wouldn't have been anything impressive
> about it (at least without knowing how exactly it was done; if it was
> done just by moving vertices around with the mouse then there's nothing
> impressive in that; it would have been a "cheap" way of doing it, regardless
> of how long it took to move all the vertices with a mouse).
> 
> 
>>At worst it is proselytizing, even gloating, in light of a known and 
>>inflamed controversy.
> 
> 
>   You are seeing more than there is in the comments.
> 
Again, glad to hear it.  But again the point is, when spoken in an 
official capacity or even in an official context, words should be chosen 
carefully because they are always going to be interpreted at the 
convenience of the audience.  Every manager learns this nasty lesson.

[emkaah] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 14 hours and 28 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:04:25 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> I did enjoy it.  :-)
> 
> Other people apparently didn't. :-(
> 
> My point was simply that these large prizes elevated this competition to a 
> level that we are not used to seeing around here.  The number of entrants 
> was relatively small.

I think quality is more important than quantity.

> 
> We've had a similar turn-out for the IRTC, which doesn't even have prizes 
> anymore.  Sure, I would have liked to have won, and I'm sure that's why we 
> had many of our top POVers competing.  But almost all of those people have 
> also competed in the IRTC, for nothing.  Much less pressure and (when taken 
> as a whole) has produced comparable images.  Something bridging the gap 
> between the two competitions seems ideal to me.
> 

I think that POVcomp has many more images of high quality then any IRTC 
round.

If you look for example to what the winner Johnny Yip did for the IRTC,

http://exether.free.fr/irtc/stills/author_johnny_yip.html

then I think that he outdid himself in this competition. And I think 
that many competitors upped their level with POV here (except maybe for 
Jaime Vives Piqueres, who has reach the top of depicting kitchens some 
time ago :) ).

It seems that for many extra incentive can be beneficial, while some 
others have more trouble handling the pressure.

-Em

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 14 hours and 56 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:36:24 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:421f49a1$1@news.povray.org...
> Like Gilles and yourself I am now only interested in manning the firehose.
>

For what it's worth, I think your post had more of an impact due to your 
previous restraint.

You can have my hose.  I need to get out of here, and actually do some new 
stuff in POV-Ray...  :-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 15 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:25:12 GMT

"emkaah" <emkaah@yahoodotcom> wrote in message 
news:421f47f7$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Why can't you enjoy the competition with a top prize? I don't know if 
> *most of us* would like a competition with simply a free poster for the 
> winner. Although it is healthy to set your goal realistically (a place in 
> the top 10 or top 20, for example), a big prize gives a good incentive to 
> give it your best (top 10 would be ok, but winning is better:) ). Winning 
> a competition where judging is involved mostly incorporates a bit of luck 
> anyway (although in POVcomp the winner is apparent, in most competitions 
> the top five can be very close).
>
> As you say most people enjoy the New York Marathon, while there are hefty 
> prizes to win.
>
> http://www.ingnycmarathon.org/entrantinfo/prizemoney.html
>
> So, I repeat, why can't you enjoy POVcomp with a top prize?
>


I did enjoy it.  :-)

Other people apparently didn't. :-(

My point was simply that these large prizes elevated this competition to a 
level that we are not used to seeing around here.  The number of entrants 
was relatively small.

We've had a similar turn-out for the IRTC, which doesn't even have prizes 
anymore.  Sure, I would have liked to have won, and I'm sure that's why we 
had many of our top POVers competing.  But almost all of those people have 
also competed in the IRTC, for nothing.  Much less pressure and (when taken 
as a whole) has produced comparable images.  Something bridging the gap 
between the two competitions seems ideal to me.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 15 hours and 29 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:03:17 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f3f60@news.povray.org...
>
>> In an impossible to achieve hypothetical situation, if there were 3
>> identical images where one consisted completely of 3rd party models
>> (purchased or free), one consisted of models the author created using a
>> modeller, and one consisted only of CSG (nothing external to POV-Ray),
>> should the latter not score highest in competition to show the full
>> potential of POV-Ray?
>
>  A fourth entry using imported models and other POV-Ray primitives in
> a creative and skillful way would have probably be the strongest
> candidate. Curious that you didn't give this as an option at all.
>


Good point.  I guess I just didn't want to make the example overly 
complicated.  POV-Ray does meshes.  A CSG-only entry does not show this 
fact.  So, something with CSG and meshes (all other things being equal) 
would probably show off more features of POV-Ray than a CSG-only entry, or a 
mesh-only entry.  I get it.  I think some of these frustrations go beyond 
POVCOMP, but some of the crass comments reinforced certain fears/anxiety 
that many of us had.

This was really just a small competition.  The big prizes made it seem like 
it was more than it really was.  In essence, the prizes dwarfed many of the 
other aspects.  Minor blunders became huge blunders.  Minor nit-picks became 
huge nit-picks.  The participants were elevated to a level of which they 
were not at all accustomed.  Perhaps the same could be said of the judges. 
We were amateurs competing for professional-level prizes.  Many may have had 
unrealistic expectations, given their inexperience.  It has exacted a 
toll... Or many small tolls, perhaps.  I never saw it coming.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 15 hours and 40 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:52:01 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

I agree with your breakdown of this and it is fairly stated. I also 
thank you for re-emphasizing that the commentary was well intentioned 
and much appreciated.  Again, some comments, which may have been very 
well intentioned too, look like editorializing and betray a bias 
strongly enough that one has to believe they are from the same person. 
That was the threshold for me.  I think it was the wrong place to 
indulge in this and justifyably warrented some criticism. Myself, I was 
ready to let it go. But St. reacted and I believe his original feeling 
of anger, at least, was valid. So I made the decision to not let him 
twist alone since I had experienced the same reaction. Now I have stated 
my criticism. I only wished to raise the level of awareness. Nothing 
about this is so egregious to be worth any more of our time here. Like 
Gilles and yourself I am now only interested in manning the firehose.

I will state only one thing further.  I truly regret that any particular 
picture was drawn into the discussion.  In my mind it was never, ever 
about particular pictures.

[emkaah] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 15 hours and 48 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:44:55 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> 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.
> 

Why can't you enjoy the competition with a top prize? I don't know if 
*most of us* would like a competition with simply a free poster for the 
winner. Although it is healthy to set your goal realistically (a place 
in the top 10 or top 20, for example), a big prize gives a good 
incentive to give it your best (top 10 would be ok, but winning is 
better:) ). Winning a competition where judging is involved mostly 
incorporates a bit of luck anyway (although in POVcomp the winner is 
apparent, in most competitions the top five can be very close).

As you say most people enjoy the New York Marathon, while there are 
hefty prizes to win.

http://www.ingnycmarathon.org/entrantinfo/prizemoney.html

So, I repeat, why can't you enjoy POVcomp with a top prize?

-Em

[Ross] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 16 hours and 4 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:28:14 GMT

"fa3ien" <fab### [at] meschaussuresskynetbe> wrote in message
news:421f13d1$1@news.povray.org...
> St. a écrit :
>
> > 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.

It was posted recently in p.b.i, i'm pretty sure it was the Pinball scene.
(correct me if i am wrong)

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 16 hours and 24 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:08:16 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
>  To me, that means that 
> despite any comments to the contrary, it appears that the judges did not 
> apply a CSG-centric bias to any appreciable degree.

  What I don't understand is why some people seem to have got a fanatic
obsession about judges requiring CSG-only entries based on comments
which give negative feedback on using third-party models excessively.
No amount of explanation seems to convince them otherwise.

  It looks like they can think only in binary: Either you accept
scenes modelled 100% in a third-party program, or else you only
accept scenes made 100% in POV-Ray. There's no middle ground and
if anyone (specially a judge) denies that he is a liar.

  I don't understand what is so freaking hard to understand in the
concept that it's perfectly ok to use third-party models but not to
model your entire image with them (because that was really not what
this competition was about).
  I have been trying to say this in a multitude of ways, for no avail.
The only response I get is that it's bullshit, thus effectively calling
me a liar.

> In an impossible to achieve hypothetical situation, if there were 3 
> identical images where one consisted completely of 3rd party models 
> (purchased or free), one consisted of models the author created using a 
> modeller, and one consisted only of CSG (nothing external to POV-Ray), 
> should the latter not score highest in competition to show the full 
> potential of POV-Ray?

  A fourth entry using imported models and other POV-Ray primitives in
a creative and skillful way would have probably be the strongest
candidate. Curious that you didn't give this as an option at all.

-- 
#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 -

[Mike Raiford] Re: photography to povcomp equivalence? [7719 days 16 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:05:42 GMT

Eli wrote:
> watch and read what I found at http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-Parasail.htm, 
> it's hilarious 

Haha.. Wonder if they're getting a good enough view of the scenery below :)

-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 17 hours and 8 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:24:25 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:421e6be0$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
> Steve you echo a lot of my own anger.
>
> I was trying to find a way to rise above this dispute.  But I guess not.
>
> So I'll say this. I thought that fact that one of the judges would 
> repeatedly use the comments section as a soapbox for this ridiculous bias 
> of his was in extremely poor form.  I was more than a little shocked that 
> such bias was represented on the judging panel at all, and even more so 
> that these petty-minded opinions were allowed to see the light of day. 
> For me it is extremely disheartening, not in the least because I enjoy 
> "pure" csg extremely, and now actually find it hard to use because this 
> "issue" has been so stupidly politicized.  These comments are, in my 
> opinion, low-minded, retrograd, and do not reflect the spirit of POV-Ray.
>

When I read some of the comments on the top images, I felt that way too. 
After the deadline extension, I basically added a few mesh objects to my 
image (and replaced some CSG objects with other CSG objects), which I 
thought would improve it.  Those comments made me wonder if I had actually 
done the wrong thing.

But after reading many of the judges comments (I still have not read them 
all), I realized that in many cases, participants were lauded for their 
effective use of 3rd party modellers.  The position that "Twin girls with a 
pearl earring" achieved is directly contradictory to that kind of thinking. 
While some of the comments came across as being negative and sometimes even 
crass, I think that such things were largely limited to the comments area. 
I have showed the winning entries to several people who know nothing about 
POV-Ray, and overall, they agree with the judging.  To me, that means that 
despite any comments to the contrary, it appears that the judges did not 
apply a CSG-centric bias to any appreciable degree.  And again, those 
comments which implied more weight for CSG seemed rare, in my opinion.

Point blank:
In an impossible to achieve hypothetical situation, if there were 3 
identical images where one consisted completely of 3rd party models 
(purchased or free), one consisted of models the author created using a 
modeller, and one consisted only of CSG (nothing external to POV-Ray), 
should the latter not score highest in competition to show the full 
potential of POV-Ray?  In the big picture, perhaps they should all be given 
equal weight, but this competition had a more narrow goal.  The amount of 
weight that CSG was given seems evident by the judging, and it does not 
appear to me that it was very appreciable.

This is just my opinion and as you know, I do have some CSG bias, along with 
a procedural texturing bias.  My point here is simply that such biases do 
not appear to have impacted the judges decisions any more than what seemed 
relevant given the scope of this competition.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Gilles Tran] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 18 hours and 9 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:23:49 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de
news:421f19b4@news.povray.org...

>   The animal shown in the winner image can probably be made in 10 minutes
> with a graphical nurbs modeller by someone experienced. As such it would
> have not shown any talent nor dedication at all.

Hmm, don't fan the flames here. Using a modeller is difficult, and it
requires a nice amount of talent and dedication to be (finally) able to
churn out a model like this in 10 minutes.

>If the entire ship had been a mesh created in another program, there
wouldn't
>have been anything impressive about it (at least without knowing how
exactly it
>was done; if it was done just by moving vertices around with the mouse then
>there's nothing impressive in that; it would have been a "cheap" way of
doing
>it, regardless of how long it took to move all the vertices with a mouse).

Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a "cheap" way of modelling complex
objects by just moving vertices around. The concept of modellers being
somehow miracle tools is just an oft-repeated legend somehow popular in
POV-Ray circles (along with the
"miracle-plug-in-that-does-everything-in-the-blink-of-an-eye" one). I guess
every 3D artist out there wishes that the legends were true, but the reality
is that (mesh/Nurbs/SSS) modelling is *** very *** hard work. I'm very much
a beginner after a year of modelling stuff in C4D and it's a very
user-friendly app.

If Johnny Yip had done the ship with a modeller it would still be a superb
modelling effort.

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 18 hours and 45 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:47:07 GMT

Warp wrote:
> 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.

Glad to hear it.

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

Some comments strongly suggested a selective appreciation for a limited 
set of POV-Ray features, and by extension, a flawed appreciation for the 
whole of what it takes to make a good picture with POV-Ray, and by 
further extension, a predelection for subjects and creative approaches 
that are best supported by these limited set of features.  Is that 
wrong?  No.  Is it bad? Depends. But probably. Because it is reductive 
and views POV-Ray mostly as an end in itself discouraging those who are 
attracted to an open and creative enterprise. But it does provide safe 
harbour for certain people with a narrow set of tastes. If that is good, 
then it's good. Is it disheartening, enervating, angering, and 
discouraging?  For some of us, Yes.  For others, I suppose not, though I 
find that sad.

[Gilles Tran] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 19 hours and 3 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:29:49 GMT

"fa3ien" <fab### [at] meschaussuresskynetbe> a écrit dans le message de
news:421f13d1$1@news.povray.org...

> Which was your image, BTW ?

He worked on an image but didn't submit it.

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 19 hours and 5 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:27:32 GMT

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> 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

  You seem to have the same obsession as St. has.

  Since composing the entire scene with third-party models was considered
negative (because it basically uses just one single POV-Ray feature:
mesh rendering), you now are completely convinced that meshes were
completely forbidden and that if an entry used even one single mesh
it would have not won.

  You also seem to know better what I mean by "to show the capabilities
of POV-Ray" than I do, and seemingly no amount of explaining will
convince you otherwise.

  Are you calling me a liar too?

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

> only how it can project primitives onto the screen

  Uh? You call algorithmic programming, isosurface tracing, sphere sweep
generation, procedural texturing and other features "projecting primitives
onto the screen"?
  If so, you have a pretty limited view of what POV-Ray can do.

> 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"

  Because it shows the power of a third-party modeller program, not the
power of POV-Ray. It's just a cheap way of getting pretty images generated
by POV-Ray, using less than 1% of its features. You could as well use
any other renderer to get the image from the models.
  The animal shown in the winner image can probably be made in 10 minutes
with a graphical nurbs modeller by someone experienced. As such it would
have not shown any talent nor dedication at all. However, using POV-Ray's
own means to create the figure showed creativeness and talent.
  And that was just the simplest part of the image. Using isosurfaces
for the ship was simply awesome. If the entire ship had been a mesh
created in another program, there wouldn't have been anything impressive
about it (at least without knowing how exactly it was done; if it was
done just by moving vertices around with the mouse then there's nothing
impressive in that; it would have been a "cheap" way of doing it, regardless
of how long it took to move all the vertices with a mouse).

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

  You are seeing more than there is in the comments.

-- 
#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 -

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 19 hours and 21 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:11:12 GMT

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 -

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 19 hours and 25 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:07:08 GMT

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 
> £50 an hour.

  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 -

[fa3ien] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 19 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:02:25 GMT

St. a écrit :

> 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.

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 19 hours and 44 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:48:27 GMT

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 -

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 19 hours and 47 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:45:01 GMT

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 -

[ABX] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7719 days 21 hours and 23 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:09:50 GMT

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 ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 1 hour and 10 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:22:12 GMT

"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~

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 1 hour and 10 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:22:10 GMT

"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 
£50 an hour.


>  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 -

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 5 hours and 15 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:17:21 GMT

Gilles Tran wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
> 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.

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 5 hours and 39 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:53:54 GMT

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.

[Renderdog] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 6 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:30:01 GMT

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

> 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.

> I hope you're not taking the #### with that statement. Seriously. ;)

Sorry, I don't understand this.

> 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.

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 6 hours and 22 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:10:46 GMT

"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?

   ~Steve~



>
> -- 
> #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 -

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 11 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:21:41 GMT

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>  I'll find it easy to NOT enter another povcomp now, 
> unless of course, I use pure SDL.

  Will you please stop this bigoted ranting?

  No-one has ever said that a scene must be made entirely in SDL to win.
Imported models were just ok.
  What was felt as negative was the excessive use of them.

  Can't you really understand the difference?

-- 
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] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 14 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:18:06 GMT

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> So I'll say this. I thought that fact that one of the judges would 
> repeatedly use the comments section as a soapbox for this ridiculous 
> bias of his was in extremely poor form.  I was more than a little 
> shocked that such bias was represented on the judging panel at all, and 
> even more so that these petty-minded opinions were allowed to see the 
> light of day.  For me it is extremely disheartening, not in the least 
> because I enjoy "pure" csg extremely, and now actually find it hard to 
> use because this "issue" has been so stupidly politicized.  These 
> comments are, in my opinion, low-minded, retrograd, and do not reflect 
> the spirit of POV-Ray.

  The comments only reflected the goal of the competition.

  As I have already said in another article, this was a competition to
show the capabilities of POV-Ray, not a competition to show how POV-Ray
can project meshes 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?

  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".

-- 
#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 ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 22 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:10:20 GMT

"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.

  I know that, but wouldn't ever have won *anyway* with the way I WANTED TO 
USE IT.

   POVCOMP won't happen again, (I haven't had answers to my question about 
if POVCOMP will happen again). But many images, made 'their' day.

 How you were "tempted" and "enticed"
> to use it I'm not sure I want to know :-),

I hope you're not taking the #### with that statement. Seriously. ;)

but you certainly weren't
> forced and the rules and guidelines were there for all to read.

  Oh, please RD. Did I say 'forced' anywhere in my post?! No.

  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. ;)

   ~Steve~

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:05:54 GMT

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>     Ross, no third party models were used in my image. They were all mine. 
> Around 150+ made in Wings.

  So, is it your opinion that since you made 150+ objects in Wings you
should have won the competition?

>    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.

  And still you dare to argument that you would have not won because
you were using too many imported models?
  Pretty big assumptions you make...

>     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?

  There's a big difference between using external models and composing
your entire scene solely of external models.
  The objective of the competition was not to show how POV-Ray can be
used to project meshes onto the screen.

-- 
#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 -

[Jim Charter] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:05:52 GMT

St. wrote:

Steve you echo a lot of my own anger.

I was trying to find a way to rise above this dispute.  But I guess not.

So I'll say this. I thought that fact that one of the judges would 
repeatedly use the comments section as a soapbox for this ridiculous 
bias of his was in extremely poor form.  I was more than a little 
shocked that such bias was represented on the judging panel at all, and 
even more so that these petty-minded opinions were allowed to see the 
light of day.  For me it is extremely disheartening, not in the least 
because I enjoy "pure" csg extremely, and now actually find it hard to 
use because this "issue" has been so stupidly politicized.  These 
comments are, in my opinion, low-minded, retrograd, and do not reflect 
the spirit of POV-Ray.

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 33 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:58:58 GMT

Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> "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.

  A capability. One.

  Imported models were not judged negatively in any way. Basing the
entire image on imported models was because that is using just one
single POV-Ray feature. The goal of the competition was to get more
than that.

> 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.

  Victoria's World did not win because it was not considered by the
judges to be better than the other three images. While the extensive
usage of imported models might have had some effect on whether it got
third or fourth place, it would have not won the first prize even if
it had been done 100% in pov. I'm pretty certain of this.

-- 
#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 -

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 40 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:52:10 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
> 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.

  Yes, we have seen several times already (the ones seen in here are
not the only ones) that when there's money involved, some people will
cause quite a lot of fuss.

-- 
#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 -

[Gilles Tran] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:50:47 GMT

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
421e3e20@news.povray.org...
>  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!!)

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.

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). 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. 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?

The winner is a POV-only picture AND it also happens to be a fantastic 
picture. 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. The winning image used CSG very wisely with superior results, that's 
all.

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. These are personal opinions, not official statements.

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 44 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:48:03 GMT

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 -

[Warp] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:42:21 GMT

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 ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:40:04 GMT

"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~


>
>

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 7 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:40:02 GMT

"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] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 9 hours and 4 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:28:05 GMT

"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]

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 9 hours and 25 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:07:22 GMT

"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

[Renderdog] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 9 hours and 47 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:45:01 GMT

"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.

[St ] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 10 hours and 16 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:16:04 GMT

"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

[ABX] Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 10 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:02:44 GMT

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

[St ] Why I won't enter PoVComp again. [7720 days 10 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:50:40 GMT

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.

[Eli] Re: photography to povcomp equivalence? [7720 days 13 hours and 35 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:57:09 GMT

watch and read what I found at http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-Parasail.htm, 
it's hilarious

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Commenting on entries [7720 days 16 hours and 41 minutes ago]

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:51:55 GMT

"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:421cfad9$1@news.povray.org...
>
> To be fair, I'm not too happy with the comments (starting with mine). Some 
> people feel that they are too negative and indeed they are, which is both 
> unavoidable (only positive comments wouldn't make much sense) and not very 
> nice for the artists. A diplomatic touch is necessary when writing 
> comments, but after penning a few dozens of them the varnish wears off...

My first reaction was that they were rather negative, but later I realized 
that the intent was to be helpful.  Nevertheless, it occurred to me that 
since these images were meant to showcase POV-Ray's features, I'm not sure 
how such comments would be viewed by an outsider.

More detailed comments would have been nice, but obviously, that's a bit 
much to ask.  I think each of us would have liked several paragraphs from 
each of the judges, but, well, let's get real.  ;-)

>
> Allowing comments could be interesting, but I'm not sure that there will 
> be much interest now that the competition is over, at least not enough to 
> warrant further development of the interface for the time being. 
> Registration should be mandatory to avoid spam, and in any case the 
> comments would have to be moderated so it's not straightforward. I don't 
> want some idiot to be able add "this pic sucks" under every image and have 
> this indexed in Google before anyone sees it. I guess that the system 
> should be built to accept public comments from the very start for this to 
> work without too much trouble.

You're probably right.  I was just over at Photo.net recently, and I was 
reading all of the comments.  It made me think about this.  As Jim said, 
there is always a lot of "Great pic, d00d!" comments, that don't mean a 
whole lot, and there are always art critics who know nothing about art.  But 
taken as a whole, I think the comments are relevant.  I don't know how many 
viewers we have at POVCOMP, but I would guess it's nowhere near Photo.net's 
viewership (though we all wish that weren't so).  And as you suggest, there 
would probably be less enthusiasm for posting comments at this point.  If we 
have another such competition, I hope that we have some way of allowing 
comments, even if they are only made by the participants.

>
> However, I'm all for starting threads here about the images, such as the 
> one you suggest.
>

I don't disagree with that idea, but I also think if falls short of a 
broader comment-system.  Not everyone who participated (or viewed) the 
POVCOMP entries posts in this newsgroup.  And it's sometimes good to get 
"outside" opinions, too.  It can sometimes be a "breath of fresh air".

I appreciate the work that was done by everyone involved.  I'm just stating 
my opinions, as usual.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Jim Charter] Re: Commenting on entries [7721 days 9 hours and 19 minutes ago]

Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:12:58 GMT

Gilles Tran wrote:

> To be fair, I'm not too happy with the comments (starting with mine). Some 
> people feel that they are too negative and indeed they are, which is both 
> unavoidable (only positive comments wouldn't make much sense) and not very 
> nice for the artists. A diplomatic touch is necessary when writing comments, 
> but after penning a few dozens of them the varnish wears off...

Part of the problem is that the comments can be read, one after another, 
all of a piece.  It is when read in that way that they can appear 
unremittingly negative.  For the individual artist, reading just the 
comments for his/her entry, it may not be so bad.  I think the artist 
really does want to know the negatives.  You may not agree, and it may 
make you angry, but you still want to know.  It is nicer to have it 
delivered with a spoonful of sugar though.

I thought the commentors did try to leave the safe ground of technical 
concerns from time to time, which was a relief, and there was often a 
good natured, coach-like tone.  Certainly these efforts started to flag 
but again, I find it entirely understandable.  I rarely make comments in 
the IRTC.  But I think it is fun and even necessary to write some 
"appreciation" from time to time.

> However, I'm all for starting threads here about the images, such as the one 
> you suggest.
> 

My point is to keep it oblique and open ended and let the chips fall. 
Any attempt to be comprehensive will be deadly.

[Gilles Tran] Re: Commenting on entries [7721 days 9 hours and 41 minutes ago]

Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:51:21 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
421bb142$1@news.povray.org...

> Which, btw, thanks to the judges for making comments on the images. Even 
> if brief, and technical in nature, it is still a difficult thing to do for 
> more than a handful of images, and I, for one, appreciated the effort that 
> was made.

To be fair, I'm not too happy with the comments (starting with mine). Some 
people feel that they are too negative and indeed they are, which is both 
unavoidable (only positive comments wouldn't make much sense) and not very 
nice for the artists. A diplomatic touch is necessary when writing comments, 
but after penning a few dozens of them the varnish wears off...

> I don't know Jeremy, this group seems as appropriate a place as any. Maybe 
> start a thread "What image has meaning for you and why?"

Allowing comments could be interesting, but I'm not sure that there will be 
much interest now that the competition is over, at least not enough to 
warrant further development of the interface for the time being. 
Registration should be mandatory to avoid spam, and in any case the comments 
would have to be moderated so it's not straightforward. I don't want some 
idiot to be able add "this pic sucks" under every image and have this 
indexed in Google before anyone sees it. I guess that the system should be 
built to accept public comments from the very start for this to work without 
too much trouble.

However, I'm all for starting threads here about the images, such as the one 
you suggest.

G.

[Jim Charter] Re: Commenting on entries [7722 days 9 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:25:06 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> Just a thought:
> 
> The IRTC has a way for just about anyone to post comments on a particular 
> image (though perhaps they have to be registered).  I (and many others) have 
> generally found such comments to be helpful.  I think it would be nice to 
> add that feature to the POVCOMP entries, but I have no idea how much trouble 
> that would be.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

My expectation is that it will garner the usual "great image!" "dude, 
your image rocks!" sort of thing.

I remember when I think it was Renderdog that spearheaded an attempt to 
talk about images during the "technology" round, that I picked up on. 
It was a very exhausting exercise.

Which, btw, thanks to the judges for making comments on the images. 
Even if brief, and technical in nature, it is still a difficult thing to 
do for more than a handful of images, and I, for one, appreciated the 
effort that was made.

I don't know Jeremy, this group seems as appropriate a place as any. 
Maybe start a thread "What image has meaning for you and why?"

[Slime] Re: Commenting on entries [7722 days 10 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:00:32 GMT

> The IRTC has a way for just about anyone to post comments on a particular
> image (though perhaps they have to be registered).  I (and many others)
have
> generally found such comments to be helpful.  I think it would be nice to
> add that feature to the POVCOMP entries, but I have no idea how much
trouble
> that would be.


I've thought of the same thing. Even if there were no way to add it to the
website, it would be nice if we could set up some sort of way of commenting;
maybe through the POV-Ray wiki, or maybe even a big newsgroup thread with
one sub-thread per image. Of course, if it were on the website it would get
a lot more attention.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Jeremy M Praay] Commenting on entries [7722 days 11 hours and 37 minutes ago]

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:55:11 GMT

Just a thought:

The IRTC has a way for just about anyone to post comments on a particular 
image (though perhaps they have to be registered).  I (and many others) have 
generally found such comments to be helpful.  I think it would be nice to 
add that feature to the POVCOMP entries, but I have no idea how much trouble 
that would be.

Thanks.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[selsek] Re: Source [7722 days 18 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:41:58 GMT

> Not many released their source for the competition (six of the
> top 25). I'd hoped to see more. I guess it's hard to let your baby
> go after so much hard work.

I only put a part of the scene (the whole scene without the cyborg), 
because i was on a 56k modem, so the mesh would have been to big to upload 
it. Besides that, that's right that it's hard to lat my whole baby go... 
but since my picture was done with simple code, i let it go.
But you only miss a mesh.

selsek

[Warp] Re: Who were the judges? [7724 days 5 hours and 59 minutes ago]

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:33:44 GMT

Coconut_Crab <jac### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Who were the judges?

http://www.povcomp.com/judges.php

-- 
#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 -

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Who were the judges? [7724 days 6 hours and 54 minutes ago]

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:38:36 GMT

From http://www.povcomp.com we get:

"We would like to thank our sponsors Appro, AMD, Zazzle, and Planet Mirror 
for making this competition possible, plus our judges Dennis Miller, Evan 
Hallein, David Hook, Gilles Tran, Lance Birch, and Juha ('Warp') Nieminen 
for taking time out of their busy schedules over the past two weeks to rank 
the entries."


-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Coconut Crab] Who were the judges? [7724 days 7 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:05:01 GMT

Who were the judges?

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Source [7724 days 13 hours and 9 minutes ago]

Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:23:39 GMT

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message 
news:42185d98$1@news.povray.org...
> Renderdog wrote:
>> Not many released their source for the competition (six of the
>> top 25). I'd hoped to see more. I guess it's hard to let your baby
>> go after so much hard work.
>
>   Don't worry: you will see more... and not only mine, I suspect.
>

I plan to release mine as well, without the mice and possibly a couple other 
minor objects, due to copyright issues.

Mostly, laziness prevented me from releasing it during the competition. 
Right now, it's in a directory with a few hundred megabytes of "old junk": 
objects that never got used, previous renders, etc.

The POVCOMP folks sent us an email stating that the winners (top 25), will 
need to submit their source.  When doing so, there will be a public and 
private area.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Marc Jacquier] Re: Source [7724 days 19 hours and 22 minutes ago]

Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:10:13 GMT

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> a écrit dans le message de
news:web.421867997acb572765f1eb720@news.povray.org...
> "Marc Jacquier" wrote:
> > "Jaime Vives Piqueres" wrote:
> > >    Don't worry: you will see more... and not only mine, I suspect.
> > I'm currently checking mine's portability.
> > It'll be uploaded in the public area.
>
> Wow, that's great, two of my favorites!
Thanks :)
>
> Any chance we'll see a "Making of..." from either of you?
Eerr I'm afraid I have not a lot of early material and my memory fails on
some aspects of the making of but I'll try to

Marc

[Renderdog] Re: Source [7724 days 20 hours and 57 minutes ago]

Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:35:00 GMT

"Marc Jacquier" wrote:
> "Jaime Vives Piqueres" wrote:
> >    Don't worry: you will see more... and not only mine, I suspect.
> I'm currently checking mine's portability.
> It'll be uploaded in the public area.

Wow, that's great, two of my favorites!

Any chance we'll see a "Making of..." from either of you?

[Marc Jacquier] Re: Source [7724 days 21 hours and 33 minutes ago]

Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:59:03 GMT

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> a écrit dans le message
de news:42185d98$1@news.povray.org...
>    Don't worry: you will see more... and not only mine, I suspect.
I'm currently checking mine's portability.
It'll be uploaded in the public area.

Marc

[Jaime Vives Piqueres] Re: Source [7724 days 21 hours and 41 minutes ago]

Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:51:20 GMT

Renderdog wrote:
> Not many released their source for the competition (six of the
> top 25). I'd hoped to see more. I guess it's hard to let your baby
> go after so much hard work.

   Don't worry: you will see more... and not only mine, I suspect.

--
Jaime

[Renderdog] Source [7724 days 22 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:25:00 GMT

Not many released their source for the competition (six of the
top 25). I'd hoped to see more. I guess it's hard to let your baby
go after so much hard work.

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 5 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:00:53 GMT

"Chris Holtorf" <lho### [at] nwlinkcom> wrote in message 
news:1103_1108777138@news.povray.org...
> Well, I just downloaded HDR Shop and upgraded my version of Poseray.
> This HDRI stuff looked very challenging and time consuming when I was
> working on the contest entry. Now I have time to explore what it can do
> for the next contest.
> Stay tuned :)
>

The quick and easy method would be to simply download MegaPov 1.1, and then 
get the ready-made kitchen probe, 
http://www.debevec.org/Probes/kitchen_probe.hdr   That's neither challenging 
nor time-consuming; just the way I like things!  :-)

However, getting radiosity to look good in an HDRI scene can be challenging, 
in my experience.  But it's generally necessary in a picture in which you're 
likely to have recessed areas.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Chris Holtorf] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 5 hours and 55 minutes ago]

Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:37:30 GMT

Well, I just downloaded HDR Shop and upgraded my version of Poseray.
This HDRI stuff looked very challenging and time consuming when I was 
working on the contest entry. Now I have time to explore what it can do
for the next contest. 
Stay tuned :)

Chris Holtorf

[Jaime Vives Piqueres] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 9 hours and 29 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:03:03 GMT

Ross wrote:
> I just have to say that some aspects of your scene are mind boggling
> realistic. The water bottle looks totally real. The clock and the spices on
> top of the over... real. The drapes over the window, and the tiles are
> perfect.

   Thanks!

> really, the water bottle, even if just a mundane everyday object, stands out
> as being utterly real. fantastic work.

   Yes, it come out really good, perhaps because it is a double mesh 
"intruded" with Wings3D (the material is just Glass4, IIRC). But note 
how I carefully placed the orange to hide the ugly bottom part... :)

--
Jaime

[Gilles Tran] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 13 hours and 24 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:08:26 GMT

"Lance Birch" <-> a écrit dans le message de
news:42162096$1@news.povray.org...
> I've never posted to a wiki before so if you could explain what I have to
do
> (and what I shouldn't do) I'll edit something together and put it online
:)

It's very easy: go to the main page http://www.wikipov.org/ and then to the
sandbox. Click on "Edit this page" (you'll have to log-in with the password
given on the front page) so that you can familarise quickly with the syntax.
After that go to add/modify what you want. The ArtTips page is probably the
best place to put a link to (and then create) your tutorial page.

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Renderdog] Re: Plz explain [7726 days 13 hours and 37 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:55:00 GMT

"Lance Birch" wrote:
-snip-
> I think the comments are intended to be taken as constructive notes.  The good
> parts of images are generally obvious, and it's the parts that could use work
> that should be pointed out as those allow people to know the weak points of
> images so that they can be improved.
-snip-

I find these kinds of comments are by far the most useful, but they're
hard to find because the commenter must be somewhat altruistic.
They usually don't have anything to gain by making what might be
perceived as negative comments.

Here, I think, the comments were driven by a genuine desire to see
POV-Ray users learn and improve.

[Jim Charter] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 13 hours and 39 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:53:40 GMT

Lance Birch wrote:

...

Thanks for taking the time. A beautiful succinct discussion. I really 
appreciate it. I did understand some things about local vs global 
contrasts though not by those terms.  I would have termed the 
adjustments we make in "real world" perception, that you credit to the 
eyes, "haptic" perception, and viewed it as an extension of our 
"embodied" consciousness.*  So generally I think that the eyes adjust to 
optimise a view of what the mind-body already knows is there.  So when I 
painted I tended to incorporate those adjustments but never thought of 
it as "fill light" but rather as "haptic" knowledge. If fact for years I 
painted very, very dark, close-toned paintings, where I would use tricks 
of paint handling to make objects more or less distinct.** I'm a big 
admirer of Whistler and Rosseau, in addition to Morandi. So your 
discussion helps simplify things tremendously and helps me think in 
terms of digital methods and empirical light gathering. (And I didn't 
know at all about the PS Unsharp Mask.  Really anxious to explore that.)

Thanks again.  You really helped me simplify my thinking about this.  I 
almost mentioned in my previous post, that I think one of my big 
problems with lighting is that I don't have strong sense of what looks 
correct.  I tend to accept what the raytracer gives me like I accept 
what the camera gives me and am reconciled to the idea that neither is 
going to look like what an embodied experience of the same scene would 
be anyway.  There is so damned much to learn!

In general I might have subconsciously understood the issue but I was 
mired in the idea that there might be a somehow "honest" way of 
achieving the result, say, if I just understood Jaime's lighting system 
better.  I've to laugh at this because I have also felt that *I* was one 
of the foremost proponents of raytracing is an medium rooted in artifice.

-Jim


*Merleau-Ponty reigned when I was in college.

** You might appreciate that this took me to truly obsessive lenghts 
when it came to trying to document my paintings photographically for my 
portfolio.

[Lance Birch] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 14 hours and 26 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:06:30 GMT

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:421616f4@news.povray.org...
> "Lance Birch" <-> a écrit dans le message de
> news:42161482@news.povray.org...
>
> > To understand the difference between local and global contrast better,
> load your
> > image up in a graphics package like Photoshop or similar that supports a
> live
> > Histogram view.
>
> Do you think that you could edit this a little bit and add it to the wikipov
> site ? The fact is that *** many *** POV-Ray pictures suffer from contrast
> issues and that this little tutorial you just wrote could be very handy.
> It could go there:
> http://www.wikipov.org/ow.asp?ArtTips

I've never posted to a wiki before so if you could explain what I have to do
(and what I shouldn't do) I'll edit something together and put it online :)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Lance Birch] Re: Plz explain [7726 days 14 hours and 31 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:01:11 GMT

"swampee" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.421615fea5e4da17598183eb0@news.povray.org...
> POV Team;
> Just some observations.

First off I'd like to say that I do NOT represent the POV-Team, these are just
my PERSONAL opinions.

>  I thought when the rules said POV and POV only( except for convert to
> jpeg), that all others were excluded. I took by implication that this
> contest was about what POV could be used to produce. Yet several entrants
> seemed to use products all over the digital picture map.

I think you're misunderstanding the rules slightly.  They say:  "To be accepted
in the competition an entry has to be rendered with POV-Ray"

The key words being "has to be rendered with POV-Ray" - this means you can still
use Photoshop to paint some textures, Wings3D to make some models... but the
image has to be rendered with POV-Ray.

You are correct in saying it is "about what POV could be used to produce" -
images that extensively made use of painted textures when procedural would have
produced a better result, or free mesh models when there were other alternatives
using SDL, etc, tended to be favoured less (at least by me) than other images
that made clever use of POV-Ray's features.

I think this is very clear when you look at the results:  The Last Guardian, for
example, uses *no* mesh models (and as far as I know, no bitmap textures), and
the objects are created with clever and thoughtful use of POV-Ray's SDL and
primatives... and it won.

Images that made extensive use of other programs like Poser or external mesh
models and just dumped the results into a POV-Ray file without utiltising
POV-Ray's features, didn't do as well.  Some images could have been rendered in
*any* renderer and produced the same result, and these images didn't rate as
highly as images that made clever use of POV-Ray.

At no point do the rules say you can't make use of other modelling applications,
etc... just that the image must be *rendered* with POV-Ray.

> The Judges seemed to be overly critical. A contest like this should show

In a competition with a $10000-value first prize, you must be critical in order
to ensure the deserving image wins.

> from the positive responses more of the good things that the judges liked
> and fewer negative things. This is to say the judging should be an
> accumulation of good things and bad things weighted between the entries to
> show where good and right is more than what was bad.


I think the comments are intended to be taken as constructive notes.  The good
parts of images are generally obvious, and it's the parts that could use work
that should be pointed out as those allow people to know the weak points of
images so that they can be improved.

It's often difficult to not take such comments personally, or be told things
along the lines of "nice technically, but not enough content to make an engaging
image", but it is this kind of constructive criticism that helps people take a
serious and objective look at their image to determine what can be improved.
When someone says about your image "not enough detail" or "not enough contrast",
these things shouldn't be taken as meaning "your image is bad"... they should be
taken unemotionally as meaning "you need to add more detail" and "you need to
increase contrast".

It can be difficult, but if you can set your emotions aside while reading the
comments, you will get a lot of insight into what you have done right and what
can be improved.

> There should be two divisions. Art from an art major's point of view and a
> division on technical art for those with more computer finesse.


I think that in a competition such as this, the artistic side of an image and
the technical side of an image are equally important.  A "good image", or "an
image deserving of a prize" should include both aristic and technical merit - to
separate the two means that you will end up placing more preference on one than
the other when the prizes are allocated, and that isn't fair on those who excel
in one area but not in another.

For those that are better at the artistic side than the technical side, or the
technical side than the artistic side, the comments from judges can help point
people in the right direction to help them improve in what they are lacking.
For example, some images had a great artistic idea, but there were technical
problems (so these were pointed out).  On the other hand, some images had great
technical skill but lacked artistic content (and so these elements were pointed
out).

It's a bit like being an excellent painter but not having any artistic flair, or
having artistic flair but not being able to paint - either way you'll produce a
painting that isn't as good as someone who has a little of both elements.

I think this is why comments can sometimes be perceived as being harsh - they
usually target what you aren't as good at, but this has the positive effect of
focusing you on improving that area.

> Thanks muchly,
>
> swampee

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 14 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:50:40 GMT

"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:42161482@news.povray.org...

<snip>

I don't know about anyone else, but I found your post to be a great 
resource.  It's a very common problem.  What we "see" versus what we 
"perceive" are often completely different.

I noticed some time ago that my image lacked good contrast, but I wasn't 
sure what I could do about it.  Thanks for the information!  I hope I'm not 
the only one that just learned something here.  :-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Warp] Re: Plz explain [7726 days 14 hours and 53 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:39:34 GMT

swampee <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> POV Team;
> Just some observations.

  Please note that it was not the pov-team who judged the images.

>  I thought when the rules said POV and POV only( except for convert to
> jpeg), that all others were excluded. I took by implication that this
> contest was about what POV could be used to produce. Yet several entrants
> seemed to use products all over the digital picture map.

  I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

  If you mean that some of the images were post-processed, that is,
an image manipulation program was used on the result image created
by POV-Ray, then that would indeed be against the rules. However,
we did not notice this kind of post-processing in any of the images.
If you have reason to believe otherwise, please be more explicit.

  If you mean that models and objects created by third-party programs
were used in creating the POV-Ray scene, then that was not against
the rules in any way. It's completely OK to design something object
in another program and then use it in POV-Ray to render the scene
(as long as the author has permission to use the object in question,
ie. it's not restricted by copyright or other laws).

> The Judges seemed to be overly critical. A contest like this should show
> from the positive responses more of the good things that the judges liked
> and fewer negative things. This is to say the judging should be an
> accumulation of good things and bad things weighted between the entries to
> show where good and right is more than what was bad.

  I'm not sure what you mean by this either. The winners have to be
selected somehow.

> There should be two divisions. Art from an art major's point of view and a
> division on technical art for those with more computer finesse.

  The problem is how to divide the prizes among the two divisions.

-- 
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 -

[Gilles Tran] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 15 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:25:24 GMT

"Lance Birch" <-> a écrit dans le message de
news:42161482@news.povray.org...

> To understand the difference between local and global contrast better,
load your
> image up in a graphics package like Photoshop or similar that supports a
live
> Histogram view.

Do you think that you could edit this a little bit and add it to the wikipov
site ? The fact is that *** many *** POV-Ray pictures suffer from contrast
issues and that this little tutorial you just wrote could be very handy.
It could go there:
http://www.wikipov.org/ow.asp?ArtTips

G.


-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[swampee] Plz explain [7726 days 15 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:25:00 GMT

POV Team;
Just some observations.

 I thought when the rules said POV and POV only( except for convert to
jpeg), that all others were excluded. I took by implication that this
contest was about what POV could be used to produce. Yet several entrants
seemed to use products all over the digital picture map.

The Judges seemed to be overly critical. A contest like this should show
from the positive responses more of the good things that the judges liked
and fewer negative things. This is to say the judging should be an
accumulation of good things and bad things weighted between the entries to
show where good and right is more than what was bad.

There should be two divisions. Art from an art major's point of view and a
division on technical art for those with more computer finesse.

Thanks muchly,

swampee

[Lance Birch] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 15 hours and 17 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:14:58 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:421600a9$1@news.povray.org...
> Lance Birch wrote:
>
> > I think the biggest way to improve the image (in my opinion) is with the
> > lighting.  Right now the image appears a little flat and therefore it's not
as
> > dramatic as it could (and deserves to) be.  I'd really love to see this
scene
> > taken further!  There's no reason to stop now since there's already been so
much
> > work put into it; just a few changes to the lighting of the scene could make
a
> > huge difference I think.  If it was my scene I'd probably drop the camera
height
> > a tiny bit as well, or if not, introduce some focal blur to separate the
> > background from the main subjects (heh, yes, I know... rendertime++)
> >
>
> Thankyou for the insights, and even more, the spirit of support.  In a
> nutshell, it is hard for me to give up on the backlighting.  The
> original vision was of the scene taking place in a gloom set against a
> backdrop of turgid, oppressive light, screened by a silhouette of jungle
> growth. That is not quite how the scene turned out, but I still cling to
> certain of its original aspects. I will try to swallow my conceptual
> arrogance and, if I ever find that new level of maturity, try the scene
> with some different lighting.  Parenthetically, I believe I have run up
> against this difficulty in contests before.  I think I just have a taste
> for the slightly flattening effect of halflight and backlighting that is
> a little at odds with the raytracing aesthetic. So I also wonder if some
> adjustment of the finishes might bring up the textures and still give me
> that backlight.

Well, I don't mean to say "abandon your concept"... just that it needs some
tweaking to get it to work how you want it to :)  A lot of the problems I find
with lighting are due to contrast.  Our eyes detect contrast before anything
else, so it follows that an image that lacks contrast is not as easy to view
(objects don't stand out as much, or the image looks flat).  However, you can
still have a backlit or post-sunset scene and still have contrast.. the key is
not introducing "global contrast", but instead introducing "localised contrast".
That is, contrast between the different objects and the background, not an
increase in contrast of the entire image.

To understand the difference between local and global contrast better, load your
image up in a graphics package like Photoshop or similar that supports a live
Histogram view.

1. apply say +10% Contrast to your image and watch what happens to your
Histogram... the low ends will move lower, and the high ends will move higher.
This changes the look of your image overall (and suddenly it doesn't look like
the kind of lighting you want, but the objects are separated better from the
background).

2. go back to the original image without the Contrast added, and this time apply
an Unsharp Mask to the image with a radius of 20 pixels and an amount of 20%
(with no threshold), and watch how your Histogram... you'll see that it doesn't
change very much at all (thus retaining the overall look of the image), however
the objects are separated better from the background and the image appears
slightly more "alive".  The reason is that localised contrast has been
introduced.

This is basically what our eyes do when we look at something in real life... as
we move our eyes, they adjust to the localised brightness level of what we're
viewing to create more contrast locally.  In other words, everywhere we look
there's contrast created locally, even though if we stood back further and
looked at the scene overall with relaxed eyes, it might not have a lot of
contrast and details would be harder to make out.

So the trick is to try to get the same thing to happen straight out of POV-Ray,
and the easiest way of achieving localised contrast/separation between objects
(the grass is a good example of where this is needed as right now it's difficult
to gauge its depth due to the consistency of luminosity) is to introduce
shadows, or use other tricks like fog to tint objects that are at great
distances (thus separating foreground from background), or use depth of field.
So in other words, we have to cheat a bit :)  You could make the backlighting
even more dramatic, and introduce a fill light to ensure the subjects are still
lit appropriately (in real life our eyes do a good job of simulating fill lights
in such conditions of backlighting, again this is the localised contrast
syndrome).

Another good way of testing where your image could use additional localised
contrast (or different lighting, fog to separate background/foreground, etc) is
to simply blur your eyes while looking at it; are the object depths still
obvious or do they appear to be floating in seas of colour?

I hope this all makes some sense :)

What I'm getting at is:  you can still retain the look of your image, but to do
so and still make the objects stand out you need to either introduce localised
contrast in the lighting of the objects, or use another technique to separate
the different objects from the background (by introducing a fog to tint the
background, or by using depth of field, etc).

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Ross] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 15 hours and 44 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:48:48 GMT

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
news:421451bc@news.povray.org...
> Chris Cason wrote:
> > The primary results for POVCOMP 2004 are ready.
>
>    Thanks for all the effort, Chris and all the rest of the team, judges
> and sponsors.
>
>    Now to figure some excuse to not go to work this morning, so I can
> enjoy viewing all those superb images, and then browsing the entire
> zazzle site... :)
>
> --
> Jaime

I just have to say that some aspects of your scene are mind boggling
realistic. The water bottle looks totally real. The clock and the spices on
top of the over... real. The drapes over the window, and the tiles are
perfect.

really, the water bottle, even if just a mundane everyday object, stands out
as being utterly real. fantastic work.

-r

[Jim Charter] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 16 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:50:17 GMT

Lance Birch wrote:

> I think the biggest way to improve the image (in my opinion) is with the
> lighting.  Right now the image appears a little flat and therefore it's not as
> dramatic as it could (and deserves to) be.  I'd really love to see this scene
> taken further!  There's no reason to stop now since there's already been so much
> work put into it; just a few changes to the lighting of the scene could make a
> huge difference I think.  If it was my scene I'd probably drop the camera height
> a tiny bit as well, or if not, introduce some focal blur to separate the
> background from the main subjects (heh, yes, I know... rendertime++)
> 

Thankyou for the insights, and even more, the spirit of support.  In a 
nutshell, it is hard for me to give up on the backlighting.  The 
original vision was of the scene taking place in a gloom set against a 
backdrop of turgid, oppressive light, screened by a silhouette of jungle 
growth. That is not quite how the scene turned out, but I still cling to 
certain of its original aspects. I will try to swallow my conceptual 
arrogance and, if I ever find that new level of maturity, try the scene 
with some different lighting.  Parenthetically, I believe I have run up 
against this difficulty in contests before.  I think I just have a taste 
for the slightly flattening effect of halflight and backlighting that is 
a little at odds with the raytracing aesthetic. So I also wonder if some 
adjustment of the finishes might bring up the textures and still give me 
that backlight.

As for camera angle, as it stands now it's a calculation depending a lot 
on the barely emerging far eye of the chimp without completely loosing 
the profile of the Songye.  But no doubt I can steepen it a little further.

Focal blur.  Never tried it before.  If I do this I am going to put some 
custom foliage in though!  In fact some of my earlier tests made use of 
more dramatic color in the blossoms for instance, and they weren't 
without a certain appeal.

[Lance Birch] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 18 hours and 24 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:08:13 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:4215e640@news.povray.org...
> Chris Cason <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
> > FWIW I loved the concept of your image.
>
>   By the way, which image is that?

African Caprice
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/209.php

I think the biggest way to improve the image (in my opinion) is with the
lighting.  Right now the image appears a little flat and therefore it's not as
dramatic as it could (and deserves to) be.  I'd really love to see this scene
taken further!  There's no reason to stop now since there's already been so much
work put into it; just a few changes to the lighting of the scene could make a
huge difference I think.  If it was my scene I'd probably drop the camera height
a tiny bit as well, or if not, introduce some focal blur to separate the
background from the main subjects (heh, yes, I know... rendertime++)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Warp] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7726 days 18 hours and 35 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:57:36 GMT

Chris Cason <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
> FWIW I loved the concept of your image.

  By the way, which image is that?

-- 
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] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 1 hour and 44 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:48:23 GMT

Chris Cason wrote:

> 
> FWIW I loved the concept of your image.
> 
> -- Chris

It's worth a lot :)

I feel quite silly that this thread even touched on my entry.   But the 
discourse has to start somewhere I guess.  See where it leads.  I really 
cannot state strongly enough how much I admire your efforts here.

[Jim Charter] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 1 hour and 53 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:39:39 GMT

St. wrote:

> this is hard to do, (explain my thoughts without anyone jumping down my 
> throat), but there wasn't imo a lot different from what I've seen before 
> in the IRTC, 

Agreed, collectively the IRTC equals, and, in context, surpasses what we 
have seen here. But I doubt any round, on its own, would quite be equal 
to this in sustained quality.  But I agree that no image here really 
displayed the sort of dramatic, collective step forward that sometimes 
happened in IRTC rounds. I think some images were big steps forward for 
their individual authors though. And sadly a few big names, who would 
have enriched this field very much, failed to show.  Shame, but that is 
the nature of contests, I suppose.  As I have stated in the past, my 
view is that contests simply provide a focus, like McLuhan's famous 
lightbulb.  It's great if the winner gets a computer, or some increased 
attention, or bragging rights, but in a way that is just a sideshow. 
The real meaning resides with the also rans.  The contest gave each of 
them an incentive to make an image that they wouldn't have otherwise. 
And each image is an adventure.

>   For the record, I hope that if there's another PoVComp, 

So do I. In retrospect it was pretty damned exciting.  I also hope that 
this one will give a boost to all Pover's sense of identity, and 
stimulate more of the ground-breaking and enthusiasm we've known from 
the past.  I hope it will showcase the software, attract more talent to 
our ranks, and motivate the developers to keep the program vital.  I 
hope it will reinvigorate the IRTC too.

> 
>  But 'now' I know. 

Exactly

> 
> 
>   Jim, your words, and art, always 'teach' me more, and I thank you for 
> that.
> 

Ah shucks.  Well I know I'll have a hangover in the morning.

[Chris Cason] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 2 hours and 41 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:51:28 GMT

Chris Holtorf wrote:
>    While working on my submission, I hoped to make the top 25,
> kept my fingers crossed that I would make the top 10 and
> had a brief fantasy about winning. I feel pretty good about 
> making 8th place as there are quite a few great images in
> the top 25. 

I'd hazard a guess that some people (and I'm one of them) would be interested
in seeing your image rendered with a HDR environment.

[Chris Cason] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 2 hours and 51 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:41:26 GMT

Jim Charter wrote:
> Chris Cason made a point of noting that the ranking outside the winner's 
> circle was just approximate, an attitude I wholehearted support.  If 
> anyone remembers, I have been quite vocal on that subject in the past 

Indeed, the ranking outside the top 25 is not really a ranking at all (which
is why those images don't have a number placed on them like the others do)
and is in no way to be considered the opinion of the judges as a whole. Only
the top 25 were ranked. When given the choice of placing the remaining images
in alphabetical order or placing them in some sort of preference order we
chose the latter, but the ordering is very informal and certainly not the
opinion of the judges as a whole.

FWIW I loved the concept of your image.

-- Chris

[Chris Cason] Re: Ok what happened to mine [7727 days 2 hours and 57 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:35:11 GMT

m1j wrote:
> Well I just found an email from the povcomp team in my secondary email
> address dated Jan 30 that my entry was complete but not submitted. I am not
> sure why it would not be submitted but that was what it stated.
> 
> My spam filtering on my secondary email decided the povcomp email was spam
> and dumped it in that folder.

Hi,

I was aware of your entry and we tried to contact you (you were emailed twice
in January). All we got back was a short note from your spambot saying if our
mail was spam we wouldn't hear from you. It is unforuntate because your entry
was fairly decent but there's little we could do as submission involves
clicking through a agreement form and we can't do that on your behalf.

Is it possible you unsubmitted your image after the competition was extended
then forgot to re-submit it ?

-- Chris

[St ] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 4 hours and 8 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 03:24:52 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:42151fae$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>> 'ground-breaking' image I thought I would see
>
> maybe: "Hoped you might see?"

  Well, yes. Maybe I should have phrased that differently. I don't know, 
this is hard to do, (explain my thoughts without anyone jumping down my 
throat), but there wasn't imo a lot different from what I've seen before in 
the IRTC, (apart from one image that wasn't entered), which is why I took 
the route I did. Don't get me wrong, PoV is a hard animal to tame, and there 
is no way I could produce "The Last Guardian" like Johnny did. Not yet 
anyway. ;)

   For the record, I hope that if there's another PoVComp, then there will 
be a lot more information on what PoV 'can' achieve, (I certainly HOPE so 
for anyone new to PoV. It will be ten times better now that everyone knows 
what to expect and do), and what not to do in the event that someone might 
'bust a gut' for nothing. I.e., scaling at much larger resolutions. This was 
my downfall. I haven't ever rendered an image at high resolutions until 
recently, so didn't think there would be a difference, (seeing is 
believing!)

  But 'now' I know. That's why I asked if the detail images were important 
or not in a recent thread.

>
> The image was exceptional in ways that Povers can learn from.  It is true 
> that we value technical, even conceptual "ground-breaking", but we 
> perceive it across one maybe two dimensions. This image resulted from care 
> and craftmanship through a range of dimensions.  It's that accomplishment 
> over a range of technical and pictorial concerns that is not often 
> equalled here.  Modeling, composition, lighting, scale, orchestration of 
> detail, space, atmosphere, pictorial language are all used to modulate our 
> experience and maintain our interest.

   Jim, your words, and art, always 'teach' me more, and I thank you for 
that.

    ~Steve~

[m1j] Re: Ok what happened to mine [7727 days 4 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 03:00:01 GMT

"m1j" <mik### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I submitted an image. It stated it was accepted. I have waited all this time
> to see how well I have done and my images is not even listed. Would there
> be some reason why my submission would be left out? I did not get an email
> but I read that the winners would get an email. I was kust assuming mine
> was not in the top 25. Now mine is not even in the list. There where 104
> right? Are the last 4 not shown?
>
> Mine was the silversmith.

Well I just found an email from the povcomp team in my secondary email
address dated Jan 30 that my entry was complete but not submitted. I am not
sure why it would not be submitted but that was what it stated.

My spam filtering on my secondary email decided the povcomp email was spam
and dumped it in that folder.

I guess I am a casualty of unfortunate events.

I will post in p.b.i

[m1j] Ok what happened to mine [7727 days 4 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:40:01 GMT

I submitted an image. It stated it was accepted. I have waited all this time
to see how well I have done and my images is not even listed. Would there
be some reason why my submission would be left out? I did not get an email
but I read that the winners would get an email. I was kust assuming mine
was not in the top 25. Now mine is not even in the list. There where 104
right? Are the last 4 not shown?

Mine was the silversmith.

[Chris Holtorf] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 6 hours and 11 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:21:52 GMT

While working on my submission, I hoped to make the top 25,
kept my fingers crossed that I would make the top 10 and
had a brief fantasy about winning. I feel pretty good about 
making 8th place as there are quite a few great images in
the top 25. 
   Can't wait until the next contest.

Chris Holtorf

[Warp] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 7 hours and 20 minutes ago]

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:12:42 GMT

Rafal Maj Raf256 <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> But perhaps this is because of poor compresion of blue-jpg of
> Guardian.

  Odd. I don't see any visible jpeg artifacts in the image.

-- 
#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 -

[Jim Charter] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 7 hours and 58 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:34:10 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

> I think I agree with the others.  Your scene was great, but the 
> unfortunately, the image suffered from some technical problems.  I think you 
> imply that you were overly ambitious.  But I get the feeling that this would 
> render quite well with a few adjustments, and enough time.
> 

> I purposely tried to make my entry rather simple, especially given the 
> initially short time frame.  With the extra time, I tried to clean it up, 
> and I added a few more objects.   At this point, I'm embarrassed to ever 
> display my October entry again.  Radiosity was kicking my behind.  I had no 
> idea that the lighting setup would be so difficult, and without doing lots 
> of day-long renders, it was difficult to get a handle on.
> 
> Incidentally, I adapted your Wings3D women's shoe tutorial for the boots 
> near the door.  Unfortunately, the boots aren't the best boots model, but I 
> couldn't stand the thought of starting over again, and they're not a major 
> focus of the image.
> 
> On a lighter note, I sometimes find myself making that same ape face after I 
> just finished creating something cool.  I'm such a primate.  ;-)
> 

I'll reply in your O-T pub scene thread

[Rafal Maj Raf256] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 8 hours and 41 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:51:34 GMT

Chris Cason wrote:

> [This announcement can also be found at
> [http://www.povcomp.com/results.php]

Neat :)

I personaly find 'The Last Guardian' more suitable for 3 or 4 place, and I
love 'Dissolution' by Ziga Petric  and  'The Kitchen' by Jaime Vives
Piqueres. But perhaps this is because of poor compresion of blue-jpg of
Guardian. I ques judges wanted to show also power of Pov-RAY engine, with
dispersion+scaterring media+photons is perfect example of. 

I would love to see a bit improved versions of 2 and 3 place in examply by
using media to show that image was raytraced on greated engine :)

-- 
Rafal Maj Raf256

[Jim Charter] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 8 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:50:22 GMT

St. wrote:

> 'ground-breaking' image I thought I would see 

maybe: "Hoped you might see?"

The image was exceptional in ways that Povers can learn from.  It is 
true that we value technical, even conceptual "ground-breaking", but we 
perceive it across one maybe two dimensions. This image resulted from 
care and craftmanship through a range of dimensions.  It's that 
accomplishment over a range of technical and pictorial concerns that is 
not often equalled here.  Modeling, composition, lighting, scale, 
orchestration of detail, space, atmosphere, pictorial language are all 
used to modulate our experience and maintain our interest.

[St ] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 9 hours and 56 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:36:43 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:4214f26f$1@news.povray.org...

> Thanks Steve. A little support goes a long way.

  I'm in support of all PoV-Ray users, with *whatever tools they use* to use 
it. It's a powerful renderer, there's no doubt about that.


 My entry was a
> calculated risk all along. I came to the concept rather late. 
> Never-the-less, even though I expected it, I was feeling a little bruised 
> that I couldn't make the top 1/4 in the judging.

 I remember and understand. I think I would have been some places behind you 
with 'Flowers' or 'Imminent'. Lol!

>
> Chris Cason made a point of noting that the ranking outside the winner's 
> circle was just approximate, an attitude I wholehearted support.  If 
> anyone remembers, I have been quite vocal on that subject in the past and 
> believe that a detailed ranking makes little sense in the context of 
> artmaking and expecially so when you enter the middle ranks.  To me it is 
> simply an artifact born of the need to find a winner.

   Yes, and correctly so, if so deserved. One image will always stand out 
from the others, (that's the nature of the beast, no pun intended), but 
overall, I didn't see the 'ground-breaking' image I thought I would see in 
this competition.  (Sorry to be blunt all, but it's just my opinion).


>
> Whatever my need to whine, I must confess that this contest forced me to 
> intensify my thinking about the themes I want to pursue.  And that is a 
> good thing.

   You're not wrong in your thoughts. It IS a good thing. I've got some 
images in my head that I MUST do, and I 'think' I can do. I would describe 
them something like, 'imaginative', but with meaning. So, let's say I'm 
thinking further than I've ever thought before 'because' of this comp.

 Which is a good thing. :)

    ~Steve~

[Jim Charter] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 10 hours and 20 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:12:25 GMT

Marc Jacquier wrote:

> Do you think improving that image? (just a better quality render...)
> 

I don't think it would be a significant enough improvement to make it 
worthwhile.  There is just too much else that falls short. The hair can 
look better but the density and coverage has to be balanced very 
carefully. Out of testing time, and in order to guarantee an entry at 
the last minute, I had to overdo the density, effectively nullifying the 
usefulness of my technique. I may rework that composition just to 
improve the technicals and rerender or I may upgrade the whole concept.

(While the open setting is very pleasing and came off way better than I 
expected, the original idea involved a more oppressive sense of the 
jungle, like described by Ferdinand Celine.)

[Ross] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 10 hours and 21 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:11:42 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4214f626@news.povray.org...
> Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> > oh, maybe you thought the view of the image would be through the
telescope.
> > it wouldn't be. it was almost the same view as in "Victoria"s World".
>
>   How would you then see the ant and understand the humor?
>

visual cues to bring the eye up to the top of the telescope, where the ant
would be visible from the viewers perspective, and unrealistically large for
an ant anyway.

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 10 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:42:20 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:4214facd$1@news.povray.org...
> Marc Jacquier wrote:
>
>>
>> Jim, I have to say I love your image!
>
> Thanks man.
>
>
>> The concept, the modeling and texture are great, and the ape's fur, 
>> (though
>> it suffers artifacts which I think made your image downgraded) is
>> wonderfull.
>> Maybe the ressources your  image needed and the time you had did not meet
>> the deadline?
>
> It was underbaked in several ways.  The technical things involved were 
> developing on a timeline a little out of synch with this contest.  But 
> again, the contest forced me to think about, and lead me to thematic 
> ideas, that I wouldn't have gotten to otherwise.  A number of the ideas I 
> tried, but were eventually discarded, *will* provide rich creative fodder 
> going forward.

I think I agree with the others.  Your scene was great, but the 
unfortunately, the image suffered from some technical problems.  I think you 
imply that you were overly ambitious.  But I get the feeling that this would 
render quite well with a few adjustments, and enough time.

I purposely tried to make my entry rather simple, especially given the 
initially short time frame.  With the extra time, I tried to clean it up, 
and I added a few more objects.   At this point, I'm embarrassed to ever 
display my October entry again.  Radiosity was kicking my behind.  I had no 
idea that the lighting setup would be so difficult, and without doing lots 
of day-long renders, it was difficult to get a handle on.

Incidentally, I adapted your Wings3D women's shoe tutorial for the boots 
near the door.  Unfortunately, the boots aren't the best boots model, but I 
couldn't stand the thought of starting over again, and they're not a major 
focus of the image.

On a lighter note, I sometimes find myself making that same ape face after I 
just finished creating something cool.  I'm such a primate.  ;-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Jim Charter] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 10 hours and 53 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:39:49 GMT

Marc Jacquier wrote:

Marc, when I first opened the entries page and started scrolling, your 
image was the first one that actually stopped me and made me look.  I 
thought your roiling sea and foam was not only very convincing but 
visually rich and narratively dramatic.  It had to make sense in a 
tactile way against the textures of the lighthouse.  And you succeeded 
extremely well.

[Marc Jacquier] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 10 hours and 56 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:36:55 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4214facd$1@news.povray.org...
> Marc Jacquier wrote:
> > Jim, I have to say I love your image!
>
> Thanks man.
You're welcome but no need to thank an effortless thought :)

> It was underbaked in several ways.  The technical things involved were
> developing on a timeline a little out of synch with this contest.
That's what I guessed

> But again, the contest forced me to think about, and lead me to thematic
> ideas, that I wouldn't have gotten to otherwise.  A number of the ideas
> I tried, but were eventually discarded, *will* provide rich creative
> fodder going forward.

That's a good positive point :)
Do you think improving that image? (just a better quality render...)

Marc

[Jim Charter] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 11 hours and 19 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:13:01 GMT

Marc Jacquier wrote:

> 
> Jim, I have to say I love your image!

Thanks man.

> The concept, the modeling and texture are great, and the ape's fur, (though
> it suffers artifacts which I think made your image downgraded) is
> wonderfull.
> Maybe the ressources your  image needed and the time you had did not meet
> the deadline?

It was underbaked in several ways.  The technical things involved were 
developing on a timeline a little out of synch with this contest.  But 
again, the contest forced me to think about, and lead me to thematic 
ideas, that I wouldn't have gotten to otherwise.  A number of the ideas 
I tried, but were eventually discarded, *will* provide rich creative 
fodder going forward.

[Marc Jacquier] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 11 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:00:54 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4214f26f$1@news.povray.org...
> Thanks Steve. A little support goes a long way.  My entry was a
> calculated risk all along. I came to the concept rather late.
> Never-the-less, even though I expected it, I was feeling a little
> bruised that I couldn't make the top 1/4 in the judging.
>
> Chris Cason made a point of noting that the ranking outside the winner's
> circle was just approximate, an attitude I wholehearted support.  If
> anyone remembers, I have been quite vocal on that subject in the past
> and believe that a detailed ranking makes little sense in the context of
> artmaking and expecially so when you enter the middle ranks.  To me it
> is simply an artifact born of the need to find a winner.
>
> Whatever my need to whine, I must confess that this contest forced me to
> intensify my thinking about the themes I want to pursue.  And that is a
> good thing.
Jim, I have to say I love your image!
The concept, the modeling and texture are great, and the ape's fur, (though
it suffers artifacts which I think made your image downgraded) is
wonderfull.
Maybe the ressources your  image needed and the time you had did not meet
the deadline?

Marc

[Warp] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 11 hours and 39 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:53:10 GMT

Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> oh, maybe you thought the view of the image would be through the telescope.
> it wouldn't be. it was almost the same view as in "Victoria"s World".

  How would you then see the ant and understand the humor?

-- 
#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 -

[Ross] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 11 hours and 54 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:38:00 GMT

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message
news:4214f230$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4214c965@news.povray.org...
> > Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> > > was a cartoony astronomer looking through a curvey telescope towards
the
> > > planet. but at the top of the telescope was an ant. so the astronomer
> > > thought a giant ant was taking over the distant planet.
> >
> >   It's impossible to focus a telescope to both the ant and the planet.
> >
>
> meh! details, details...
>
> you need to watch more cartoons, impossible things happen.
>
>

oh, maybe you thought the view of the image would be through the telescope.
it wouldn't be. it was almost the same view as in "Victoria"s World".

anyway, it didn't happen, was just a sketch.

[Jim Charter] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 11 hours and 55 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:37:19 GMT

St. wrote:
> Jim, fantastic modeling in your image. Especially your chimp! Your 
> close-up is superb! Overall, and in MY opinion, your image should have 
> been notched up some. For me, it captured the true 'inquisitive' nature 
> of the 'simple' beast, which you managed to do with a panache only you 
> can design.
> 
>  Be proud, keep it up, nice work.
> 
>  ~Steve~
> 
> 
> 
> 
Thanks Steve. A little support goes a long way.  My entry was a 
calculated risk all along. I came to the concept rather late. 
Never-the-less, even though I expected it, I was feeling a little 
bruised that I couldn't make the top 1/4 in the judging.

Chris Cason made a point of noting that the ranking outside the winner's 
circle was just approximate, an attitude I wholehearted support.  If 
anyone remembers, I have been quite vocal on that subject in the past 
and believe that a detailed ranking makes little sense in the context of 
artmaking and expecially so when you enter the middle ranks.  To me it 
is simply an artifact born of the need to find a winner.

Whatever my need to whine, I must confess that this contest forced me to 
intensify my thinking about the themes I want to pursue.  And that is a 
good thing.

[Ross] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 11 hours and 56 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:36:16 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4214c965@news.povray.org...
> Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> > was a cartoony astronomer looking through a curvey telescope towards the
> > planet. but at the top of the telescope was an ant. so the astronomer
> > thought a giant ant was taking over the distant planet.
>
>   It's impossible to focus a telescope to both the ant and the planet.
>

meh! details, details...

you need to watch more cartoons, impossible things happen.

[St ] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 12 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:02:45 GMT

Jim, fantastic modeling in your image. Especially your chimp! Your close-up 
is superb! Overall, and in MY opinion, your image should have been notched 
up some. For me, it captured the true 'inquisitive' nature of the 'simple' 
beast, which you managed to do with a panache only you can design.

  Be proud, keep it up, nice work.

  ~Steve~

[Warp] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 14 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:42:13 GMT

Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> was a cartoony astronomer looking through a curvey telescope towards the
> planet. but at the top of the telescope was an ant. so the astronomer
> thought a giant ant was taking over the distant planet.

  It's impossible to focus a telescope to both the ant and the planet.

-- 
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 -

[emkaah] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 14 hours and 57 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:35:28 GMT

Ross wrote:
>>  equal 4th: "Victoria"s World" by Douglas Eichenberg
> 
> 
> wow that's cool. mostly because one sketch i did (i only ever get as far as
> sketching on paper most the time) was very similar, except not as lush, and
> without the birds. Instead of a woman looking at another little planet, it
> was a cartoony astronomer looking through a curvey telescope towards the
> planet. but at the top of the telescope was an ant. so the astronomer
> thought a giant ant was taking over the distant planet.
> 
> Anyway, Douglas, you're image rocks and is about a million times better than
> anything I could have come up with. Simply beautiful. Top 2 in my list for
> sure.
> 
> 

That is also one of my favorites. Surprising how similar it is with the 
3th place entry 'Dissolution'. Practically the same composition, both 
unrealistic worlds, both perfectly executed, only the first has a 
technical theme and the second a magical one.

If you put them side by side, I think, both images compliment each other 
in that respect, like the alter ego of each another.

[Ross] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 15 hours and 44 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:48:26 GMT

>   equal 4th: "Victoria"s World" by Douglas Eichenberg

wow that's cool. mostly because one sketch i did (i only ever get as far as
sketching on paper most the time) was very similar, except not as lush, and
without the birds. Instead of a woman looking at another little planet, it
was a cartoony astronomer looking through a curvey telescope towards the
planet. but at the top of the telescope was an ant. so the astronomer
thought a giant ant was taking over the distant planet.

Anyway, Douglas, you're image rocks and is about a million times better than
anything I could have come up with. Simply beautiful. Top 2 in my list for
sure.

[Renderdog] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 16 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:05:01 GMT

Thanks everyone for some fantastic, original images. The variety
and creativity is wonderful.

I'm thoroughly enjoying reading all the Making of's, they really add
to my appreciation of these works.

[Jim Charter] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 17 hours and 34 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:58:35 GMT

Chris Cason wrote:
> The primary results for POVCOMP 2004 are ready. 

> 
> We would like to thank our sponsors Appro (www.appro.com), AMD (www.amd.com),
> zazzle (www.zazzle.com), and Planet Mirror (www.planetmirror.com) for making
> this competition possible, plus our judges Dennis Miller, Evan Hallein, David
> Hook, Gilles Tran, Lance Birch, and Juha ('Warp') Nieminen for taking time
> out of their busy schedules over the past two weeks to rank the entries

Thankyou all for doing this, and congratulations on a remarkable 
outcome.  Povers, given the chance, (and with a little coaxing,) have 
done themselves proud! I sense that this is going to spur even more 
innovation with POV-Ray's capabilities.

Congratulations to Johnny.  His image really embodies the expressiveness 
of this new art form of raytracing, and much of the flavour and spirit 
that POV-Ray and the POV-Ray community brings to it.

[dan B hentschel] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 18 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:30:00 GMT

I too am pleasantly surprised, and very honored, by my ranking. Very
inspiring images, all. Congratulations to all the winners, and to the POV
team. Thank you for making this competition, and even the images in the
competition, possible for us.

 - dan B hentschel

[Rene Bui] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 23 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:30:00 GMT

What a surprise ! I'm proud now.. ;-)
So many beautiful images. Thanks to all entrants, judges, organizers and
sponsors.
And Congrats to all the winners !

Rene
----

[Jaime Vives Piqueres] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7727 days 23 hours and 21 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:11:40 GMT

Chris Cason wrote:
> The primary results for POVCOMP 2004 are ready. 

   Thanks for all the effort, Chris and all the rest of the team, judges 
and sponsors.

   Now to figure some excuse to not go to work this morning, so I can 
enjoy viewing all those superb images, and then browsing the entire 
zazzle site... :)

--
Jaime

[Marc Jacquier] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days and 10 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:22:43 GMT

"Chris Cason" <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> a écrit dans le
message de news:42142e0f$1@news.povray.org...

Splendid images!
I'm a bit surprised mine is ranked so high but I won't complain :)
Cheers to all entrants

Marc

[Jim Henderson] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days 1 hour and 17 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:15:49 GMT

Congratulations to all the winners - those images are AWESOME.

Jim

[Lance Birch] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days 1 hour and 22 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:10:19 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message news:4214307e$1@news.povray.org...
> The images are breathtaking! Congratulations Johnny (does he visit this
> newsgroup?) and the other winners!

I haven't seen Johnny Yip on the news servers before, but I bet he will be a
very happy person when he finds out he's won!

Considering he currently has a PIII 450 Mhz, his prize from Appro will be
mindblowing!  (as it would be for any of us, of course! *jealous*)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Slime] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days 1 hour and 43 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:49:50 GMT

The images are breathtaking! Congratulations Johnny (does he visit this
newsgroup?) and the other winners!

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days 1 hour and 43 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:49:38 GMT

"Skip Talbot" <ski### [at] aolcom> wrote in message 
news:42142f3d$1@news.povray.org...
> Congratulations to all the winners!
>

Indeed!  Most of the names near the top are those that I would have 
expected.  I feel honored to have placed where I did.  I will have to wait 
until morning (meaning after I sleep) to view the entries, which are not yet 
available.

Thanks again to all who organized this event, and congratulations to all of 
the winners!

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Skip Talbot] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days 1 hour and 44 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:48:45 GMT

Thanks Chris

[Chris Cason] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days 1 hour and 45 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:47:09 GMT

Skip Talbot wrote:
> Congratulations to all the winners!

BTW FWIW I quite liked your entry.

[Chris Cason] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days 1 hour and 47 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:45:19 GMT

While it's not linked from the website quite yet, those who really want to
see the images right now can visit this link:

  http://www.povcomp.com/entries/

There may be the odd glitch if I have to re-generate the pages while you're
viewing but it's basically in its final form.

-- Chris

[Lance Birch] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days 1 hour and 48 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:44:51 GMT

Congratulations to all of the winners and participants!  Also a special thanks
to our sponsors and organisers!  Excellent work all round! :)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Skip Talbot] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days 1 hour and 48 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:44:29 GMT

Congratulations to all the winners!

Skip

[Chris Cason] Re: POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days 1 hour and 52 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:40:47 GMT

Note that the website isn't quite ready - I'll have the images up in the next
hour (I hope). Just need to do some final tweaks to the page layout.

[Chris Cason] POVCOMP 2004: Official Results [7728 days 1 hour and 53 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:39:27 GMT

The primary results for POVCOMP 2004 are ready. By 'primary results' we mean
the top 25 entries (all of which are eligible for prizes). We have not at
this stage awarded the Special Mentions. Also, entries that are not in the
top 25 will not receive a formal ranking (or score) due to the number of
entries (104 in total). However when they are put on view they will be
displayed in order of the judges overall ranking preference, which will give
a fairly good idea of how each image fared. Additionally, comments from
judges (where given) will be displayed with each image once they are
integrated to the website (expected to be in the next 24 hours).

We would like to thank our sponsors Appro (www.appro.com), AMD (www.amd.com),
zazzle (www.zazzle.com), and Planet Mirror (www.planetmirror.com) for making
this competition possible, plus our judges Dennis Miller, Evan Hallein, David
Hook, Gilles Tran, Lance Birch, and Juha ('Warp') Nieminen for taking time
out of their busy schedules over the past two weeks to rank the entries

                                  The Results
                                  -----------

We would like to congratulate Johnny Yip for his excellent entry 'The Last
Guardian', which has taken first place as the judges clear favourite. Apart
from its wonderful ambience it is a superb use of POV-Ray for modelling,
with the entire source (available for download from the website) taking only
75kb zipped (300kb uncompressed).

Johnny wins a superb Appro dual Opteron workstation valued at $10,000. Appro
are manufacturers of high-performance workstations, storage, and cluster
solutions, whose hardware is ideal for running such CPU-intensive
applications as POV-Ray.

Second place is taken by Jaime Vives Piqueres with his photorealistic entry
titled 'The Kitchen'. Jaime now has the task of selecting $2,500 worth of
goods from Zazzle.com as he is the winner of a Zazzle shopping spree! Zazzle
is a unique user-to-user creative marketplace based on the WWW where folks
can buy and sell custom products such as posters, prints, cards, and apparel.
The top 25 images will be made available in poster form from Zazzle in due
course.

Third place goes to Ziga Petric (a.k.a. 'Newt') for his futuristic
nano-vision 'Dissolution'. Ziga will join Jaime browsing Zazzle's virtual
aisles as the winner of a $1,000 zazzle shopping spree.

Fourth place is occupied by two images, which were so close together that
rather than choose one over the other, it was decided to award a joint
fourth place. Zazzle graciously agreed to provide the same prize to both
entrants. Both Douglas Eichenberg and Rene Bui will receive a Zazzle
colossal poster for their entries. Douglas submitted a surreal rendering
titled 'Victoria's World', which impressed the judges though its level of
detail. Rene submitted a quite detailed and artistic take on Jan Vermeer's
'Girl With A Pearl Earring' entitled 'Twin Girls With A Pearl Earring'.

Fifth place was not awarded given the dual fourth place mentioned above.

The full list of primary places is given below.

We would like to thank all entrants for their effort and time and we hope
that you all enjoy browsing the excellent contributions to POVCOMP 2004.

The entries can be viewed at the competition website www.povcomp.com.

                               Places 1-25
                               -----------

        1st: "The Last Guardian" by Johnny Yip
        2nd: "The Kitchen" by Jaime Vives Piqueres
        3rd: "Dissolution" by Ziga Petric
  equal 4th: "Victoria"s World" by Douglas Eichenberg
  equal 4th: "Twin Girls With A Pearl Earring" by Rene Bui
        6th: "Pirates" by "seawolf"
        7th: "Bradbury Atrium" by Gary MacKinnon
        8th: "Model Expo Entry" by Chris Holtorf
        9th: "Waiting for the relief" by Marc Jacquier
      10th: "Sentinel Rock" by Glenn McCarter
      11th: "Song For The Earth" by Fabien Mosen
      12th: "Natural History Museum" by Sean Day
      13th: "Cybernetic Organism Caealis - Narcissism" by "selsek"
      14th: "The Three Blind Mice Return" by Jeremy M. Praay
      15th: "Autumn" by "Slime"
      16th: "The buzzard and the dove" by "emkaah"
      17th: "Evie Evolves" by Joanne Simpson
      18th: "Early morning tea" by "St Dunstan"
      19th: "Christmas Eve" by Gennady Obukhov
      20th: "The Peek-a-Blocks" by "danBhentschel"
      21st: "After the Storm" by Christoph Gerber
      22nd: "Montezumas last meal No.2" by "splendor"
      23rd: "Pathways" by Robert W. McGregor
      24th: "Japanese spire!" by "miyoken"
      25th: "13 Spiral Spheres" by Robert W. McGregor

[Skip Talbot] Re: Results [7728 days 1 hour and 54 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:38:45 GMT

>I'm composing the post now ...

::fidgets wildly in seat::

[Chris Cason] Re: Results [7728 days 1 hour and 57 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:35:41 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> Like me.  :-)
> 
> A few more minutes?  :-)

I'm composing the post now ...

[Lance Birch] Re: Results [7728 days 2 hours and 13 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:19:01 GMT

"Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:421424e0$1@news.povray.org...
> "Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message
> news:web.4214227bf38030d16bcddb6d0@news.povray.org...
> > Chris Cason <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
> >> In case anyone wants to know,
> >
> > There might be few people :-)
> >
> Like me.  :-)
>
> A few more minutes?  :-)

Patience ;)  The results will be made public very, very soon!  When Chris said
less than an hour what he really meant was "hopefully less than an hour" ;)

Just a few more minutes now...

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Results [7728 days 2 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:00:16 GMT

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message 
news:web.4214227bf38030d16bcddb6d0@news.povray.org...
> Chris Cason <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
>> In case anyone wants to know,
>
> There might be few people :-)
>
Like me.  :-)

A few more minutes?  :-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Renderdog] Re: Results [7728 days 2 hours and 37 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:55:00 GMT

Chris Cason <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
> In case anyone wants to know,

There might be few people :-)

> the results will be posted here in less than one hour.

Thanks for the update, very exciting!

[Lance Birch] Re: Results [7728 days 2 hours and 44 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:48:49 GMT

"Chris Cason" <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote in message
news:42141736$1@news.povray.org...
> In case anyone wants to know, the results will be posted here in less
> than one hour.

Yay!  \o/

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Chris Cason] Re: Results [7728 days 3 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:01:58 GMT

In case anyone wants to know, the results will be posted here in less
than one hour.

-- Chris

[Chris Cason] Re: Results [7729 days 4 hours and 59 minutes ago]

Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:33:55 GMT

The results will be emailed to entrants on the 16th. We will also post
them here and on the website.

-- chris

[Warp] Re: Results [7729 days 6 hours and 26 minutes ago]

Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:06:44 GMT

Gena <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Due to the number of entrants many judges reported that they could not
> complete their work in time, a decision has been made to extend the judging
> process to April 1, 2005. In retrospect we can see that the original time
> allowed (only 3 weeks) was just too short. All entrants will receive an
> email regarding this shortly.

> On April 1st:

> Congrats! POVCOMP was just a joke :)

  Where did you get this info?! You are in a big problem now for
making it public!

> Kidding again :)

  Likewise ;)

-- 
#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 -

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Results [7729 days 10 hours and 24 minutes ago]

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:08:01 GMT

"Gena" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.421250a1f38030d1ff43ef6f0@news.povray.org...
> Actually the results are available here already:
>
> ftp.povcomp.org

Oh, and the new topic is "Squid".

Squid, Architeuthis, calimari, tentacles, Ken.  Anything that makes you 
think of squid.

> Due to the number of entrants many judges reported that they could not
> complete their work in time, a decision has been made to extend the 
> judging
> process to April 1, 2005. In retrospect we can see that the original time
> allowed (only 3 weeks) was just too short. All entrants will receive an
> email regarding this shortly.

From what I understand, the real reason was that the sponsors felt that the 
quality of the judging was not quite good enough.  While there was some 
exceptional judging, there was not enough.  The current bar for judging is 
very high.  I will provide some links later...

;-)

JUST KIDDING!!!

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Gena] Re: Results [7729 days 11 hours and 47 minutes ago]

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:45:01 GMT

> Well, yeah, but what day exactly? What time of the day?  Where's the
> count-down timer to the announcement?  ;-)

Actually the results are available here already:

ftp.povcomp.org

> I'm just kidding of course.

Me too :)
And now seriously:

Due to the number of entrants many judges reported that they could not
complete their work in time, a decision has been made to extend the judging
process to April 1, 2005. In retrospect we can see that the original time
allowed (only 3 weeks) was just too short. All entrants will receive an
email regarding this shortly.

On April 1st:

Congrats! POVCOMP was just a joke :)

Kidding again :)

Gena.

[St ] Re: Results [7729 days 12 hours and 18 minutes ago]

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:14:51 GMT

"Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message 
news:42124755$1@news.povray.org...
> "Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
> news:42124559$1@news.povray.org...
>> A google search gave http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/live/12/
>> It is from feb/14 to 17 in Boston
>> Maybe we can hope results before 18th :)
>>
>
>
> Well, yeah, but what day exactly? What time of the day?  Where's the 
> count-down timer to the announcement?  ;-)

  Nah, it'll be delayed by three months...  ;)


> I'm just kidding of course.

   Of course... :)

  I want to know if there's going to be another one though.

   ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> Jeremy
> www.beantoad.com
>
>
>

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Results [7729 days 12 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:02:45 GMT

"Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
news:42124559$1@news.povray.org...
> A google search gave http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/live/12/
> It is from feb/14 to 17 in Boston
> Maybe we can hope results before 18th :)
>


Well, yeah, but what day exactly? What time of the day?  Where's the 
count-down timer to the announcement?  ;-)

I'm just kidding of course.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Marc Jacquier] Re: Results [7729 days 12 hours and 38 minutes ago]

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:54:17 GMT

"Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> a écrit dans le message de
news:42124032@news.povray.org...
> I wonder if there will be announcement regarding when the announcement
will
> be...
>
> Or maybe they'll announce that they will announce when they will announce.
>
> Or maybe it's already been announced, but since I'm not at LinuxWorld, I
> just don't know it.
>
> -- 
A google search gave http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/live/12/
It is from feb/14 to 17 in Boston
Maybe we can hope results before 18th :)

Marc

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Results [7729 days 13 hours ago]

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:32:18 GMT

I wonder if there will be announcement regarding when the announcement will 
be...

Or maybe they'll announce that they will announce when they will announce.

Or maybe it's already been announced, but since I'm not at LinuxWorld, I 
just don't know it.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Lance Birch] Re: Results [7730 days and 28 minutes ago]

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:04:44 GMT

"stephen parkinson" <ste### [at] zmemw16demoncouk> wrote in message
news:42119365@news.povray.org...
> Lance Birch wrote:
> > "Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message
news:42111a0c$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >>>the plan was to announce the winners during
> >>>this year's LinuxWorld (which runs from the 14th to 17th of this month in
> >>>Boston).
> >>
> >>Well, now that it's the 14th, does anyone know more specifically when we can
> >>expect to hear the results? I'm excited! =)
> >
> >
> > Very soon :)
> >
> > Lance.
> >
> > thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
> > thehandle - www.thehandle.com
> >
> >
> prob missed out on a card :-)

Heh :)  Everything is running as planned :)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[stephen parkinson] Re: Results [7730 days 1 hour and 17 minutes ago]

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:15:01 GMT

Lance Birch wrote:
> "Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message news:42111a0c$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>>the plan was to announce the winners during
>>>this year's LinuxWorld (which runs from the 14th to 17th of this month in
>>>Boston).
>>
>>Well, now that it's the 14th, does anyone know more specifically when we can
>>expect to hear the results? I'm excited! =)
> 
> 
> Very soon :)
> 
> Lance.
> 
> thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
> thehandle - www.thehandle.com
> 
> 
prob missed out on a card :-)

stephen

[Lance Birch] Re: Results [7730 days 6 hours ago]

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:32:08 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message news:42111a0c$1@news.povray.org...
> > the plan was to announce the winners during
> > this year's LinuxWorld (which runs from the 14th to 17th of this month in
> > Boston).
>
> Well, now that it's the 14th, does anyone know more specifically when we can
> expect to hear the results? I'm excited! =)

Very soon :)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Slime] Re: Results [7730 days 9 hours and 55 minutes ago]

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:37:16 GMT

> the plan was to announce the winners during
> this year's LinuxWorld (which runs from the 14th to 17th of this month in
> Boston).

Well, now that it's the 14th, does anyone know more specifically when we can
expect to hear the results? I'm excited! =)

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[gonzo] Re: photography to povcomp equivalence? [7736 days 13 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:00:00 GMT

"pan" <pan### [at] syixcom> wrote:
> I.E., the loss of edtail and resolution evident in the
> sectional displays of the overall photograph would
> not occur with a Pov-Ray generated image.
>
> Anyone agree, or see else of significance?

Hmmm, ask me that again after you produce a render at 20ftx10ft with the
kind of detail in that Balboa Park photo...

I think the real issue isn't how much detail is lost, but how much detail
exists in the original. And you probably need (at least) a supercomputer to
model & render something like that.

Be loads of fun though!

RG

[ingo] Re: photography to povcomp equivalence? [7736 days 13 hours and 46 minutes ago]

Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:46:40 GMT

in news:Xns95F772E1020F3jgrimbertmeandmyself@203.29.75.35 Le Forgeron 
wrote:

> All digital camera do compress (with loss).
> 

No, SLR's and the top viewfinder cameras support a 'raw' format that is 
uncompressed. It is kind of a direct output of the sensor. With the right 
software these data can be turned into (at least) 12 bit colour images.

Ingo

[Lance Birch] Re: photography to povcomp equivalence? [7736 days 16 hours and 58 minutes ago]

Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:34:56 GMT

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:4208c2bb@news.povray.org...
> "pan" <pan### [at] syixcom> a écrit dans le message de
> news:4207ae97@news.povray.org...
>
> > Anyone agree, or see else of significance?
>
> If you zoom in on a primitive, or anything algorithmic, you don't really see
> additional, meaningful information: a procedural rust texture stops looking
> like rust at some point. In fact, it's always a little bit frustrating to
> work on large CG pictures because the resources (time, RAM, GHz) necessary
> to add detail at large sizes are always limited. CG pictures, after all, are
> based on models of the world, and are not the real thing.
>
> In a photograph, the details may be lost for a given range of lenses, but,
> up to molecular level, there's always the possibility to see more meaningful
> constructs with another type of lens (or technology).

And here's a demonstration of this idea:
http://www.tpd.tno.nl/Pics/DII/gigazoom/Delft2.htm

This is made by stitching together around 600 photos taken with a Nikon D1X and
one of Nikon's Nikkor AF VR 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 lenses.  And that's *only* a 400mm
lens... put something like a Nikkor 1000mm lens on and...

I guess the moral of this story is, in the real world when you zoom in, there's
more detail (and something that might not appear to have much detail from far
away has more detail the closer you get).  With a virtual 3D construct when you
zoom in, there's less detail (and something that might appear to have a lot of
detail from far away has less detail the closer you get).

Real world for win!

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Gilles Tran] Re: photography to povcomp equivalence? [7736 days 17 hours and 46 minutes ago]

Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:46:35 GMT

"pan" <pan### [at] syixcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4207ae97@news.povray.org...

> Anyone agree, or see else of significance?

If you zoom in on a primitive, or anything algorithmic, you don't really see
additional, meaningful information: a procedural rust texture stops looking
like rust at some point. In fact, it's always a little bit frustrating to
work on large CG pictures because the resources (time, RAM, GHz) necessary
to add detail at large sizes are always limited. CG pictures, after all, are
based on models of the world, and are not the real thing.

In a photograph, the details may be lost for a given range of lenses, but,
up to molecular level, there's always the possibility to see more meaningful
constructs with another type of lens (or technology).

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[scott] Re: photography to povcomp equivalence? [7736 days 18 hours and 9 minutes ago]

Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:23:53 GMT

pan wrote:
> http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm
>
> http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-GGSunset.htm
>
>
> This site, displaying photographs taken with a
> eight gigapixel camera seems to show evidence that
> the information contained within a povcomp style
> image is better reprensented at detailed levels
> than the same scale of data is represented through
> optical photography.
>
> I.E., the loss of edtail and resolution evident in the
> sectional displays of the overall photograph would
> not occur with a Pov-Ray generated image.
>
> Anyone agree, or see else of significance?

It's a bit of a meaningless comparison.  I can render a 1 mm sphere on top
of a 6400 km sphere, then zoom in on the little sphere and it will all be
perfectly sharp.  No optical system can match this.

The realy challenge is, can *you* model enough detail in POV to make it look
real at those zoom levels?  I doubt it.

[Severi Salminen] Re: photography to povcomp equivalence? [7736 days 21 hours and 10 minutes ago]

Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:22:46 GMT

Le Forgeron wrote:

> Classical Jpeg vs Lossless...
> All digital camera do compress (with loss).

I think the OP meant that POV images can be "zoomed in" without any loss 
of detail. This is obviously not the case in real photographs.

That is hardly a surprise as POV images are made from mathematical 
models that don't necessarely have any precision limits. There is also 
no contrast reducinbg MTF involved so one can just create any kind of 
close up. The only limit is probably the accuracy of floating point numbers.

[Le Forgeron] Re: photography to povcomp equivalence? [7736 days 21 hours and 15 minutes ago]

Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:17:35 GMT

"pan" <pan### [at] syixcom> a écrit :

> http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm
> 
> http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-GGSunset.htm
> 
> 
> This site, displaying photographs taken with a
> eight gigapixel camera seems to show evidence that
> the information contained within a povcomp style
> image is better reprensented at detailed levels
> than the same scale of data is represented through
> optical photography.
> 
> I.E., the loss of edtail and resolution evident in the
> sectional displays of the overall photograph would
> not occur with a Pov-Ray generated image.
> 
> Anyone agree, or see else of significance?

Classical Jpeg vs Lossless...
All digital camera do compress (with loss).

Moreover, even 8 Gigapixel camera do not have a 24 bits definitions
(and therefore, if you ever consider using povray with a 48bit PNG...)

And the glass-lenses used for the camera is either very (very very) 
expensive or just not as good as it used to be for the old chemical 
camera (the expensive one, also and at least).


-- 
This is an unauthorised cybernetic announcement.

When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only
say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.

[pan] photography to povcomp equivalence? [7737 days 13 hours and 24 minutes ago]

Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:08:23 GMT

http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm

http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-GGSunset.htm


This site, displaying photographs taken with a
eight gigapixel camera seems to show evidence that
the information contained within a povcomp style
image is better reprensented at detailed levels
than the same scale of data is represented through
optical photography.

I.E., the loss of edtail and resolution evident in the
sectional displays of the overall photograph would
not occur with a Pov-Ray generated image.

Anyone agree, or see else of significance?

Pan

[Gilles Tran] Re: Results [7740 days 7 hours and 35 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 23:57:04 GMT

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4203de4c$1@news.povray.org...

> I just hope we get a little interview with the winner when it's all over.

That's a good idea, I'll keep that in mind. There has been few formal 
interviews of Povers actually.

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Ross] Re: Results [7740 days 10 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 20:42:52 GMT

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:42025c37@news.povray.org...
> "Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> a écrit dans le message de
> news:4200eae4$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > Hopefully, we've proven it here.
>
> Just had a very quick look. This was well worth the wait. Lots of superb
> images and many of them are *** really *** impressive.
>
> G.
>

I just hope we get a little interview with the winner when it's all over.

[Jim Charter] Re: Results [7740 days 17 hours and 45 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:47:21 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:


> of depression.  I've shown my entry to some family and friends and I got 
> some encouraging words, but also things like, "What's that supposed to 
> be???" and, "I don't get it..."  I'm sure everyone gets that.  It's hard to 
> know if you should take someone's advice.
> 
No one answer to that in my experience.  There is the famous and 
mysterious effect of "putting it on the wall"  Merely putting a picture 
you have been working on, up in a public setting can make you see all 
sorts of things you never noticed before.  Also I know one successful 
artist who, when you visited his studio, was clearly listening very 
closely to your reactions, and seemed to be able to make use of that. 
For me the best, and fairly humorous observation came from and old high 
school friend that I had occassion to meet many years after we were out 
of school.  We were comparing the direction our lives had taken.  "Ah, 
artists," he said, "you go into their studio and you see a picture you 
like, but it's never the one they like.  It's always some dismal failure 
in their eyes."  He really nailed it.  That was always my exact 
experience.  You would invite someone into you studio and unerringly 
they would point to either, some studio dog, left unfinished and worked 
on half heartedly on rainy days, or some canvas barely started with just 
the underpainting blocked in. "I like that one :)"  Unerringly!

[St ] Re: Results [7741 days 4 hours and 18 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 03:14:35 GMT

"Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4202e327$1@news.povray.org...
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
> news:4202cbbc@news.povray.org...
>>>
>> I totally agree.  And you said it well.
>
> Yep.  A long-race against worthy opponents, perhaps.  I hate to think of 
> anyone as being an "opponent" though.  :-)
>
>>
>> The whole thing evidently weighed on people's minds a lot. Several people 
>> feeling the need to explain their decision, one way or another. I think a 
>> high-profile event like this is quite a learning experience for us, and 
>> across several issues.  During the course of the entire contest, in both 
>> its phases, I believe I have personally experienced every feeling of 
>> doubt and apprehension that has been voiced here.
>
> Luckily, I guess I shoved most of my doubt and apprehension aside until 
> after I submitted my image.  Then I started looking around at raph.com, 
> trying out new ideas, looking at Gilles' Mini Cooper scene, etc. 
> Suddenly, my entry didn't seem good enough anymore.  Eventually it wore me 
> down.  For a few days I was convinced that my entry would "suck", and I 
> sunk into a bit of depression.  I've shown my entry to some family and 
> friends and I got some encouraging words, but also things like, "What's 
> that supposed to be???" and, "I don't get it..."  I'm sure everyone gets 
> that.  It's hard to know if you should take someone's advice.
>
> Tonight, I feel more relaxed, thanks in part to Gilles' statement.  Funny 
> how that works.  Somehow, knowing that the entries are higher quality 
> makes me feel better about everyone involved, including me.  Competing in 
> any competition always teaches me something about myself.  Regardless of 
> the end-result, I think THAT is a good thing.
>
> I'm glad the judging for this competition is anonymous.  Otherwise, I 
> would feel less inclined to speak this openly.

   Jeremy, I agree with you wholeheartedly. What I would like however, is a 
few results with that damned computer. Grrr! Let's see what it can do after 
all this!

  Would be good.  :)

    Now sleep... z

    ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> Jeremy
> www.beantoad.com
>

[Thorsten Froehlich] Re: Results [7741 days 4 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 03:00:41 GMT

Chris Holtorf wrote:
>>Just had a very quick look. This was well worth the wait. Lots of superb
>>images and many of them are *** really *** impressive.
>>
>>G.
>>
> 
> 
> That is great news. This sort of comment would be great to see posted on the POVCOMP
> website.

Did you check the website in the last two days...?

	Thorsten

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Results [7741 days 4 hours and 41 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 02:51:19 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:4202cbbc@news.povray.org...
>>
> I totally agree.  And you said it well.

Yep.  A long-race against worthy opponents, perhaps.  I hate to think of 
anyone as being an "opponent" though.  :-)

>
> The whole thing evidently weighed on people's minds a lot. Several people 
> feeling the need to explain their decision, one way or another. I think a 
> high-profile event like this is quite a learning experience for us, and 
> across several issues.  During the course of the entire contest, in both 
> its phases, I believe I have personally experienced every feeling of doubt 
> and apprehension that has been voiced here.

Luckily, I guess I shoved most of my doubt and apprehension aside until 
after I submitted my image.  Then I started looking around at raph.com, 
trying out new ideas, looking at Gilles' Mini Cooper scene, etc.  Suddenly, 
my entry didn't seem good enough anymore.  Eventually it wore me down.  For 
a few days I was convinced that my entry would "suck", and I sunk into a bit 
of depression.  I've shown my entry to some family and friends and I got 
some encouraging words, but also things like, "What's that supposed to 
be???" and, "I don't get it..."  I'm sure everyone gets that.  It's hard to 
know if you should take someone's advice.

Tonight, I feel more relaxed, thanks in part to Gilles' statement.  Funny 
how that works.  Somehow, knowing that the entries are higher quality makes 
me feel better about everyone involved, including me.  Competing in any 
competition always teaches me something about myself.  Regardless of the 
end-result, I think THAT is a good thing.

I'm glad the judging for this competition is anonymous.  Otherwise, I would 
feel less inclined to speak this openly.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[John D Gwinner] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7741 days 4 hours and 48 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 02:44:11 GMT

Thank you (Chris).  Let me see if I can pin down the fog bug, rerender, and 
then I'll try and post something.

I agree about the exposure - this image in particular shows some interesting 
'code' things - I have a city that's built programatically, although 
distance shots show it a bit better.  The ability to easily extend POV Ray 
with SDL is IMHO one of the big attractions, compared to other programs.

        == John ==

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:41ffacc3$1@news.povray.org...
> Chris Cason wrote:
>> If you managed to get it finished, why don't you submit it anyhow ? If
>> you email the support line they can re-enable your login. Then, at least
>> it will be displayed with the other entries.
>>
>> -- Chris
> That's a nice invitation.  After all, one of the main attractions is the 
> increased level of exposure, as much as the prizes.

[John D Gwinner] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7741 days 4 hours and 48 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 02:44:10 GMT

> Frequent releases also teach how long a render takes.

Actually, I *was* doing that.  What I wasn't doing was the 2 'detail' 
images, as I had been doing close ups of the detail shots in other renders, 
so I didn't need to preview those.  The net result is that I was well aware 
of how long a render took, but the backup image wouldn't have met the 
requirements.

As I noted in the original, due to a versioning mismatch, the photon times 
suddenly shut up dramatically the last day, but that's an integration issue. 
Like all integration issues, proper planning from the start would have 
corrected that, so of course it's my screwup.  *so* much went wrong at the 
end there was only so much I could do.  Of course, I could have done better.

  The image is part of a series for a book I'm writing so it will live 
again, however.

> This is a "best practice" in software engineering.

  Right.  I've signed checks (authorized funds) for 16 million for software 
projects.  (no kidding).  You?  :)


        == John ==

[St ] Re: Results [7741 days 5 hours and 1 minute ago]

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 02:31:27 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:42029465@news.povray.org...
>> > Just had a very quick look. This was well worth the wait. Lots of 
>> > superb
>> > images and many of them are *** really *** impressive.
>
> Yay!
>
>>  Good job I didn't enter in the end then. I embarrass myself enough
> already.
>
>
> It seems like a lot of people had this attitude about the competition. I
> think it's sad. If you put months of hard work into something and get it
> into a state that you feel is completed, then you should never be ashamed 
> of
> it, regardless of how it looks next to anything else. And more 
> importantly,
> everyone who is skilled at something was once unskilled at it. (Even 
> Gilles
> Tran's early work looks like everyone else's.) Holding back gets you
> nowhere. Povcomp was an excellent opportunity for everyone to develop 
> their
> skills and I wish more people had taken advantage of it.
>
> Being critical of one's own work is important, but only for the sake of
> self-improvement.
>
> What I'm saying here doesn't apply just to povcomp, or even just to 
> POV-Ray.
> Never decide that you aren't capable of being as good as (or better than)
> the best! Believing in your own potential is necessary to achieve it.

   Slime, trust me my friend, I understood before you posted, exactly what 
you mean and are saying.

    I'm nothing special, and I don't, and won't, believe that for one second 
or minute. I am though, an artist - the same as you and others here. Not an 
an 'on-line' artist like we've 'all' seen and tried to do - but I've done my 
apprenticeship with other mediums when I was younger, and it helps.

 Then PoV-Ray actually came around for me... A different story. Something I 
'could' possibly control/deal with comparative to other <free trial> 
programs, etc. But, if I can't cut the ice, then I have to comply with that 
for now - it's 'really' not a problem for me, I'll get there, because I'm 
stronger than that - really. I won't give up PoVing. The whole thing is not 
about me, it's about the others here, and what they do and try to achieve in 
their own time, and what they share with new people eagerly awaiting around 
the corner - ready to pounce. Yeah, 'pounce' - we all try to do it, which is 
a good thing - competition is always a 'good' thing.

 Ashamed about my image? No way, I just effed-up my details, that's all - 
hence my post above, ("How important...") Remember, I did lose two 'heavy' 
sets of files, (and many previous IRTC image files), that were my efforts 
for the PoVComp, ('Flowers' being one of my early images - it was much 
better than that in the end before losing it), and then I started again with 
another idea after installing XP in December. I compiled my latest image in 
a little over six weeks, not five months.

   See .images.

(Jim, I think this answers your post too - thank you for your kind words, 
appreciated and understood).

(Time for sleep now... I'm cream-crackered! REALLY!)  ;)

  Regards all,

    ~Steve~




>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>

[Chris Holtorf] Re: Results [7741 days 6 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 01:30:37 GMT

> 
> Just had a very quick look. This was well worth the wait. Lots of superb
> images and many of them are *** really *** impressive.
> 
> G.
> 

That is great news. This sort of comment would be great to see posted on the POVCOMP
website. It also makes me feel a whole lot better about the effort that I and everyone
else put into this contest. I also struggled with whether or not to post my results
and decided to go ahead and post it anyway, despite my grave concern about it not
being good enough.
I don't suppose we could see some thumbnail size images of all of the submissions ?
It would be helpful to see all of the different subjects that everyone picked.

Chris Holtorf

[Jim Charter] Re: Results [7741 days 6 hours and 21 minutes ago]

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 01:11:24 GMT

Slime wrote:
>>Good words.  But I think they are a bit ironic here since Steve was one
>>of the most vocal proponents of that very viewpoint throughout the
>>contest, and he was kind of an inspiration to me.  I'm not taking his
>>post in a totally straighforward way.  I think he is still trying to
>>come to grips with the "loss" of not fielding an entry, after he worked
>>so hard and long, rising from the ashes twice if I've understood
>>correctly.  He had to make a tough decision to self-edit based on what
>>he felt, in the end, were serious technical flaws with his entry.  That
>>takes a certain kind of toughness too.
> 
> 
> I guess I didn't fully understand Steve's situation. In any case, my post
> was also in response to many other posts I've seen on the newsgroups in the
> last few days; I just figured this would be a good place to say it.
> 
I totally agree.  And you said it well.

The whole thing evidently weighed on people's minds a lot. Several 
people feeling the need to explain their decision, one way or another. 
I think a high-profile event like this is quite a learning experience 
for us, and across several issues.  During the course of the entire 
contest, in both its phases, I believe I have personally experienced 
every feeling of doubt and apprehension that has been voiced here.

[Slime] Re: Results [7741 days 7 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:40:05 GMT

> Good words.  But I think they are a bit ironic here since Steve was one
> of the most vocal proponents of that very viewpoint throughout the
> contest, and he was kind of an inspiration to me.  I'm not taking his
> post in a totally straighforward way.  I think he is still trying to
> come to grips with the "loss" of not fielding an entry, after he worked
> so hard and long, rising from the ashes twice if I've understood
> correctly.  He had to make a tough decision to self-edit based on what
> he felt, in the end, were serious technical flaws with his entry.  That
> takes a certain kind of toughness too.

I guess I didn't fully understand Steve's situation. In any case, my post
was also in response to many other posts I've seen on the newsgroups in the
last few days; I just figured this would be a good place to say it.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Jim Charter] Re: Results [7741 days 8 hours and 24 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:08:43 GMT

Slime wrote:
>>>Just had a very quick look. This was well worth the wait. Lots of superb
>>>images and many of them are *** really *** impressive.
> 
> 
> Yay!
> 
> 
>> Good job I didn't enter in the end then. I embarrass myself enough
> 
> already.
> 
> 
> It seems like a lot of people had this attitude about the competition. I
> think it's sad. If you put months of hard work into something and get it
> into a state that you feel is completed, then you should never be ashamed of
> it, regardless of how it looks next to anything else. And more importantly,
> everyone who is skilled at something was once unskilled at it. (Even Gilles
> Tran's early work looks like everyone else's.) Holding back gets you
> nowhere. Povcomp was an excellent opportunity for everyone to develop their
> skills and I wish more people had taken advantage of it.
> 
> Being critical of one's own work is important, but only for the sake of
> self-improvement.
> 
> What I'm saying here doesn't apply just to povcomp, or even just to POV-Ray.
> Never decide that you aren't capable of being as good as (or better than)
> the best! Believing in your own potential is necessary to achieve it.
> 
>  - Slime
>  [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
> 
> 
Good words.  But I think they are a bit ironic here since Steve was one 
of the most vocal proponents of that very viewpoint throughout the 
contest, and he was kind of an inspiration to me.  I'm not taking his 
post in a totally straighforward way.  I think he is still trying to 
come to grips with the "loss" of not fielding an entry, after he worked 
so hard and long, rising from the ashes twice if I've understood 
correctly.  He had to make a tough decision to self-edit based on what 
he felt, in the end, were serious technical flaws with his entry.  That 
takes a certain kind of toughness too.

-Jim

[Slime] Re: Results [7741 days 10 hours and 17 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Feb 2005 21:15:17 GMT

> > Just had a very quick look. This was well worth the wait. Lots of superb
> > images and many of them are *** really *** impressive.

Yay!

>  Good job I didn't enter in the end then. I embarrass myself enough
already.


It seems like a lot of people had this attitude about the competition. I
think it's sad. If you put months of hard work into something and get it
into a state that you feel is completed, then you should never be ashamed of
it, regardless of how it looks next to anything else. And more importantly,
everyone who is skilled at something was once unskilled at it. (Even Gilles
Tran's early work looks like everyone else's.) Holding back gets you
nowhere. Povcomp was an excellent opportunity for everyone to develop their
skills and I wish more people had taken advantage of it.

Being critical of one's own work is important, but only for the sake of
self-improvement.

What I'm saying here doesn't apply just to povcomp, or even just to POV-Ray.
Never decide that you aren't capable of being as good as (or better than)
the best! Believing in your own potential is necessary to achieve it.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[St ] Re: Results [7741 days 12 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Feb 2005 18:42:38 GMT

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message 
news:42025c37@news.povray.org...
> "Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> a écrit dans le message de
> news:4200eae4$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Hopefully, we've proven it here.
>
> Just had a very quick look. This was well worth the wait. Lots of superb
> images and many of them are *** really *** impressive.

 Good job I didn't enter in the end then. I embarrass myself enough already.


   ~Steve~


> G.

[Gilles Tran] Re: Results [7741 days 14 hours and 17 minutes ago]

Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:15:35 GMT

"Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4200eae4$1@news.povray.org...

> Hopefully, we've proven it here.

Just had a very quick look. This was well worth the wait. Lots of superb
images and many of them are *** really *** impressive.

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Results [7742 days 16 hours and 33 minutes ago]

Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:59:48 GMT

"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:4200dac5@news.povray.org...
>
> I see what you mean now.  I can't really think of anything that could be
> announced between the close of the competition and announcing the winners,
> though.  Perhaps only little notes like "judging has begun", "judging is 
> now
> finalised", etc.
>


Once judging is finished, but before any announcement, it might be nice to 
see all of the competing images together.  But I don't have any idea how 
long judging will take, so perhaps that's out of the question.

Hopefully, we'll get some sort of announcement, such as how many competing 
images there are.  Personally, I hope the quality of the submissions has 
improved significantly since October.  POV-Ray can do incredible things. 
Hopefully, we've proven it here.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Lance Birch] Re: Results [7742 days 17 hours and 41 minutes ago]

Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:51:01 GMT

"Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:4200d645@news.povray.org...
> "Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:42005daa@news.povray.org...
> > "Chris Holtorf" <lho### [at] nwlinkcom> wrote in message
> > news:1103_1107318647@news.povray.org...
> >> Any idea on when we will hear something regarding the next step in the
> >> contest
> > process ?
> >
> > Hey Chris, I recall reading somewhere... <snip>
>
>
> Probably here:
> http://www.povcomp.com/rules/ "Competition Timeframe"

Ah, so it was indeed - and I just found it on the Appro website as well.

> Or perhaps the Chris was wondering if there would be something in-between
> the submission and the announcement.  If so, we haven't heard anything
> either way.

I see what you mean now.  I can't really think of anything that could be
announced between the close of the competition and announcing the winners,
though.  Perhaps only little notes like "judging has begun", "judging is now
finalised", etc.

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Results [7742 days 18 hours and 1 minute ago]

Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:31:49 GMT

"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:42005daa@news.povray.org...
> "Chris Holtorf" <lho### [at] nwlinkcom> wrote in message
> news:1103_1107318647@news.povray.org...
>> Any idea on when we will hear something regarding the next step in the 
>> contest
> process ?
>
> Hey Chris, I recall reading somewhere... <snip>


Probably here:
http://www.povcomp.com/rules/ "Competition Timeframe"

Or perhaps the Chris was wondering if there would be something in-between 
the submission and the announcement.  If so, we haven't heard anything 
either way.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Lance Birch] Re: Results [7743 days 2 hours and 35 minutes ago]

Wed, 2 Feb 2005 04:57:14 GMT

"Chris Holtorf" <lho### [at] nwlinkcom> wrote in message
news:1103_1107318647@news.povray.org...
> Any idea on when we will hear something regarding the next step in the contest
process ?

Hey Chris, I recall reading somewhere (I think on one of the sponsors'
websites - perhaps Appro's) that the plan was to announce the winners during
this year's LinuxWorld (which runs from the 14th to 17th of this month in
Boston).  However, this is just from my memory and should NOT be taken in any
way as being official - this is just what I recall having seen.  The official
word on what's going on will most probably come from Chris Cason during the next
two weeks, so keep an eye out for messages from him on here, and the news
section of the POVCOMP website.

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Chris Holtorf] Results [7743 days 3 hours and 3 minutes ago]

Wed, 2 Feb 2005 04:29:07 GMT

Any idea on when we will hear something regarding the next step in the contest process
?

Chris Holtorf

[Slime] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 11 hours and 36 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:56:37 GMT

> I think it would be really nice to have some interactive
> graphical interface or preview option so I don't waste three hours
> rendering the whole scene just to detect a simple problem in one little
> corner.


+SP16

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Emperor Pygosceles] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 12 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:30:00 GMT

I just barely managed to submit my entry in time.  I am by no means a
professional raytracer, but I had to challenge myself to get somewhere.
Just as I finished several hours of rendering, I noticed that one of the
meshes was missing from the foreground.  It was too late to go back and
replace it, and the scene was still intelligible without it.  I promised
myself I'd enter no matter how crappy my submission was.  At least now I
have a *very remote* understanding of some of what goes on underneath the
program's hood.  I think it would be really nice to have some interactive
graphical interface or preview option so I don't waste three hours
rendering the whole scene just to detect a simple problem in one little
corner.
Anyway, I'm sorry you couldn't finish yours in time.  I can't say my chances
are any better having submitted an entry than not, though.

[Jaap] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 14 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:25:01 GMT

"John D. Gwinner" <joh### [at] cornelledu> wrote:
> The worst, however, was two multiple crashes of MegaPOV on the scene at
> about halfway through,
?

have you tried a ram checker (memtest86)?
i found out (the hard way) that foulty ram only shows up in large renders.
(i got errors like "triangle misspelled" in the midle of a large (auto
generated) file with thowsands of triangles.. (and hang-ups :-) )

jaap.

[Jim Charter] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 15 hours and 10 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:22:27 GMT

Chris Cason wrote:
> If you managed to get it finished, why don't you submit it anyhow ? If
> you email the support line they can re-enable your login. Then, at least
> it will be displayed with the other entries.
> 
> -- Chris
That's a nice invitation.  After all, one of the main attractions is the 
increased level of exposure, as much as the prizes.

[Jim Charter] Re: IRTC [7743 days 15 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:02:40 GMT

LightBeam wrote:
> Txemi Jendrix a écrit :
> 
>> LightBeam wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Where are the results for december 2004 ? lost in space ? is IRTC dead ?
>>> :-(
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not dead and you are the winner (seems like a dream come true? ;-)
> 
> 
> Lol, I didn't see it this midday, just this evening when I was back ;-) 
> "I'm happy"(R) ;-)
It was a great image you entered, really struck a chord with me.  And 
the carpet texture is great.

[Jim Charter] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 15 hours and 38 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:54:37 GMT

Phlip wrote:
> John D. Gwinner wrote:
> 
> 
>>Well, I just missed the deadline - when I started to type this, there were
>>22 mins to go or so, but at line 440 out of 571 to go ... obviously, it's
>>not going to make it.
> 
> 
> The lesson is everyone attempting to enter the competition should have
> rendered a submission quality image each weekend, from the start of the
> contest until now. Then if you can't render your best version, you can
> submit the second best.
> 
> Frequent releases also teach how long a render takes.
> 
> This is a "best practice" in software engineering.
> 
Yeah yeah yeah, but the real world is messy.  I did a lot of due 
diligence full blown testing myself, along with clever speed testing, 
and built a lot into my code to facilitate that,... but I still got a 
big surprise during the final push at the end.  I, myself, was forced to 
enter a set of renders that I did in just the spirit you describe.  But 
they look embarassing to me now. They could have been improved 
dramatically with just a few "plan B" tweaks, once it was obvious that a 
technique I was depending on wouldn't work, but instead I had to watch, 
helplessly, as the clock ticked down, just as John did.

[John D Gwinner] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 15 hours and 46 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:46:32 GMT

*lol*

Of course.

"emkaah" <emkaah@yahoodotcom> wrote in message 
news:41ff60f2$1@news.povray.org...
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/108629.html
>

[LightBeam] Re: IRTC [7743 days 16 hours and 1 minute ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:31:04 GMT

Txemi Jendrix a écrit :
> LightBeam wrote:
> 
> 
>>Where are the results for december 2004 ? lost in space ? is IRTC dead ?
>>:-(
> 
> 
> It's not dead and you are the winner (seems like a dream come true? ;-)

Lol, I didn't see it this midday, just this evening when I was back ;-) 
"I'm happy"(R) ;-)

[Phlip] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 16 hours and 45 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:47:06 GMT

John D. Gwinner wrote:

> Well, I just missed the deadline - when I started to type this, there were
> 22 mins to go or so, but at line 440 out of 571 to go ... obviously, it's
> not going to make it.

The lesson is everyone attempting to enter the competition should have
rendered a submission quality image each weekend, from the start of the
contest until now. Then if you can't render your best version, you can
submit the second best.

Frequent releases also teach how long a render takes.

This is a "best practice" in software engineering.

-- 
  Phlip
  http://industrialxp.org/community/bin/view/Main/TestFirstUserInterfaces

[Jim Charter] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 17 hours ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:32:50 GMT

John D. Gwinner wrote:
> Well, I just missed the deadline - when I started to type this, there were 
> 22 mins to go or so, but at line 440 out of 571 to go ... obviously, it's 
> not going to make it.
> 
> Rats.  I'm sooo frustrated.
> 
> Well, there were a few errors in the image anyway, my radiosity settings 
> interferred with my terrain and washed it out so the impact wouldn't have 
> been there.  Same terrain I've been using for 3 weeks, but I fiddled with 
> the texture in the last 3 days and apparently it didn't work with radiosity.
> 
> I think I ran into a bug with fog 2 that's different than the known bug, 
> I'll try and duplicate it.  Probably I messed up the SDL.
> 
> The worst, however, was two multiple crashes of MegaPOV on the scene at 
> about halfway through, this afternoon.  After attempting to continue with 
> POVRay, it worked, but scrambled the top half of the image, and I was scared 
> to mess with it.  After looking at it just now, it appears the file saved 
> was correct, so it must be a display bug with +C switching between MegaPOV 
> and POVRay.  I'll post the crash address if I can find it.  I was SO happy 
> yesterday as I went to sleep and started the final image ...  well, clearly 
> I should have started earlier.
> 
> I had a few test runs that weren't too bad (not as much detail) but I hadn't 
> saved the detail zoom in so I would gather I can't post them anyway.  Next 
> time, I'll do complete dry run before the final image 'just in case'.  If 
> there is a next time ...
> 
> oh yea, 4 mins to go and line 456 out of 571 ... there it goes, 00:01.  :(
> 
>         == John == 
> 
> 
> 
> ÿþ<
I commiserate.

[Txemi Jendrix] Re: IRTC [7743 days 17 hours and 59 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:33:36 GMT

LightBeam wrote:

> Where are the results for december 2004 ? lost in space ? is IRTC dead ?
> :-(

It's not dead and you are the winner (seems like a dream come true? ;-)
-- 
Txemi Jendrix
www.txemijendrix.com

[Chris Cason] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 18 hours ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:32:08 GMT

If you managed to get it finished, why don't you submit it anyhow ? If
you email the support line they can re-enable your login. Then, at least
it will be displayed with the other entries.

-- Chris

[Marc Jacquier] Re: IRTC [7743 days 20 hours and 16 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:16:04 GMT

You should post it on irtc.stills  :)

Marc

"LightBeam" <s.f### [at] tiscalifr> a écrit dans le message de
news:41ff61f1$1@news.povray.org...
> Where are the results for december 2004 ? lost in space ? is IRTC dead ?
:-(

[LightBeam] IRTC [7743 days 20 hours and 29 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:03:13 GMT

Where are the results for december 2004 ? lost in space ? is IRTC dead ? :-(

[emkaah] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 20 hours and 33 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:58:58 GMT

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/108629.html

[Marc Jacquier] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 21 hours and 4 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:28:35 GMT

"John D. Gwinner" <joh### [at] cornelledu> a écrit dans le message de
news:41ff37a1$1@news.povray.org...
> Well, I just missed the deadline - when I started to type this, there were
> 22 mins to go or so, but at line 440 out of 571 to go ... obviously, it's
> not going to make it.
>
> Rats.  I'm sooo frustrated.
Too bad! Must be a heartbreaker :(((


Marc

[Lance Birch] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 22 hours and 54 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 08:38:06 GMT

"John D. Gwinner" <joh### [at] cornelledu> wrote in message
news:41ff37a1$1@news.povray.org...
> Well, I just missed the deadline - when I started to type this, there were
> 22 mins to go or so, but at line 440 out of 571 to go ... obviously, it's
> not going to make it.

Damn, that's a real shame John!  I was really hoping no one would run out of
time :/

Still, like Slime said, it's not a total loss - at least you have another
render under your belt.

I know how it feels though, to miss a deadline like that... :((

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Slime] Re: Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 23 hours and 6 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 08:26:08 GMT

> Well, I just missed the deadline - when I started to type this, there were
> 22 mins to go or so, but at line 440 out of 571 to go ... obviously, it's
> not going to make it.


That sucks =(

But hey, finish the image, and show us the final product in
povray.binaries.images. It's not like it was a waste of time.

> After attempting to continue with
> POVRay, it worked, but scrambled the top half of the image, and I was
scared
> to mess with it.  After looking at it just now, it appears the file saved
> was correct, so it must be a display bug with +C switching between MegaPOV
> and POVRay.

I've seen that without using MegaPOV. In fact, I see it every time I use +C.
File outputs alright so I don't really mind it.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[John D Gwinner] Withdrawing .. darn it [7743 days 23 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 08:02:41 GMT

Well, I just missed the deadline - when I started to type this, there were 
22 mins to go or so, but at line 440 out of 571 to go ... obviously, it's 
not going to make it.

Rats.  I'm sooo frustrated.

Well, there were a few errors in the image anyway, my radiosity settings 
interferred with my terrain and washed it out so the impact wouldn't have 
been there.  Same terrain I've been using for 3 weeks, but I fiddled with 
the texture in the last 3 days and apparently it didn't work with radiosity.

I think I ran into a bug with fog 2 that's different than the known bug, 
I'll try and duplicate it.  Probably I messed up the SDL.

The worst, however, was two multiple crashes of MegaPOV on the scene at 
about halfway through, this afternoon.  After attempting to continue with 
POVRay, it worked, but scrambled the top half of the image, and I was scared 
to mess with it.  After looking at it just now, it appears the file saved 
was correct, so it must be a display bug with +C switching between MegaPOV 
and POVRay.  I'll post the crash address if I can find it.  I was SO happy 
yesterday as I went to sleep and started the final image ...  well, clearly 
I should have started earlier.

I had a few test runs that weren't too bad (not as much detail) but I hadn't 
saved the detail zoom in so I would gather I can't post them anyway.  Next 
time, I'll do complete dry run before the final image 'just in case'.  If 
there is a next time ...

oh yea, 4 mins to go and line 456 out of 571 ... there it goes, 00:01.  :(

        == John ==

[Marc Jacquier] Re: How important... [7743 days 23 hours and 47 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 07:45:37 GMT

"Lance Birch" <-> a écrit dans le message de
news:41ff15ed@news.povray.org...
> Good luck everyone, 2 hours 22 minutes to go!  Woo!  :)
>
15 minutes now :)
But I submitted my entry 4 days ago

Good luck to all of us
Marc

[Lance Birch] Re: How important... [7744 days 1 hour and 54 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:38:53 GMT

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41fc449d@news.povray.org...
<snip>
>      Yes, thank you Lance. The word 'acceptable' for the detail views, is,
> in my opinion, subjective in contrast to the original, 'main', image.
Since
> the start of this competition, I've been thinking 'poster' in a commercial
> sense as this is the intended result of this comp. That's not a problem
for
> me, but I think a few more people out there may have had the same results
as
> I had - ie, crap detail views. But that's not to say that their image
isn't
> fantastic, and their expectations may be high in what they've achieved as
> far as their 'main' image is concerned?
>
>   Hey, I've given it my best shot, and can't wait to see what others have
> done. I already commend them if they've been through the same as me, and
I'm
> sure they have.

I can't wait to see the images either, it should be a lot of fun!

>   Less than two days to go now...  ;)

And less than two and a half hours now!

>      Yes, I agree, but one contestant could have a **fantastic** skull in
> one, dark, corner, *and* two great close-ups of that skull, but what do
the
> judges want? They don't want a poster of a skull in a corner because the
> model is *brilliant* and modeled in csg/sdl - it just won't cut it imo as
a
> commercial poster. (But then, who knows?!)

The detail views are, in my mind, more of an additional gauge - as each
image is different, how each detail view is taken into consideration with
respect to the main image, will be different.

>   And I respect your opinion, you know that. My image 'is' rendered from
the
> same source file, using sdl, (repeated four times now in my image, (158
> .incs, 1,992 files, 4 folders)), but I've missed two minor objects out in
my
> code on the second unit. <sigh> I'm just wondering whether it's 'worth'
the
> effort of another ten hours, that's all. I'm beat, and I just want to
enjoy
> modeling/rendering again.

Heh - ah the perils of being a raytracer'er ;)

>  <delay since typing this>
>
>    Anyway, I've uploaded now. Good luck if you've entered Lance, ('speak'
to
> you soon now that my machine is free). Good luck all.

Indeed, good luck to everyone!  With just a couple of hours to go there's
still time to get an entry in - hopefully everyone will be able to get their
entries in.

I won't be entering.  When I first heard about the competition I thought
"what a cool idea!", especially considering the great prizes and the
possibility of promoting POV-Ray to the wider online community, but as much
as I would have liked to have entered there were a number of factors that
made it impossible:

a) I would never have found the time to create an entry!  I've just been too
busy with other things.
b) More importantly, I knew about the competition several months before it
was publicly announced, so although I knew nothing more than a few details
about what the prizes were going to be, simply knowing about the competition
would have given me an unfair advantage.  Although I started sketching image
ideas inspired by the thought of the competition, I never had any intention
to create an image from those ideas that would be entered (perhaps some day
I'll finish those ideas).  Very early on I resigned myself to the fact that
I wouldn't be able to enter.
c) Most importantly now, the rules prohibit me from entering.

Good luck everyone, 2 hours 22 minutes to go!  Woo!  :)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: How important... [7744 days 3 hours and 12 minutes ago]

Tue, 1 Feb 2005 04:19:58 GMT

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41fd5560@news.povray.org...
>
> "Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
> news:41fcfc17$1@news.povray.org...

>> In many cases, things look best in the detail views and not in the main 
>> image.
>
> You've obviously done the 'large image' thing before, and I haven't. My 
> detail images look terrible. :/ I used a couple of image_maps and they 
> look ok in my main image, but they are SO pixelated in my details, I've 
> got no hope... Still, I hope you (all) enjoy the concept.
>

I'm sure we will enjoy it.  I wonder when we will get to see the competing 
images.  I'm getting anxious.  Mid February  had better come soon.  :-)

I can't imagine being a judge for this competition.  There will undoubtedly 
be so many "apples vs. oranges" issues.  Just comparing my entry to some 
others that I've seen leaves me no doubt.

>
> I'm currently rendering "the poster" at 4800x3600 and I'm quite
>> pleased with the way many details look in high-rez.  While I hold out a 
>> hope of winning, I'm planning to buy my own poster regardless, so this 
>> will not be a wasted effort for me.
>
>  I would love to buy mine, but not as it is. I'll hold out until I sort 
> it, (a coupla tweaks! damn!), and then buy it. Heh, I might even buy yours 
> when you win Jeremy!  ;)
>

Good luck with it, especially if it's still rendering as I type.

*sigh*

If I place well, my biggest hurdle of the next few months will likely be my 
ego.  And if I place badly, then my ego will be crushed, and I'll have to 
deal with that.  Either way, I'm screwed.  ;-)

I'm trying to keep this in perspective, but since it has taken me 5 months 
to get where I am, it's probably not something I can easily brush-off. 
Luckily, we have a great bunch of people here, so even if I should win, I'm 
sure that someone will help me through the emotional turmoil.  If they 
can't, me and my Opterons will RULE THE WORLD!!!

I'm figuring that someone we've never heard of before is going to step out 
of the wood-work and impress all of us.  We'll all be wondering, "Where the 
heck did he (or she) come from?"  Then they'll walk away with the 
grand-prize and we'll never hear from them again.  Ok, I'm not really 
expecting that...  But the thought has crossed my mind.  I actually have a 
handful of names that I'm expecting to see at the top.  But, I probably 
shouldn't speculate much more than that.

>    LOL!  :)  "To all PoVers, keep on PoVin'".

And may the blessings of the POV gods be upon us all.  :-)

-- 
Jeremy "If you're not smiling, then you're taking me too seriously" Praay
www.beantoad.com

[Chris Cason] Re: Joining appendices to the image [7744 days 17 hours and 10 minutes ago]

Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:22:43 GMT

fa3ien wrote:
> In the process of submitting my image, I prepared a small series
> of images which gives information about the content and the making
> of the main image.  I think this is much more efficient than
> a thousand words.
> 
> However, I thought there would be a way to join appendice files,
> but, except for the "source files", there is no slot for this
> in the submission page.
> 
> Will the "source files" be released to the jury along with the
> images so I can say "look at the images in the source files" ?
> 
> Or should I create a web page for this purpose ?

Upload it as a source and make a note in the comments about this. I'll
make sure the appendices get to the judges. We won't provide the rest of
the sources immediately as it makes it too easy to identify the entrants.

-- Chris

[fa3ien] Joining appendices to the image [7744 days 23 hours and 5 minutes ago]

Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:27:39 GMT

In the process of submitting my image, I prepared a small series
of images which gives information about the content and the making
of the main image.  I think this is much more efficient than
a thousand words.

However, I thought there would be a way to join appendice files,
but, except for the "source files", there is no slot for this
in the submission page.

Will the "source files" be released to the jury along with the
images so I can say "look at the images in the source files" ?

Or should I create a web page for this purpose ?

Fabien.

[Jim Charter] Re: How important... [7745 days 7 hours and 55 minutes ago]

Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:37:43 GMT

St. wrote:
> 

> 
>    Well I'm happy with mine for the main image, but this 'detail' thing 
> sure knocked the wind out of me... I *WISH* someone would have said 
> something beforehand...
> 

I sympathize because I had that happen to me when I got involved with 
Gena's Capriccio project.  I went in thinking in terms of the usual 
resolutions I am used to.  I looked at the source photo and thought, 
"well, I'm very inexperienced with mesh modelling but I think I could 
pull off something believeable for the figures, and I think I am one of 
the few people modelling organically in mesh right now, so maybe I'll 
offer my try"  But then someone started talking poster, and so the 
resolution was boosted to poster resolutions and I was immediately in 
over my head. Having to produce figures in full detail had never been my 
intention. And the inexperience was not not just with the level of 
detail in the modelling but with just knowing how to handle workflow and 
rendering huge images and scrolling around etc.  Basically after I lot 
of desperate effort I had to just throw in the towel.  It was a gruesome 
experience and I was not enthusiastic about working at these large 
resolutions again anytime soon.  So I got involved this time with some 
idea of what would be involved.  But I don't think resolution is a 
trivial issue.  I think an imaged is concieved of at a certain 
resolution.  Whether or not to includethe gun ports on your ship in a 
storm and all that.

[St ] Re: How important... [7745 days 9 hours and 47 minutes ago]

Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:45:04 GMT

"Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:41fcfc17$1@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41fb7c50@news.povray.org...
>> How important are the detail images when it comes to judging? What if 
>> minor things have been missed in one detail image? (And I mean so minor, 
>> that you just can't see them in your main image).
>>
>
> Not an answer, since it looks like others have answered quite well... 
> More of a slight ramble...
>
> In many cases, things look best in the detail views and not in the main 
> image.

You've obviously done the 'large image' thing before, and I haven't. My 
detail images look terrible. :/ I used a couple of image_maps and they look 
ok in my main image, but they are SO pixelated in my details, I've got no 
hope... Still, I hope you (all) enjoy the concept.


 I'm currently rendering "the poster" at 4800x3600 and I'm quite
> pleased with the way many details look in high-rez.  While I hold out a 
> hope of winning, I'm planning to buy my own poster regardless, so this 
> will not be a wasted effort for me.

  I would love to buy mine, but not as it is. I'll hold out until I sort it, 
(a coupla tweaks! damn!), and then buy it. Heh, I might even buy yours when 
you win Jeremy!  ;)


>
> I'm quite certain that I've lost nearly all objectivity regarding my 
> image. As I've said before, some days I think it's the best thing ever 
> created, and other days it looks very mediocre to me.

    Well I'm happy with mine for the main image, but this 'detail' thing 
sure knocked the wind out of me... I *WISH* someone would have said 
something beforehand...

On the bright-side, it looks quite
> similar to what I thought it would look like (in my head), so I really 
> can't complain too much.  Even if it's the best image I have ever created, 
> I'm sure that guarantees nothing in this competition.

     True, and I'm looking forward to seeing it.

>
> Anyway, I'm anxious to get started on new projects and to resume old ones. 
> It's been a long road.  I feel like I should propose a toast.  ;-)

    LOL!  :)  "To all PoVers, keep on PoVin'".

   And yes, a 'very' long road indeed.

     ~Steve~

>
> -- 
> Jeremy
> www.beantoad.com
>

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: How important... [7745 days 16 hours and 8 minutes ago]

Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:24:07 GMT

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41fb7c50@news.povray.org...
> How important are the detail images when it comes to judging? What if 
> minor things have been missed in one detail image? (And I mean so minor, 
> that you just can't see them in your main image).
>

Not an answer, since it looks like others have answered quite well...  More 
of a slight ramble...

In many cases, things look best in the detail views and not in the main 
image.  I'm currently rendering "the poster" at 4800x3600 and I'm quite 
pleased with the way many details look in high-rez.  While I hold out a hope 
of winning, I'm planning to buy my own poster regardless, so this will not 
be a wasted effort for me.

I'm quite certain that I've lost nearly all objectivity regarding my image. 
As I've said before, some days I think it's the best thing ever created, and 
other days it looks very mediocre to me.  On the bright-side, it looks quite 
similar to what I thought it would look like (in my head), so I really can't 
complain too much.  Even if it's the best image I have ever created, I'm 
sure that guarantees nothing in this competition.

Anyway, I'm anxious to get started on new projects and to resume old ones. 
It's been a long road.  I feel like I should propose a toast.  ;-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[St ] Re: How important... [7745 days 21 hours and 19 minutes ago]

Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:13:11 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:41fc6dde$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> - it's been hell. ;)
>>
>
> I hope they'll be a chance to trade war stories later.

  Oh, that will happen, you watch. Anyway, with 1 day, 21 hours and 58 
minutes to go, I have to do both my detail images again - it says they are 
too small. Detail1 was just over 10 hours and Detail2 was 25 hours to 
render. I can just make it if I start *right* now - but... but...  :/

   ~Steve~

[Jim Charter] Re: How important... [7746 days 2 hours and 15 minutes ago]

Sun, 30 Jan 2005 05:17:18 GMT

St. wrote:

> 
> 
> - it's been hell. ;)
> 

I hope they'll be a chance to trade war stories later.

[St ] Re: How important... [7746 days 5 hours and 11 minutes ago]

Sun, 30 Jan 2005 02:21:17 GMT

"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:41fbdb8b@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41fba244@news.povray.org...
>>
>> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
>> news:41fb9880$1@news.povray.org...
>> > St. wrote:
>> >> How important are the detail images when it comes to judging? What if
>> >> minor things have been missed in one detail image? (And I mean so
> minor,
>> >> that you just can't see them in your main image).
>> >>
>> >>  ~Steve~
>> > Well that is what is so damnable about it, isn't it. You have to 
>> > operate
>> > on two levels of detail. I can even imagine there could be a texture
>> > situation in which the effectiveness on each level called for
> exclusively
>> > different solutions.
>>
>> There is a texture situation in mine. It's almost as if you need to alter
>> the textures in the detail images to actually make them look as good as
> the
>> main image looks.
>>
>>
>>   But I think the idea here is that
>> > *really* you are producing a picture at the high resolution level, it's
>> > just that you don't have to actually submit the high res render, just a
>> > low res render with some details.  Obviously many considerations will 
>> > go
>> > into the judging.  Logically the amount of detail, in the details, 
>> > would
>> > act as a minimum requirement.  ie,  "Great concept, but we can't 
>> > publish
>> > this as poster because the image breaks down at poster resolutions.
> So..."
>>
>>  Well, this is what I'm wondering: will they look at the detail images,
> and
>> then think "Ok, something's missing there, but it doesn't really matter,
> we
>> like the image so much, we'll use it, and the competitor can alter it for
>> the poster size"? Is this the path they'll take when judging, do you
> think?
>>
>> > But as a practical matter, it's a competition, you are being judged
>> > relative to a group.
>>
>>  Yes, thanks Jim. I only ask because I have a chance to re-do my detail 1
>> image, (10 hours), but I 'really' don't want to - it's been hell. ;)
>
> The rules probably help a bit here - particularly the second sentence.
>
> "In addition, two detail views of disparate areas of the main image shall 
> be
> submitted. This is to make sure that the modeling, texturing and level of
> detail are of acceptable quality, and particularly one suitable to print
> media such as magazine covers or posters if the image is re-rendered at an
> appropriate size."

     Yes, thank you Lance. The word 'acceptable' for the detail views, is, 
in my opinion, subjective in contrast to the original, 'main', image. Since 
the start of this competition, I've been thinking 'poster' in a commercial 
sense as this is the intended result of this comp. That's not a problem for 
me, but I think a few more people out there may have had the same results as 
I had - ie, crap detail views. But that's not to say that their image isn't 
fantastic, and their expectations may be high in what they've achieved as 
far as their 'main' image is concerned?

  Hey, I've given it my best shot, and can't wait to see what others have 
done. I already commend them if they've been through the same as me, and I'm 
sure they have.

  Less than two days to go now...  ;)


>
> So my completely unofficial opinion when reading that section of the rules
> is that it means the detail views will be used to see how the image would
> hold up when printed at a much higher resolution - i.e. would it still 
> look
> good, or would it start to look plain due to lack of smaller details, or 
> are
> there modelling flaws that would become visible at higher resolutions, 
> etc.
> So in my opinion that could be taken into consideration when judging... 
> for
> example maybe a judge might think "well that image looks good when 
> rendered
> at a small resolution, but when it's rendered at a large resolution it 
> looks
> quite plain", which could have a negative impact on how the judge 
> perceives
> the overall quality of the submission.

     Yes, I agree, but one contestant could have a **fantastic** skull in 
one, dark, corner, *and* two great close-ups of that skull, but what do the 
judges want? They don't want a poster of a skull in a corner because the 
model is *brilliant* and modeled in csg/sdl - it just won't cut it imo as a 
commercial poster. (But then, who knows?!)



>
>
> "You are invited to chose the areas wisely, so that they participate in 
> the
> global impression of superior quality given by your image, while being
> representative of its general level of detail."
>
> And this to me means, don't deliberately model an area with high detail
> *just* for your detail views, as that wouldn't be representative of the
> overall image detail. This to me would also mean that you shouldn't do
> things like make separate files just for rendering the detail views... 
> i.e.
> you shouldn't make one "high detail" file for rendering your detail views,
> and then another "low detail" file for the main rendered image, as doing 
> so
> would not be representative - they should be rendered from the same source
> file, in my personal opinion.

  And I respect your opinion, you know that. My image 'is' rendered from the 
same source file, using sdl, (repeated four times now in my image, (158 
.incs, 1,992 files, 4 folders)), but I've missed two minor objects out in my 
code on the second unit. <sigh> I'm just wondering whether it's 'worth' the 
effort of another ten hours, that's all. I'm beat, and I just want to enjoy 
modeling/rendering again.

 <delay since typing this>

   Anyway, I've uploaded now. Good luck if you've entered Lance, ('speak' to 
you soon now that my machine is free). Good luck all.

   ~Steve~


>
>
> Lance.
>
> thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
> thehandle - www.thehandle.com
>
>

[Lance Birch] Re: How important... [7746 days 12 hours and 39 minutes ago]

Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:52:59 GMT

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41fba244@news.povray.org...
>
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
> news:41fb9880$1@news.povray.org...
> > St. wrote:
> >> How important are the detail images when it comes to judging? What if
> >> minor things have been missed in one detail image? (And I mean so
minor,
> >> that you just can't see them in your main image).
> >>
> >>  ~Steve~
> > Well that is what is so damnable about it, isn't it. You have to operate
> > on two levels of detail. I can even imagine there could be a texture
> > situation in which the effectiveness on each level called for
exclusively
> > different solutions.
>
> There is a texture situation in mine. It's almost as if you need to alter
> the textures in the detail images to actually make them look as good as
the
> main image looks.
>
>
>   But I think the idea here is that
> > *really* you are producing a picture at the high resolution level, it's
> > just that you don't have to actually submit the high res render, just a
> > low res render with some details.  Obviously many considerations will go
> > into the judging.  Logically the amount of detail, in the details, would
> > act as a minimum requirement.  ie,  "Great concept, but we can't publish
> > this as poster because the image breaks down at poster resolutions.
So..."
>
>  Well, this is what I'm wondering: will they look at the detail images,
and
> then think "Ok, something's missing there, but it doesn't really matter,
we
> like the image so much, we'll use it, and the competitor can alter it for
> the poster size"? Is this the path they'll take when judging, do you
think?
>
> > But as a practical matter, it's a competition, you are being judged
> > relative to a group.
>
>  Yes, thanks Jim. I only ask because I have a chance to re-do my detail 1
> image, (10 hours), but I 'really' don't want to - it's been hell. ;)

The rules probably help a bit here - particularly the second sentence.

"In addition, two detail views of disparate areas of the main image shall be
submitted. This is to make sure that the modeling, texturing and level of
detail are of acceptable quality, and particularly one suitable to print
media such as magazine covers or posters if the image is re-rendered at an
appropriate size."

So my completely unofficial opinion when reading that section of the rules
is that it means the detail views will be used to see how the image would
hold up when printed at a much higher resolution - i.e. would it still look
good, or would it start to look plain due to lack of smaller details, or are
there modelling flaws that would become visible at higher resolutions, etc.
So in my opinion that could be taken into consideration when judging... for
example maybe a judge might think "well that image looks good when rendered
at a small resolution, but when it's rendered at a large resolution it looks
quite plain", which could have a negative impact on how the judge perceives
the overall quality of the submission.

"You are invited to chose the areas wisely, so that they participate in the
global impression of superior quality given by your image, while being
representative of its general level of detail."

And this to me means, don't deliberately model an area with high detail
*just* for your detail views, as that wouldn't be representative of the
overall image detail.  This to me would also mean that you shouldn't do
things like make separate files just for rendering the detail views... i.e.
you shouldn't make one "high detail" file for rendering your detail views,
and then another "low detail" file for the main rendered image, as doing so
would not be representative - they should be rendered from the same source
file, in my personal opinion.

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[St ] Re: How important... [7746 days 16 hours and 44 minutes ago]

Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:48:36 GMT

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:41fb9880$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> How important are the detail images when it comes to judging? What if 
>> minor things have been missed in one detail image? (And I mean so minor, 
>> that you just can't see them in your main image).
>>
>>  ~Steve~
> Well that is what is so damnable about it, isn't it. You have to operate 
> on two levels of detail. I can even imagine there could be a texture 
> situation in which the effectiveness on each level called for exclusively 
> different solutions.

There is a texture situation in mine. It's almost as if you need to alter 
the textures in the detail images to actually make them look as good as the 
main image looks.

  But I think the idea here is that
> *really* you are producing a picture at the high resolution level, it's 
> just that you don't have to actually submit the high res render, just a 
> low res render with some details.  Obviously many considerations will go 
> into the judging.  Logically the amount of detail, in the details, would 
> act as a minimum requirement.  ie,  "Great concept, but we can't publish 
> this as poster because the image breaks down at poster resolutions. So..."

 Well, this is what I'm wondering: will they look at the detail images, and 
then think "Ok, something's missing there, but it doesn't really matter, we 
like the image so much, we'll use it, and the competitor can alter it for 
the poster size"? Is this the path they'll take when judging, do you think?

> But as a practical matter, it's a competition, you are being judged 
> relative to a group.

 Yes, thanks Jim. I only ask because I have a chance to re-do my detail 1 
image, (10 hours), but I 'really' don't want to - it's been hell. ;)

   ~Steve~

[Jim Charter] Re: How important... [7746 days 17 hours and 26 minutes ago]

Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:06:56 GMT

St. wrote:
> How important are the detail images when it comes to judging? What if 
> minor things have been missed in one detail image? (And I mean so minor, 
> that you just can't see them in your main image).
> 
>  ~Steve~
Well that is what is so damnable about it, isn't it. You have to operate 
on two levels of detail. I can even imagine there could be a texture 
situation in which the effectiveness on each level called for 
exclusively different solutions.  But I think the idea here is that 
*really* you are producing a picture at the high resolution level, it's 
just that you don't have to actually submit the high res render, just a 
low res render with some details.  Obviously many considerations will go 
into the judging.  Logically the amount of detail, in the details, would 
act as a minimum requirement.  ie,  "Great concept, but we can't publish 
this as poster because the image breaks down at poster resolutions. 
So..."  But as a practical matter, it's a competition, you are being 
judged relative to a group.

[St ] How important... [7746 days 19 hours and 26 minutes ago]

Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:06:40 GMT

How important are the detail images when it comes to judging? What if minor 
things have been missed in one detail image? (And I mean so minor, that you 
just can't see them in your main image).

  ~Steve~

[Chris Cason] Re: Need help with render... fast! [7748 days 7 hours and 55 minutes ago]

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:37:04 GMT

> My peak Ram usage -- on a toned down image -- was 2.4 GB.  I was hoping the 
> contest organizers would make their 8 GB prize machine available for renders, 
> perhaps foolishly ;}

Unfortunately it's not in our possession - AMD have it.

-- Chris

[Chris Cason] Re: Need help with render... fast! [7748 days 7 hours and 58 minutes ago]

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:33:59 GMT

> I have already toned things down as much as possible (10 birds, 25,000 plants) 
> but I am still experiencing 2.45 GB peak usage and 1.95 GB steady usage.

I have a 64-bit machine with 4gb if it helps.

-- Chris

[Slime] Re: Need help with render... fast! [7751 days 13 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:02:29 GMT

> Biggest memory hog -- heightfields (the images alone are 100 MB)
> The heightfields are non-negotiable as I've seen the mediocre results of
lower
> resolutions from test images.

How large of an area do these height fields span? I would guess that you
have, say, a ground height field which goes from the foreground to the far
distance. This could be split up into multiple height fields; maybe two: one
for the foreground (keep the high detail on this one), and one for the
background (reduce the resolution significantly for this one). Cut the
foreground area out of the background height field by differencing it with a
box. If you have an extreme distance from the foreground to the background,
you might even use *three* levels of detail in this way.

You're saying "heightfields" as a plural. If any of these height fields are
identical, then make sure you're #declaring them once and using the same
object multiple times, since I think this will save memory the same way that
duplicating meshes does.

> Next hog -- bird meshes (each is unique, 183x73 grid resolution)

If you only have 10 bird meshes, as you say, then this shouldn't be too much
of a problem - unless the meshes are so incredibly huge that one bird alone
takes up a ton of memory, in which case you can probably reduce the
resolution. But I wouldn't suspect this is a problem (especially since mesh
duplication doesn't take up a lot of memory).

> After that, lava (28,000 small isosurfaces, some with media steam plumes)

Yikes. That's a lot of isosurfaces. I'm not sure exactly how lava
necessitates the use of multiple separate isosurfaces, but I'll assume that
they're each separate objects. (Maybe bubbles of some sort?) Again, let me
assume that you have some in the foreground and some in the distance. Keep
the isosurfaces in the foreground, but for the background, make an image map
of what these things should look like. Then write a single mesh, and for
each isosurface in the distance, use two triangles in the shape of a square,
UV-mapped with this image map so that it looks like the isosurface would
look but without the expense of memory. (This will also render faster.)

> Then, plants (25,000 meshes, 2% are mesh union flowers, the rest are grass
blades)

Are these all separate meshes? You could save a lot of memory by reducing
the number of meshes you're using (10 to 20 should be plenty) and
duplicating the same ones over and over (rotating them randomly to simulate
variation). Try also reducing the density of plants in the distance, and
even eliminating them entirely when they're off camera or behind hills or
other large objects (use the trace() function to determine this).

> The birds had light-sources inside their hollow bodies to light up their
> eyes--replacing them with "ambient light", or ambient finishes with
radiosity,
> should help.

That should definitely speed up the render time, though it might not make a
big difference in memory usage.

> I have already toned things down as much as possible (10 birds, 25,000
plants)
> but I am still experiencing 2.45 GB peak usage and 1.95 GB steady usage.
>
> What now?

I tried to give suggestions for each part of your scene, but first, do this:
comment out each element of your scene and, one at a time, uncomment an
individual element and render with a resolution of 1x1 (+H1 +W1). Do this
for the height fields, the birds, the isosurfaces, the plants, etc. For each
one, note the amount of memory being used. I wouldn't be surprised if one of
them uses much more than the others. Focus on the things taking up the most
memory first.

You're welcome to email me ( http://www.slimeland.com/contact/ ) with your
scene if you have no luck, and I'll see what I can do; I offer this to you
because time is running out. But first try my suggestions on your own.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[David Wallace] Re: Need help with render... fast! [7751 days 14 hours ago]

Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:32:25 GMT

Slime wrote:
>>I seems that I have created an image that my computer cannot render.  It
>>requires more memory than my computer can address, even with a swap file.
>>This is the second time this has happened--my computer croaked on my
>>October 2001 entry and I still cannot render it.  I have a Barton 3200 XP
>>with 1 GB DDR running under Win2K Pro SP4.
> 
> 
> 
> If 1 GB isn't enough, you'll probably have a hard time finding someone who
> does have enough to help you out. Your best bet, especially at this point,
> is probably to reduce the complexity of your scene. Here are a couple tips
> off the top of my head:
> 
>  - Radiosity or photons (especially media photons) might be taking up a lot
> of memory. If disabling them reduces memory usage significantly, then you
> might try reducing radiosity quality or photon count. If you're using media
> photons, try removing them entirely and creating some sort of density
> instead to simulate the effect.
>  - Copies of complex CSG objects take up a lot of extra memory (5 copies of
> a CSG object = 5 times the memory), but copies of mesh objects don't (5
> copies of a mesh = just slightly more than 1 times the memory). If you have
> many copies of CSG objects, try to make mesh versions which look similar and
> replace the far-away copies with the meshes. You might even try rendering
> images of them and using image_maps in the far distance. (If CSG objects are
> the problem, then you'll probably run out of memory *before* the scene
> begins rendering, during parse time.)
> 
> If you know what's causing the crazy memory usage, then tell us and we may
> be able to give you some more specific advice. Good luck.
> 
>  - Slime
>  [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
> 
> 
Biggest memory hog -- heightfields (the images alone are 100 MB)

Next hog -- bird meshes (each is unique, 183x73 grid resolution)

After that, lava (28,000 small isosurfaces, some with media steam plumes)

Then, plants (25,000 meshes, 2% are mesh union flowers, the rest are grass blades)

The heightfields are non-negotiable as I've seen the mediocre results of lower 
resolutions from test images.

The birds had light-sources inside their hollow bodies to light up their 
eyes--replacing them with "ambient light", or ambient finishes with radiosity, 
should help.

I have already toned things down as much as possible (10 birds, 25,000 plants) 
but I am still experiencing 2.45 GB peak usage and 1.95 GB steady usage.

What now?

-- 
--------------
David Wallace
TenArbor Consulting
"Just In Time Cash"
www.tenarbor.com
1-866-572-CASH

[David Wallace] Re: Need help with render... fast! [7751 days 14 hours and 16 minutes ago]

Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:16:03 GMT

Norbert Kern wrote:
> I own a 3.2 GHz XP System with 2 GB DDR memory.
> Scenes which used about 1.5 GB peak memory rendered about 3 - 4 times faster
> as with 1 GB RAM only.
> At least this is true with the scenes I used so far.
> Since this is my "render only" machine, perhaps I can help you.
> 
> Norbert Kern
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "armigus" <nomail@nomail> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:web.41ef3b1676ade699d79c07b0@news.povray.org...
> 
>>I seems that I have created an image that my computer cannot render.  It
>>requires more memory than my computer can address, even with a swap file.
>>This is the second time this has happened--my computer croaked on my
>>October 2001 entry and I still cannot render it.  I have a Barton 3200 XP
>>with 1 GB DDR running under Win2K Pro SP4.
>>
>>Is there any resource that can be made available to the competition for
> 
> the
> 
>>purposes of creating images like these?
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
My peak Ram usage -- on a toned down image -- was 2.4 GB.  I was hoping the 
contest organizers would make their 8 GB prize machine available for renders, 
perhaps foolishly ;}


-- 
--------------
David Wallace
TenArbor Consulting
"Just In Time Cash"
www.tenarbor.com
1-866-572-CASH

[David Wallace] Re: Copyright image [7751 days 14 hours and 21 minutes ago]

Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:11:31 GMT

Slime wrote:
> I'm curious; is anyone else going to provide a copyright image (see 4.g on
> http://www.povcomp.com/rules/ )? I'm considering making one so that I can
> ensure it will look good with the image, but I'm not sure what to make it
> say, other than the obvious "copyright 2005 me". Is there anything else that
> I might want to include? What sort of information do people usually put on
> their images?
> 
>  - Slime
>  [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
> 
> 
Modify this file to suit your needs:

<code>
#version unofficial MegaPov 1.1;
#include "screen.inc"

#macro scrCopy(_src, _trg, _col,_yr)
   Set_Camera(_src, _trg, 90)

   // Copyright notice
   #declare cdir = vnormalize(_trg-_src);
   #declare crgt = vnormalize(vcross(y,cdir));
   #declare cup = vnormalize(vcross(cdir,crgt));
   #declare cpt = vnormalize(cdir*10-cup*4.5);

	#local _msg = concat("(C) ",str(_yr,1,0)," by David Wallace");
	#local _msob = text {
		ttf "chancery.ttf" _msg 0.01,0
		h_align_right
		pigment { rgb _col }
		scale .02
	}
	Screen_Object (_msob, <1.0,0.0>, 0.01, true, 1)
#end
</code>

-- 
--------------
David Wallace
TenArbor Consulting
"Just In Time Cash"
www.tenarbor.com
1-866-572-CASH

[Renderdog] Re: Need help with render... fast! [7752 days 17 hours and 12 minutes ago]

Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:20:00 GMT

"armigus" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I seems that I have created an image that my computer cannot render.  It
> requires more memory than my computer can address, even with a swap file.
> This is the second time this has happened--my computer croaked on my
> October 2001 entry and I still cannot render it.  I have a Barton 3200 XP
> with 1 GB DDR running under Win2K Pro SP4.

I have 3 GB in a dual 2.5 GHz Power Mac I will be happy to render your
image on if you like. I'm home recovering from surgery so turnaround
shouldn't be too bad. I'm not entering the competition so no conflict there.

-Mark Slone

[LightBeam] Re: Need help with render... fast! [7752 days 20 hours and 54 minutes ago]

Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:28 GMT

armigus a écrit :
> I seems that I have created an image that my computer cannot render.  It
> requires more memory than my computer can address, even with a swap file.
> This is the second time this has happened--my computer croaked on my
> October 2001 entry and I still cannot render it.  I have a Barton 3200 XP
> with 1 GB DDR running under Win2K Pro SP4.
> 
> Is there any resource that can be made available to the competition for the
> purposes of creating images like these?

Use linux or go back to WinXP SP"0" ;-p

[Nicolas Calimet] Re: Copyright image [7754 days 13 hours and 37 minutes ago]

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:55:41 GMT

> since later on I know the PNG image will be overlaid on top of it and
> then it will be resaved as another jpeg.

	Okay, got it  :-)

	Since the rule 4.d. says you have to submit your main image in JPEG,
I'd suggest in all cases* to submit your JPEG images with the best possible
quality (lowest compression).
	Under e.g. Photoshop, it seems reasonnable to choose a quality level
between 80% and 100% for this purpose.  80% should suffice in most cases;
at 100% images are still lossy compressed but can be much bigger, depending
on image complexity, for visually the same result.

* unless you have a very slow dialin connection.

	- NC

[Slime] Re: Copyright image [7754 days 13 hours and 59 minutes ago]

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:33:21 GMT

> > Another question: since I'm supplying a PNG copyright to be overlaid on
top
> > of my image, I assume someone will be recompressing it.
>
> Why?  PNG uses a lossless compression scheme

Let me clarify; there are two images I'm talking about: the POV-Ray image
(jpeg) and the PNG signature. I was asking about the compression of my jpeg
image, since later on I know the PNG image will be overlaid on top of it and
then it will be resaved as another jpeg.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Nicolas Calimet] Re: Copyright image [7754 days 14 hours and 6 minutes ago]

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:26:55 GMT

> Another question: since I'm supplying a PNG copyright to be overlaid on top
> of my image, I assume someone will be recompressing it.

	Why?  PNG uses a lossless compression scheme, so if you tell your
graphics application to use the maximum compression (this is typically a
value of 9 for PNG) then you'll get the smallest* filesize for the exact
same quality.  Simply it's slightly longer for the app to write the file
(and also to read it again), but on nowadays computers it's lighting
fast, especially compared to a POV-Ray rendering  :-)
	POV-Ray has no such setting, as it always compresses PNG with the
maximum possible compression with respect to how it renders its images
i.e. line by line**.

(*) in fact not always, other softwares are sometimes able to recompress
slightly more some PNG images that were saved with the maximum compression.
For instance: http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/

(**) therefore the (*) above might be worth the try with an image created
by POV-Ray, as such extra tools will compress the file based on the whole
image data instead.

	- NC

[Lance Birch] Re: Copyright image [7754 days 23 hours and 56 minutes ago]

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:36:41 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message
news:41f0ad19$1@news.povray.org...
> Thanks. I think I'll include the simple copyright message and a link to my
> website.
>
> Another question: since I'm supplying a PNG copyright to be overlaid on
top
> of my image, I assume someone will be recompressing it. Because of this,
> should I favor high quality compression over low file size in my
submission?
> Normally I'd sacrifice a little quality to bring the file size down, but
> would it be wise of me to avoid doing that?

I would imagine it would be best to provide the highest image quality
possible within the 5 MB file size restriction.  That's what I'd do anyway
:)

> And out of curiosity, are lower-resolution, higher-compression versions of
> each image going to be made available for the benefit of those with small
> monitors or slow internet connections?

At a guess, I think once the juding process is finished and the images are
made publicly available, they will be available at one or two different
sizes.  I suppose whether they recompress them, provide alternative links to
the original full file size versions, etc, will depend on what the images
are like (e.g. whether someone submits an absolutely huge image).  It says
in the rules "The organisers may, at their option, resize and/or recompress
your image if need be. This includes but is not limited to making thumbnail
or preview images of it.", so it seems likely that there will be some
recompression/rescaling happening at some point, so there could be multiple
versions of differing sizes for the purposes of browsing the submissions
easily.

These are, of course, just my personal opinions :)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[Slime] Re: Copyright image [7755 days and 13 minutes ago]

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:19:53 GMT

Thanks. I think I'll include the simple copyright message and a link to my
website.

Another question: since I'm supplying a PNG copyright to be overlaid on top
of my image, I assume someone will be recompressing it. Because of this,
should I favor high quality compression over low file size in my submission?
Normally I'd sacrifice a little quality to bring the file size down, but
would it be wise of me to avoid doing that?

And out of curiosity, are lower-resolution, higher-compression versions of
each image going to be made available for the benefit of those with small
monitors or slow internet connections?

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[St ] Re: Copyright image [7755 days 6 hours and 1 minute ago]

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:30:59 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:41f03308$1@news.povray.org...

> but I'm not sure what to make it
> say, other than the obvious "copyright 2005 me". Is there anything else 
> that
> I might want to include? What sort of information do people usually put on
> their images?

"All rights reserved" seems to be a good one. I 'think' it's internationally 
known and recognised, but don't quote me on that. ;)

    ~Steve~


>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>

[ZeSly] Re: Copyright image [7755 days 7 hours and 57 minutes ago]

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:35:50 GMT

Slime a écrit :
> I'm curious; is anyone else going to provide a copyright image (see 4.g on
> http://www.povcomp.com/rules/ )? I'm considering making one so that I can
> ensure it will look good with the image, but I'm not sure what to make it
> say, other than the obvious "copyright 2005 me". Is there anything else that
> I might want to include? What sort of information do people usually put on
> their images?

I provided one which simply say "© 2005 Sylvain "ZeSly" GIRARD".

-- 
ZeSly
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/zesly/

[Warp] Re: Copyright image [7755 days 7 hours and 59 minutes ago]

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:33:34 GMT

Slime <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> Is there anything else that
> I might want to include? What sort of information do people usually put on
> their images?

  Your CV would be good.

-- 
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 -

[Slime] Copyright image [7755 days 8 hours and 53 minutes ago]

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:39:04 GMT

I'm curious; is anyone else going to provide a copyright image (see 4.g on
http://www.povcomp.com/rules/ )? I'm considering making one so that I can
ensure it will look good with the image, but I'm not sure what to make it
say, other than the obvious "copyright 2005 me". Is there anything else that
I might want to include? What sort of information do people usually put on
their images?

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Norbert Kern] Re: Need help with render... fast! [7755 days 13 hours and 5 minutes ago]

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:27:07 GMT

I own a 3.2 GHz XP System with 2 GB DDR memory.
Scenes which used about 1.5 GB peak memory rendered about 3 - 4 times faster
as with 1 GB RAM only.
At least this is true with the scenes I used so far.
Since this is my "render only" machine, perhaps I can help you.

Norbert Kern




"armigus" <nomail@nomail> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:web.41ef3b1676ade699d79c07b0@news.povray.org...
> I seems that I have created an image that my computer cannot render.  It
> requires more memory than my computer can address, even with a swap file.
> This is the second time this has happened--my computer croaked on my
> October 2001 entry and I still cannot render it.  I have a Barton 3200 XP
> with 1 GB DDR running under Win2K Pro SP4.
>
> Is there any resource that can be made available to the competition for
the
> purposes of creating images like these?
>
>

[Eero Ahonen] Re: Need help with render... fast! [7755 days 15 hours and 36 minutes ago]

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:56:24 GMT

armigus wrote:
> I seems that I have created an image that my computer cannot render.  It
> requires more memory than my computer can address, even with a swap file.
> This is the second time this has happened--my computer croaked on my
> October 2001 entry and I still cannot render it.  I have a Barton 3200 XP
> with 1 GB DDR running under Win2K Pro SP4.
> 
> Is there any resource that can be made available to the competition for the
> purposes of creating images like these?
> 
> 

I could give it a try, if you're not ni extreme hurry; don't have lots 
of real RAM (only 512MB actually), but should be able to use lots and 
lots of swap (and that's slow - so rendering will take more than a while).

-- 
-Aero

[Slime] Re: Need help with render... fast! [7756 days 1 hour and 46 minutes ago]

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:46:38 GMT

> I seems that I have created an image that my computer cannot render.  It
> requires more memory than my computer can address, even with a swap file.
> This is the second time this has happened--my computer croaked on my
> October 2001 entry and I still cannot render it.  I have a Barton 3200 XP
> with 1 GB DDR running under Win2K Pro SP4.


If 1 GB isn't enough, you'll probably have a hard time finding someone who
does have enough to help you out. Your best bet, especially at this point,
is probably to reduce the complexity of your scene. Here are a couple tips
off the top of my head:

 - Radiosity or photons (especially media photons) might be taking up a lot
of memory. If disabling them reduces memory usage significantly, then you
might try reducing radiosity quality or photon count. If you're using media
photons, try removing them entirely and creating some sort of density
instead to simulate the effect.
 - Copies of complex CSG objects take up a lot of extra memory (5 copies of
a CSG object = 5 times the memory), but copies of mesh objects don't (5
copies of a mesh = just slightly more than 1 times the memory). If you have
many copies of CSG objects, try to make mesh versions which look similar and
replace the far-away copies with the meshes. You might even try rendering
images of them and using image_maps in the far distance. (If CSG objects are
the problem, then you'll probably run out of memory *before* the scene
begins rendering, during parse time.)

If you know what's causing the crazy memory usage, then tell us and we may
be able to give you some more specific advice. Good luck.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[armigus] Need help with render... fast! [7756 days 2 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:05:01 GMT

I seems that I have created an image that my computer cannot render.  It
requires more memory than my computer can address, even with a swap file.
This is the second time this has happened--my computer croaked on my
October 2001 entry and I still cannot render it.  I have a Barton 3200 XP
with 1 GB DDR running under Win2K Pro SP4.

Is there any resource that can be made available to the competition for the
purposes of creating images like these?

[St ] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7756 days 8 hours and 35 minutes ago]

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:57:43 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:41eebe50$1@news.povray.org...

>>   It took nearly 20 minutes to abort... (What's with that?)  :o(
>
> Was it thrashing? It could have been trying to free memory.

   Not sure, but my little orange CPU light was going crazy, so I would 
guess that you're correct.


   ~Steve~


>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7756 days 10 hours and 38 minutes ago]

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:08 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:41edfbd4$1@news.povray.org...
>> Currently doing what I hope will be my final, final render.  :-)
>
> I have also managed to put together a scene which I will submit (thank
> goodness for the deadline extension). I have at least four "final" renders
> in my image folder now. =)

Great to hear!

>
> Thankfully, unlike you crazy people, I refuse to render anything slower 
> than
> 5 pps. Right now I'm going at about 30 or so.
>

If it's not around 5 pps, then I need to turn up the radiosity settings. 
;-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7756 days 10 hours and 41 minutes ago]

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:51:31 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:41eebe50$1@news.povray.org...
>>   Heh... ;)  I've just aborted a 1pps image at 1280x1024... 18hrs, line
> 3...
>
> 1280x1024... have you compensated for the non-4:3 aspect ratio? Just
> checking since some people might not realize that 1280x1024 is not 4:3.
>
>>   It took nearly 20 minutes to abort... (What's with that?)  :o(
>
> Was it thrashing? It could have been trying to free memory.
>


I think it can only abort when it finishes rendering a pixel.  So in your 
case, it took about 20 minutes to render a pixel.  I'm probably commenting 
about something where I'm wrong again, but that never stops me from trying. 
My best guess is that this has to do with threaded execution.  The thread 
probably only checks the abort state after it finishes rendering a pixel.  I 
don't think POV 3.5 acted that way.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7756 days 10 hours and 45 minutes ago]

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:47:18 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:41edc6b2$1@news.povray.org...
>> I'm assuming that this is because radiosity uses some sort of random
> numbers
>> in the generation of the data.  If that's the case, it might be a nifty
>> feature if the user could supply a "radiosity_seed Float" to ensure that
> it
>> used the same random seed.
>
> Having the same random seed wouldn't mean you have the same data that was
> calculated in the first rendering. To get that, you'd have to rerender 
> from
> scratch (using the seed) - which defeats the purpose.
>


Oops.  Got it.  That severely limits the usefulness of my suggestion.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Slime] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7756 days 11 hours and 24 minutes ago]

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:08:48 GMT

>   Heh... ;)  I've just aborted a 1pps image at 1280x1024... 18hrs, line
3...

1280x1024... have you compensated for the non-4:3 aspect ratio? Just
checking since some people might not realize that 1280x1024 is not 4:3.

>   It took nearly 20 minutes to abort... (What's with that?)  :o(

Was it thrashing? It could have been trying to free memory.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[St ] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7756 days 11 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:02:04 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:41edfbd4$1@news.povray.org...
>> Currently doing what I hope will be my final, final render.  :-)
>
> I have also managed to put together a scene which I will submit (thank
> goodness for the deadline extension). I have at least four "final" renders
> in my image folder now. =)

    I don't have any 'final' renders as yet, but I think I might be the only 
person to create three *heavy-ish* scenes for one comp this time around. I 
lost the first two...   :o/

>
> Thankfully, unlike you crazy people, I refuse to render anything slower 
> than
> 5 pps. Right now I'm going at about 30 or so.

  Heh... ;)  I've just aborted a 1pps image at 1280x1024... 18hrs, line 3...

  It took nearly 20 minutes to abort... (What's with that?)  :o(

  ~Steve~




>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>

[Warp] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7756 days 20 hours and 34 minutes ago]

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:58:27 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I'm assuming that this is because radiosity uses some sort of random numbers 
> in the generation of the data.

  Nope. It's because the radiosity algorithm reuses the data calculated
so far. If you start from the middle of the image, there's no data from
the first half to be reused. This usually causes the illumination to
differ visibly.

-- 
#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 -

[Slime] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7757 days 1 hour and 13 minutes ago]

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:19:00 GMT

> Currently doing what I hope will be my final, final render.  :-)

I have also managed to put together a scene which I will submit (thank
goodness for the deadline extension). I have at least four "final" renders
in my image folder now. =)

Thankfully, unlike you crazy people, I refuse to render anything slower than
5 pps. Right now I'm going at about 30 or so.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Slime] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7757 days 5 hours ago]

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:32:18 GMT

> I'm assuming that this is because radiosity uses some sort of random
numbers
> in the generation of the data.  If that's the case, it might be a nifty
> feature if the user could supply a "radiosity_seed Float" to ensure that
it
> used the same random seed.

Having the same random seed wouldn't mean you have the same data that was
calculated in the first rendering. To get that, you'd have to rerender from
scratch (using the seed) - which defeats the purpose.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7757 days 5 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:02:04 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:41ed08c4@news.povray.org...
>
>  But certainly if you render half of the image and then the other half
> as a separate render (with start/end row options) you will most probably
> get a visible line.
>


I'm assuming that this is because radiosity uses some sort of random numbers 
in the generation of the data.  If that's the case, it might be a nifty 
feature if the user could supply a "radiosity_seed Float" to ensure that it 
used the same random seed.  Otherwise, the only alternative of which I am 
aware, is to create the radiosity data in advance of the actual rendering.

Just a thought.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Warp] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7757 days 18 hours and 31 minutes ago]

Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:01:56 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
> I tried to prove you wrong (with version 3.5).  I set count to various 
> values (all the way down to 1) in a simple radiosity scene.  I started and 
> stopped it repeatedly but it worked just fine every time.  I even stopped 
> and restarted POV-Ray, and it still worked just fine.  I'm going to assume 
> that you are correct, and that I was remembering something else, such as 
> splitting-up a render across different machines.

  When you stopped rendering, did you check if an extra file had
appeared in the same directory where the scene was? (Or it might appear
in the same directory as the final image is written; I don't really know
which.) It's the radiosity cache file (it is removed after the rendering
ends).

  But certainly if you render half of the image and then the other half
as a separate render (with start/end row options) you will most probably
get a visible line.

-- 
#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 -

[Slime] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7758 days 8 hours and 18 minutes ago]

Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:14:21 GMT

>   Incorrect. Interrupted rendering and radiosity was never a problem with
> POV-Ray. Haven't you noticed how POV-Ray saves the radiosity data in a
file
> during rendering precisely for the purpose of supporting interrupted
renders?


No, I hadn't. Cool!

I vaguely recall seeing a scene, I think posted in these newsgroups, where
someone was complaining that +C wasn't working with their image and it had
the problem I described. It's possible that some people (including myself)
accidentally concluded that radiosity was the cause. That was a long time
ago though, so either it was a separate bug or just the fault of the person
making the image.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7758 days 12 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:50:43 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:41ebaf49@news.povray.org...
> Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
>> But...  If I recall correctly, using +C with radiosity was a problem in 
>> 3.5.
>> Is that what you mean?
>
>  No. Using +C with radiosity was precisely not a problem with 3.5. If it
> is a problem with the current version, it's a bug.
>

I tried to prove you wrong (with version 3.5).  I set count to various 
values (all the way down to 1) in a simple radiosity scene.  I started and 
stopped it repeatedly but it worked just fine every time.  I even stopped 
and restarted POV-Ray, and it still worked just fine.  I'm going to assume 
that you are correct, and that I was remembering something else, such as 
splitting-up a render across different machines.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Warp] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7758 days 19 hours and 1 minute ago]

Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:31:10 GMT

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> It usually is no problem but there are technical differences - not all 
> data stored in memory during a radiosity render is also written to the file.

  If that is so, then imho it should be fixed.

-- 
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] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7758 days 19 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:30:21 GMT

Slime <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> Yeah, that's what I was referring to. Without a save_file and load_file, I
> would be surprised if the horizontal line could be avoided, since the second
> time through, POV-Ray can't have the radiosity data from the first time
> through.

  Incorrect. Interrupted rendering and radiosity was never a problem with
POV-Ray. Haven't you noticed how POV-Ray saves the radiosity data in a file
during rendering precisely for the purpose of supporting interrupted renders?

  The save_file and load_file features were not innovations. They simply
gave more user control to the file which POV-Ray was already creating.

> Of course, it *works*, in that the image continues to render from where it
> left off, but the results can be bad.

  They were bad only if you deleted the temporary radiosity file POV-Ray
had created. Else it was just ok.

-- 
#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 -

[Warp] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7758 days 19 hours and 5 minutes ago]

Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:27:53 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
> But...  If I recall correctly, using +C with radiosity was a problem in 3.5. 
> Is that what you mean?

  No. Using +C with radiosity was precisely not a problem with 3.5. If it
is a problem with the current version, it's a bug.

-- 
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 -

[Christoph Hormann] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7760 days 23 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Sat, 15 Jan 2005 07:50:02 GMT

Warp wrote:
> 
>   At least in the past using +C with radiosity was not a problem.
>   If it's a problem currently, it's a bug, imho.
> 

It usually is no problem but there are technical differences - not all 
data stored in memory during a radiosity render is also written to the file.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

[Slime] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7761 days 9 hours and 8 minutes ago]

Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:24:03 GMT

> >  At least in the past using +C with radiosity was not a problem.
> >  If it's a problem currently, it's a bug, imho.
>
> But...  If I recall correctly, using +C with radiosity was a problem in
3.5.
> Is that what you mean?  If there was a way around it (short of saving the
> radiosity data before doing the render), I was never aware of it.  You
> basically end-up with a line where the continuation took place.  At least,
> that's what I recall.


Yeah, that's what I was referring to. Without a save_file and load_file, I
would be surprised if the horizontal line could be avoided, since the second
time through, POV-Ray can't have the radiosity data from the first time
through.

Of course, it *works*, in that the image continues to render from where it
left off, but the results can be bad.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7761 days 14 hours and 45 minutes ago]

Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:47:12 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:41e7a1ab@news.povray.org...
> Slime <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
>> +C ? Unless you're using radiosity...
>
>  At least in the past using +C with radiosity was not a problem.
>  If it's a problem currently, it's a bug, imho.
>

I did a +C and it looks ok (even with radiosity), but it happened to crash 
right where there is a natural horizontal line in the image, so any problems 
wouldn't likely be noticed anyway.  It's only a 4-day render, and there are 
a couple things that I'm still not 100% happy with, so it will likely be 
re-rendered regardless.

But...  If I recall correctly, using +C with radiosity was a problem in 3.5. 
Is that what you mean?  If there was a way around it (short of saving the 
radiosity data before doing the render), I was never aware of it.  You 
basically end-up with a line where the continuation took place.  At least, 
that's what I recall.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Marc Jacquier] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7761 days 16 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:02:05 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de
news:41e7a1ab@news.povray.org...
> Slime <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> > +C ? Unless you're using radiosity...
>
>   At least in the past using +C with radiosity was not a problem.
>   If it's a problem currently, it's a bug, imho.
>
Here I've not any issue with +C and radiosity

Marc

[Warp] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7761 days 20 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:40:43 GMT

Slime <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> +C ? Unless you're using radiosity...

  At least in the past using +C with radiosity was not a problem.
  If it's a problem currently, it's a bug, imho.

-- 
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 -

[Slime] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7762 days 4 hours ago]

Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:32:50 GMT

> Windows XP decided to install an update last night (I forgot to turn that
> feature off), so I got rebooted at 3:00am, about 75% complete.  I just
> discovered this a few minutes ago.  Arrgghh.


+C ? Unless you're using radiosity...

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7762 days 6 hours and 45 minutes ago]

Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:47:29 GMT

"Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
news:41e239bb$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Well... luck has few to do here, just hope no more hardware failure.
> My CPU/motherboard/RAM fried once during my WIP so no more, please, Gods 
> of
> raytracing.


Windows XP decided to install an update last night (I forgot to turn that 
feature off), so I got rebooted at 3:00am, about 75% complete.  I just 
discovered this a few minutes ago.  Arrgghh.

But, now I see a couple of things that I want to nitpick over, so I probably 
would have restarted anyway.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Marc Jacquier] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7763 days 12 hours and 57 minutes ago]

Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:35:51 GMT

"LightBeam" <s.f### [at] tiscalifr> a écrit dans le message de
news:41e560b0@news.povray.org...
> Marc Jacquier a écrit :
>  > ...
> > guess the dual opteron will come with a spanish keyboard :p)
>
> Unfair :-((((
>
I do think it's fair :-)

Marc

[LightBeam] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7763 days 13 hours and 54 minutes ago]

Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:38:56 GMT

Marc Jacquier a écrit :
 > ...
> guess the dual opteron will come with a spanish keyboard :p)

Unfair :-((((

> Regards
> 
> Marc

[Marc Jacquier] Re: wrapping it up (again) [7765 days 23 hours and 17 minutes ago]

Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:15:55 GMT

"Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:41e1ce6a@news.povray.org...
> Currently doing what I hope will be my final, final render.  :-)  As
> suspected, I seem to have made the scene render more slowly than it did in
> October.  I hope I've enhanced it in the process.
>
> I've heard a couple people mention that they had dropped out of the
> competition, but I hope we will have more participants in the extended
> competition.  If not, well perhaps I've got a chance.  ;-)
>
> Good luck to everyone!
>
> -- 

Hi
I joined The Comp since deadline was extended.
My final render is currently tracing ...about 10 days to run (6 hours for
the upper 80% of the image!!)
Well... luck has few to do here, just hope no more hardware failure.
My CPU/motherboard/RAM fried once during my WIP so no more, please, Gods of
raytracing.
(Any advice if sacrificing a primitive -and which one- could be helpfull?)
Knowing some who are competiting I expect a postcard size Zazzle poster. (I
guess the dual opteron will come with a spanish keyboard :p)

Regards

Marc

[Jeremy M Praay] wrapping it up (again) [7766 days 6 hours and 54 minutes ago]

Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:38:02 GMT

Currently doing what I hope will be my final, final render.  :-)  As
suspected, I seem to have made the scene render more slowly than it did in
October.  I hope I've enhanced it in the process.

I've heard a couple people mention that they had dropped out of the
competition, but I hope we will have more participants in the extended
competition.  If not, well perhaps I've got a chance.  ;-)

Good luck to everyone!

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: trivial modifications of pre-existing works [7774 days 14 hours and 17 minutes ago]

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:15:30 GMT

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:41d69b4c@news.povray.org...
> Greg M. Johnson <gregj;-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> I was all excited about maybe submitting 2 or 3 entries, and then I saw
>> these words and got a horrible sinking feeling.  Everything I do is a
>> trivial modification of existing work.  But on the two tracks I'm
>> considering, I've easily spent a man day on the changes.  Any thoughts?
>
>  It means that you are not allowed to take a scene you made last year,
> perhaps change the color of a couple of objects in the scene and submit
> that as an entry to the competition.
>
>  If you base your entry on an old scene of yours but you radically
> improve it, I believe it's acceptable.
>

That's the way I believe it was intended.  Basically, they just don't want 
people re-hashing old IRTC entries with only slight modifications, simply in 
order to fit within the rules.  If you use pre-existing objects, simply 
mention that they were pre-existing and what changes (if any) you made to 
them.  It will be considered in the judging.

When the competition was extended, I think they made it more clear that 
"incredible image" would be the largest component of the judging.  If you 
look at Gilles' "The Wet Bird" (always a good example ;-) ), he made 
extensive use of 3rd party models.  Would such an image have a chance at 
winning POVComp?  I'm pretty sure that it would, however if someone else had 
produced exactly the same image, but hand-created all of their models during 
the competition, they would gain the edge.

At least that's the way I see it.  Currently, I've created most of the 
models in my entry specifically for the competition, even though I could 
have used 3rd-party models for some things, simply because early-on, I 
believed that was the larger intent of the competition.

Again, I can't say exactly how the judges will judge, other than what is 
already said on the POVComp site, but that's my personal take on the matter. 
As always, I could be wrong.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Warp] Re: trivial modifications of pre-existing works [7774 days 18 hours and 47 minutes ago]

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 12:45:00 GMT

Greg M. Johnson <gregj;-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> I was all excited about maybe submitting 2 or 3 entries, and then I saw 
> these words and got a horrible sinking feeling.  Everything I do is a 
> trivial modification of existing work.  But on the two tracks I'm 
> considering, I've easily spent a man day on the changes.  Any thoughts?

  It means that you are not allowed to take a scene you made last year,
perhaps change the color of a couple of objects in the scene and submit
that as an entry to the competition.

  If you base your entry on an old scene of yours but you radically
improve it, I believe it's acceptable.

-- 
#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 -

[Greg M Johnson] trivial modifications of pre-existing works [7775 days 4 hours and 9 minutes ago]

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 03:23:11 GMT

<< Pre-existing works (or trivial modifications of pre-existing works) are 
not allowed. Winning images will be available for public inspection for a 
period of two weeks after the announcement of the winners before the winners 
will be eligible to collect their prizes.  >>


I was all excited about maybe submitting 2 or 3 entries, and then I saw 
these words and got a horrible sinking feeling.  Everything I do is a 
trivial modification of existing work.  But on the two tracks I'm 
considering, I've easily spent a man day on the changes.  Any thoughts?

[Rene Bui] Re: Rules? [7785 days 21 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:05:00 GMT

>Maybe you should thoroughly read the rules and guidelines then - they
>answer all of your questions:

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

> Christoph

And as the french say :
" All things are not prohibited are allowed "

;-)
Rene
(the old newbie)

[Christoph Hormann] Re: Rules? [7785 days 22 hours and 37 minutes ago]

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:55:02 GMT

Petah wrote:
> [...]
> (this might be a stupid question but im
> just califying because i couldnt see anythign about it in the rules)

Maybe you should thoroughly read the rules and guidelines then - they 
answer all of your questions:

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

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

[Petah] Re: Rules? [7785 days 23 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:40:00 GMT

oh and 1 more question, am i allowed to post my pocomp entry on a website
befor the end of the compition....such as deviantart?

[Petah] Rules? [7786 days 1 hour and 2 minutes ago]

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:30:00 GMT

Im just wonder about the rules...
Am I allowed to use include file from other people.... such as chris cofaxs
galaxy include file
Are 3rd party scripting applications allow like grass mesh creators, xfrog
and such?
Are you only allowed 1 entry?
Are image maps allowed like textures (this might be a stupid question but im
just califying because i couldnt see anythign about it in the rules)
Thanks :)

[Mike Thorn] Re: WIP: "Peace And Quiet" (122KB) [7798 days 17 hours and 31 minutes ago]

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:01:15 GMT

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Please post images in p.b.i. - in this group binaries are not allowed.

Whoops, sorry! I had gotten this folder confused with the other POVCOMP 
WIPs posted. I'll repost the image.

~Mike

[Christoph Hormann] Re: WIP: "Peace And Quiet" (122KB) [7798 days 18 hours and 47 minutes ago]

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:45:01 GMT

Please post images in p.b.i. - in this group binaries are not allowed.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

[Mike Thorn] Re: WIP: "Peace And Quiet" (122KB) [7798 days 19 hours and 13 minutes ago]

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:18:58 GMT

Peter Duthie wrote:
> Do you have "media on" in your radiosity block?

Unfortunately, no. :(

~Mike

[Peter Duthie] Re: WIP: "Peace And Quiet" (122KB) [7799 days and 22 minutes ago]

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 07:10:15 GMT

Do you have "media on" in your radiosity block?

If so, it might be worthwhile tuning off radiosity->media interaction 
and seeing if it still happens.

I've found that using scattering media with radiosity (and "media on") 
to be prohibitively expensive and artifact prone, and have given up on 
it.  My time is better spent tweaking the scattering media to interact 
properly with normal point light sources to get the desired effect.

Peter D.

Mike Thorn wrote:
> This is it: the horrendous image that I've been complaining about. I'm 
> contemplating whether to change it and if so, exactly what to change 
> (otherwise it gets junked directly). I've had a few ideas thrown at me 
> from family members, so I might give it a shot.
> 
> Anyway, I wanted to show this version to you all for opinions and 
> comments. The WIP status indicates that it may undergo future drastic 
> revamps, not its current development status.
> 
> The thing in the middle is a big conical pool, which is what was sucking 
> up so much render time. It rendered from the top of the image to the top 
> edge of the pool in ten hours (including the pretrace), and has spent 
> the last 122 hours 31 minutes and 8 seconds rendering the little bit 
> from there on. Ugh.
> 
> I'm particular interested in advice about the window spotlights. I've 
> applied no density or turbulence to them and I'm getting a weird effect 
> in the window media. It's like the windows don't have antialiasing on 
> them. The lights are way out there (the room is 30 units wide and the 
> lights are another 45 units out again) so there aren't any coincident 
> surface problems, at least with the lights. Is there an obvious problem 
> here or should I supply some code (not sure if that's legal under the 
> rules).
> 
> Thoughts and comments (or ideas) appreciated. I'm the worst critic this 
> image has seen yet, so don't worry about hurting my feelings. :) I also 
> apologize about the size - I felt it was necessary to be able to see the 
> media detail.
> 
> ~Mike
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[Mike Thorn] WIP: "Peace And Quiet" (122KB) [7799 days 4 hours and 1 minute ago]

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 03:31:34 GMT

This is it: the horrendous image that I've been complaining about. I'm 
contemplating whether to change it and if so, exactly what to change 
(otherwise it gets junked directly). I've had a few ideas thrown at me 
from family members, so I might give it a shot.

Anyway, I wanted to show this version to you all for opinions and 
comments. The WIP status indicates that it may undergo future drastic 
revamps, not its current development status.

The thing in the middle is a big conical pool, which is what was sucking 
up so much render time. It rendered from the top of the image to the top 
edge of the pool in ten hours (including the pretrace), and has spent 
the last 122 hours 31 minutes and 8 seconds rendering the little bit 
from there on. Ugh.

I'm particular interested in advice about the window spotlights. I've 
applied no density or turbulence to them and I'm getting a weird effect 
in the window media. It's like the windows don't have antialiasing on 
them. The lights are way out there (the room is 30 units wide and the 
lights are another 45 units out again) so there aren't any coincident 
surface problems, at least with the lights. Is there an obvious problem 
here or should I supply some code (not sure if that's legal under the 
rules).

Thoughts and comments (or ideas) appreciated. I'm the worst critic this 
image has seen yet, so don't worry about hurting my feelings. :) I also 
apologize about the size - I felt it was necessary to be able to see the 
media detail.

~Mike

[Chris Cason] Re: Any more changes to the rules ? [7800 days 16 hours and 18 minutes ago]

Mon, 6 Dec 2004 15:14:35 GMT

Chris Holtorf wrote:
>> Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> Huh. Why?
>    
>    If I new why, I could figure out how to log on, couldn't I.

The thing to do in that case would be to email the support contact given
at the website telling them you can't log in (and quoting the error
message the server gives you at the time).

>  Then I could re-read the rule.

You don't need to log in to read the rules. They are available to the public.

Could it be perhaps that when you say you cannot 'log on', you mean you
cannot connect to the website at all ?

-- Chris

[Chris Holtorf] Re: Any more changes to the rules ? [7800 days 17 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:50:23 GMT

> Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Huh. Why?
   
   If I new why, I could figure out how to log on, couldn't I. Then I could re-read
the rule.

Chris Holtorf

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:47:24 +0100, Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Chris Holtorf wrote:
> >    Since I haven't been able to log onto the POVCOMP website since the original
contest due 
> > date,
> 
> Huh. Why?
> 
> > I was wondering if there were anymore changes to the rules other than the change
in the 
> > due date ? I'm about ready to start my final rendering of the three required
images this week 
> > and since it will take over a day to do each one, it would be nice not to be
surprised by 
> > any last minute changes :)
> > I need to finish my entry so that I can have a life this holiday season !
> 
> The current rules can be found on the website - it would be in any case 
> a good idea to read them once more before submission.
> 
> Christoph
> 
> -- 
> POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
> HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
> Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

[Christoph Hormann] Re: Any more changes to the rules ? [7800 days 22 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:50:01 GMT

Chris Holtorf wrote:
>    Since I haven't been able to log onto the POVCOMP website since the original
contest due 
> date,

Huh. Why?

> I was wondering if there were anymore changes to the rules other than the change in
the 
> due date ? I'm about ready to start my final rendering of the three required images
this week 
> and since it will take over a day to do each one, it would be nice not to be
surprised by 
> any last minute changes :)
> I need to finish my entry so that I can have a life this holiday season !

The current rules can be found on the website - it would be in any case 
a good idea to read them once more before submission.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

[Chris Holtorf] Any more changes to the rules ? [7801 days 2 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Mon, 6 Dec 2004 05:30:11 GMT

Since I haven't been able to log onto the POVCOMP website since the original contest
due 
date, I was wondering if there were anymore changes to the rules other than the change
in the 
due date ? I'm about ready to start my final rendering of the three required images
this week 
and since it will take over a day to do each one, it would be nice not to be surprised
by 
any last minute changes :)
I need to finish my entry so that I can have a life this holiday season !

Thanks,
Chris Holtorf

[scott] Re: Portrait orientation: 1200x1600 [7809 days 21 hours and 57 minutes ago]

Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:35:29 GMT

<pov### [at] almostbestwebnet> wrote in message
news:kgfqp09fu75h7qb8aut21osjl9pmb0kc5g@4ax.com
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:00:05 +0100, "Gilles Tran"
> <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
>
>
>> meaning. The "traditional" landscape 4/3 is just a byproduct of
>> computer screen technology, not an artistic requirement.
>>
>> G.
>
> Interestingly enough, the 4:3 aspect predates computer screen
> technology ... it goes back to Thomas Edison.
>
> http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/aspect-ratios.asp

Also 3:2 has been used in film still photography for ages, and 3:2 is used 
by most pro digital cameras.

[povray] Re: Portrait orientation: 1200x1600 [7817 days 16 hours and 37 minutes ago]

Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:55:40 GMT

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:00:05 +0100, "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr>
wrote:

>meaning. The "traditional" landscape 4/3 is just a byproduct of computer
>screen technology, not an artistic requirement.
>
>G.

Interestingly enough, the 4:3 aspect predates computer screen
technology ... it goes back to Thomas Edison.

 http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/aspect-ratios.asp

quoted from that URL: 

"Established in the late 19th century by Thomas Edison,
the 4:3 aspect ratio was officially adopted by the
Society of Motion Picture Engineers as the first film
industry aspect ratio standard. Since the standard
existed before the predominance of television, the
television industry also used the 4:3 standard when it
started broadcasting in the 1930's."

-- 
to all the companies who wait until a large user base becomes
dependant on their freeware, then shafting said happy campers with
mandatory payment for continued usage. I spit on your grave.

[Gilles Tran] Re: Portrait orientation: 1200x1600 [7818 days 18 hours and 36 minutes ago]

Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:56:51 GMT

"Greg M. Johnson" <gregj;-)565### [at] aolcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:419ac6ba$1@news.povray.org...

> If  I were to insist on a portrait orientation,   is there any advice:
> don't bother,  it'd be welcome, try it but make sure you do XYZ,  etc.?

Just make sure that using portrait is justified by the subject. For my own
images, I tend to favour portrait orientation to landscape (unless it's
widescreen like 8/3), perhaps because it lends itself to "roomy" pictures
where vertical compositions can be made more towering and impressive.

In any case, the choice of an appropriate format is very important and a
good choice of format and ratio can really define a picture and give it
meaning. The "traditional" landscape 4/3 is just a byproduct of computer
screen technology, not an artistic requirement.

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Shay] Re: Portrait orientation: 1200x1600 [7819 days 16 hours and 25 minutes ago]

Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:07:55 GMT

Greg M. Johnson wrote:

> If  I were to insist on a portrait orientation,   is there any advice: 
> don't bother,  it'd be welcome, try it but make sure you do XYZ,  etc.? 
> 

My advice would be, assuming the judges will look at the additional 
renders (these can be added under "source"), to send an additional 
render no more than 960 pixels tall. Your image is going to be viewed at 
that height anyway, better it be viewed as a nice render instead of a 
resize. I guess if you ran out of time, you could at least submit your 
own resize, done with what you believe to be the nicest algorithm for 
your picture.

I wouldn't worry about it much. Any picture with enough details for a 
poster-sized render is going to look less than ideal at screen 
resolutions, no matter the orientation.

  -Shay

[Greg M Johnson] Portrait orientation: 1200x1600 [7820 days 3 hours and 58 minutes ago]

Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:34:18 GMT

A lot of the rules make the assumption that you'd make a landscape 
orientation of 1200 x 1600, (but there are also references to printing in 
magazines!, which are portrait orientation).

If  I were to insist on a portrait orientation,   is there any advice: 
don't bother,  it'd be welcome, try it but make sure you do XYZ,  etc.?

[sathigpen] Start your Engines!!! [7820 days 7 hours and 12 minutes ago]

Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:20:01 GMT

Long time listener, first time caller: I'm planning to submit a logo
design and will probably have lots of ???'s.

a merge script for raw ppms:
http://sthigpen.freeshell.org/code/pov-plot/merge-ppm.c

I'm also into doing some mods for the rendering engine ;-).

Sam.
http://sthigpen.freeshell.org

[Mike Thorn] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7820 days 15 hours and 36 minutes ago]

Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:56:29 GMT

Unsubmit??? ...I'm going to be lucky to have something to *submit* by 
January 31st. I've had about half a dozen image ideas, semi-completed 
two of them, and don't like either one. Bah humbug.

I guess my problem is trying to figure out what is a good showcase of 
POV-Ray's features without being too simplistic scene-wise. Radiosity, 
photons, media and area lights don't make a good image. I can make a 
really ugly model, apply all the above techniques, render it for three 
days and still end up with a very ugly model! :) (which is, in fact, 
what I think I have done)

Ramble ramble ramble...sorry.

[Christoph Hormann] Re: Is POVCOMP "commercial use"? [7821 days 20 hours and 47 minutes ago]

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:45:02 GMT

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> Trying to decide whether to use some external modellers, and some free 
> samples say no commercial use.  Well, officially, is this a commercial 
> activity? 

That's nothing you will be able to get a valid answer here for.  You 
will have to ask the author of the program.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

[Le Forgeron] Re: Is POVCOMP "commercial use"? [7821 days 23 hours and 45 minutes ago]

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:47:20 GMT

"Greg M. Johnson" <gregj;-)565### [at] aolcom> a écrit :

> Trying to decide whether to use some external modellers, and some free 
> samples say no commercial use.  Well, officially, is this a commercial 
> activity? 

IMHO, I would guess a "Yes!", given the possible usage of the winning 
picture...


-- 
La mondialisation ou la délocalisation, non; L'autarcie ouverte, oui!

L'égalité des sexes ne sera une réalité que lorsqu'il y aura
autant
d'entreprises, surfaces de vente et diversité de propositions tant pour 
l'habillement, les chaussures que le maquillage et les accessoires.

[Greg M Johnson] Re: Use of POV-Ray logo [7822 days 4 hours and 11 minutes ago]

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:20:58 GMT

And since the lawyers'd come after yall first, I'll be annoying and ask 
another question:

 What is good practice for using logos of other software institutions and 
companies?


"Greg M. Johnson" <gregj;-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote in message 
news:41981fd6$1@news.povray.org...
> << While POVCOMP is a POV-Ray competition, its objective is also to 
> demonstrate
> that our beloved raytracer is a fantastic tool, able to create fantastic
> images, to the large majority of people who have never heard of POV-Ray. 
>  >>
>
>
> Is there any guidelines on the use of the POV-Ray (TM) logo?     Of 
> course, using the logo of a litigious corporation would be a  no-no.  And 
> there's general use of the logo in say the IRTC which would be quite 
> gauche.     But seeing the above quote from Gilles makes me want to 
> explore possible uses of the logo specifically for this event.
>
>

[Greg M Johnson] Use of POV-Ray logo [7822 days 4 hours and 15 minutes ago]

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:17:42 GMT

<< While POVCOMP is a POV-Ray competition, its objective is also to 
demonstrate
that our beloved raytracer is a fantastic tool, able to create fantastic
images, to the large majority of people who have never heard of POV-Ray.  >>


Is there any guidelines on the use of the POV-Ray (TM) logo?     Of course, 
using the logo of a litigious corporation would be a  no-no.  And there's 
general use of the logo in say the IRTC which would be quite gauche.     But 
seeing the above quote from Gilles makes me want to explore possible uses of 
the logo specifically for this event.

[Greg M Johnson] Is POVCOMP "commercial use"? [7822 days 4 hours and 31 minutes ago]

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:01:47 GMT

Trying to decide whether to use some external modellers, and some free 
samples say no commercial use.  Well, officially, is this a commercial 
activity?

[Phlip] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7822 days 12 hours and 25 minutes ago]

Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:07:05 GMT

Mike Thorn wrote:

> That brings up an interesting thought I had yesterday. I don't know how
> the judges are going to judge the entries but it seems like this is
> going to be the hardest judgement of their lives. Even just from seeing
> the one image that has been revealed (I don't remember the author...I
> believe the name of the image was "Girl With An Earring" or something
> along that line)...

I give that one points for quoting Vermeer, and the dawn of "triomphe d'oil"
illusionism.

However, I give dings for...

It's one picture of one girl, mirrored. Real twins need differences in
personality and clothing. A face's lips should be just a little
discontinuous to avoid feeling like a sneer. Also giving up on the
background and framing doesn't help.

-- 
  Phlip
  http://industrialxp.org/community/bin/view/Main/TestFirstUserInterfaces

[Mike Thorn] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7823 days 4 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:42:10 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> In my opinion, if you are aware of ANY problems with your image, whether 
> technical or artistic, I think it would be worthwhile to spruce it up.  Of 
> course, there is always the possibility of ruining a good image, but I guess 
> that's a risk you'll have to weigh.

I guess the difficulty is defining "problem" in this case. To me, my 
image isn't quite as "grand" and crystal-choir-type as I'd imagined it 
in my mind. But I'm not really sure what can be done to fix it. Maybe 
once it finishes rendering (I wasn't kidding about never again using 
focal blur...4.75 hours and only now getting to line 1 of the first-pass 
render) p.b.i can tell me what's wrong with it.

It's one of those cases where it *could* of course be improved (what 
can't??) but it's a matter of what exactly to do and how much of a 
difference the additional time will make. I'm between a rock and a hard 
place, really. :)

~Mike

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7823 days 6 hours and 39 minutes ago]

Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:53:30 GMT

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:41965821$1@news.povray.org...
>> " Even just from seeing the one image that has been revealed (I don't
> remember the author...I
>>   believe the name of the image was "Girl With An Earring" or something
> along that line), I can
>>   tell you that my entry is completely different, technically and
> thematically."
>>
>>
>>    I agree with Mike. My image also has a totally different theme to the
> one he mentioned as well.
>> Do many of the other CG contests run with a wide open theme ?
>
> It may be difficult for the judges, but it will also be best for POV-Ray
> this way; the contest results will appeal to more people with different
> interests, and that will cause more people to check out the program.

Yes.  Personally, I hope there are other POVers out there who have done 
things very unlike my image.  POV-Ray is so versatile and good for so 
producing so many varied results, that I think it will be great to see a 
huge variety of "what can be done".  As I've jokingly said before, trying to 
fit every really-cool POV-Ray feature into one image would be great, but 
realistically, it couldn't be done.  However, having many images each 
presenting certain features seems like a great idea.  But I can see how it 
will be difficult for the judges.  But hey, not my problem... ;-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7823 days 6 hours and 51 minutes ago]

Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:41:27 GMT

"Mike Thorn" <mik### [at] realitycheckmultimediacom> wrote in message 
news:41959a9e$1@news.povray.org...
> Did anybody withdraw their image(s) for tweaking after the competition?

I intend to put a great deal more work into my image.  I have already 
started to fix some of the technical problems.  The funny thing is that 
certain types of technical problems can look like "features" from a 
distance, but they look quite awful in the larger renders.  So then I had to 
make adjustments for that as well.

Anyway, I've said all along that I had a huge list of things that I wanted 
to do with my image, and it was simply a matter of doing what was 
technically feasible and a matter of dealing with the time-constraint of the 
original 2.5 months.  Now I'm adding in some of those other features/objects 
that time forced me to leave out of the original.  When I get all of that in 
there, and when I get my new renders all done, I'll withdraw and resubmit. 
Worst case, something happens to me and I can't resubmit, the old image is 
still there.

> Just curious whether I should spend the next two months sprucing up my 
> image or maybe try a second entry (I have a few interesting ideas). :)
>

In my opinion, if you are aware of ANY problems with your image, whether 
technical or artistic, I think it would be worthwhile to spruce it up.  Of 
course, there is always the possibility of ruining a good image, but I guess 
that's a risk you'll have to weigh.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

[Slime] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7823 days 12 hours and 39 minutes ago]

Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:53:21 GMT

> " Even just from seeing the one image that has been revealed (I don't
remember the author...I
>   believe the name of the image was "Girl With An Earring" or something
along that line), I can
>   tell you that my entry is completely different, technically and
thematically."
>
>
>    I agree with Mike. My image also has a totally different theme to the
one he mentioned as well.
> Do many of the other CG contests run with a wide open theme ?

It may be difficult for the judges, but it will also be best for POV-Ray
this way; the contest results will appeal to more people with different
interests, and that will cause more people to check out the program.

Hopefully there will be an image which is technically and artistically
superior to the others, which will get first place. Then the rest of the
best images may get spread out over the next 25 places or so.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Slime] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7823 days 12 hours and 45 minutes ago]

Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:47:46 GMT

> That's comletely up to you but if you think your second entry is/will be
> much better than the first you might want to do the second one as a
> replacement anyway.  You are also free to show your images (for example
> in p.b.i.) and ask others which they think is better.


Of course, you can always submit two (or even three) images, right? Choosing
between the two isn't necessary unless you want to focus on one of them to
save time.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

[Mike Thorn] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7823 days 14 hours and 55 minutes ago]

Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:37:20 GMT

Chris Holtorf wrote:
 >    I agree with Mike. My image also has a totally different theme to 
the one he mentioned as well.
 > Do many of the other CG contests run with a wide open theme ?
 >    I also posted a version of my own image to p.b.i. and got some 
great feedback - and
 > probably another hundrerd hours or so of modeling, texture and trial 
renderings.
 > Isn't this fun :)

I'm convinced. As soon as it finishes rendering (I'm never going to use 
focal blur again!) I'll post it up for feedback. I'm not exactly sure 
why they'd want to HELP me, since it's just better competition, but I 
won't argue. :)

~Mike

[Chris Holtorf] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7823 days 16 hours and 13 minutes ago]

Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:19:13 GMT

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:34:46 -0800, Mike Thorn <mik### [at] realitycheckmultimediacom>
wrote:
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > That's comletely up to you but if you think your second entry is/will be 
> > much better than the first you might want to do the second one as a 
> > replacement anyway.  You are also free to show your images (for example 
> > in p.b.i.) and ask others which they think is better.
> 

" Even just from seeing the one image that has been revealed (I don't remember the
author...I
  believe the name of the image was "Girl With An Earring" or something along that
line), I can 
  tell you that my entry is completely different, technically and thematically."

   I agree with Mike. My image also has a totally different theme to the one he
mentioned as well.
Do many of the other CG contests run with a wide open theme ?
   I also posted a version of my own image to p.b.i. and got some great feedback - and

probably another hundrerd hours or so of modeling, texture and trial renderings.
Isn't this fun :)

Chris Holtorf

[Chris Holtorf] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7823 days 16 hours and 20 minutes ago]

Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:12:32 GMT

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:24:45 -0800, Mike Thorn <mik### [at] realitycheckmultimediacom>
wrote:
> Did anybody withdraw their image(s) for tweaking after the competition?
> 
> Just curious whether I should spend the next two months sprucing up my 
> image or maybe try a second entry (I have a few interesting ideas). :)
> 
> Originally I was going to put "created in spare time over about two 
> weeks" in the description, but if I'm not careful I'm going to have to 
> take out that part about "spare" time. :)
> 
> ~Mike


I plan on pulling my image but only after a few attempts at tweeking it.
I feel I need a backup incase my computer dies from too much abuse and heat
stroke :)

Chris

[Mike Thorn] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7823 days 17 hours and 58 minutes ago]

Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:34:45 GMT

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> That's comletely up to you but if you think your second entry is/will be 
> much better than the first you might want to do the second one as a 
> replacement anyway.  You are also free to show your images (for example 
> in p.b.i.) and ask others which they think is better.

That brings up an interesting thought I had yesterday. I don't know how 
the judges are going to judge the entries but it seems like this is 
going to be the hardest judgement of their lives. Even just from seeing 
the one image that has been revealed (I don't remember the author...I 
believe the name of the image was "Girl With An Earring" or something 
along that line), I can tell you that my entry is completely different, 
technically and thematically. It's just a whole different image. There's 
not really any good comparison. So, it's kind of hard for me to know 
that "yes, my second entry would be better." It's subjective, really. 
I'm sure the judges will do their best to be as objective as possible, 
but it just seems like they'll be comparing apples to oranges to bananas 
to pears (in which the lowest common denominator is that those are all 
fruit...in this case, rendered with POV).

> Such a note will most likely be completely ignored by the judges - the 
> fact that you created the image in a certain time is not an argument 
> (neither for or against the image).

Yeah I know - I was just going to submit the image to the highend3d 
artist gallery after the competition and the like a little "Image 
Completion Time" blurb in the description. :)

~Mike

[Christoph Hormann] Re: Who unsubmitted? [7823 days 22 hours and 12 minutes ago]

Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:20:02 GMT

Mike Thorn wrote:
> Did anybody withdraw their image(s) for tweaking after the competition?
> 
> Just curious whether I should spend the next two months sprucing up my 
> image or maybe try a second entry (I have a few interesting ideas). :)

That's comletely up to you but if you think your second entry is/will be 
much better than the first you might want to do the second one as a 
replacement anyway.  You are also free to show your images (for example 
in p.b.i.) and ask others which they think is better.

> Originally I was going to put "created in spare time over about two 
> weeks" in the description, but if I'm not careful I'm going to have to 
> take out that part about "spare" time. :)

Such a note will most likely be completely ignored by the judges - the 
fact that you created the image in a certain time is not an argument 
(neither for or against the image).

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

[Mike Thorn] Who unsubmitted? [7824 days 2 hours and 8 minutes ago]

Sat, 13 Nov 2004 05:24:46 GMT

Did anybody withdraw their image(s) for tweaking after the competition?

Just curious whether I should spend the next two months sprucing up my 
image or maybe try a second entry (I have a few interesting ideas). :)

Originally I was going to put "created in spare time over about two 
weeks" in the description, but if I'm not careful I'm going to have to 
take out that part about "spare" time. :)

~Mike

[Jeremy M Praay] Re: A good benefit for moving the contest finish... [7827 days 17 hours and 10 minutes ago]

Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:22:36 GMT

I thought of that as well.  Spreading the taxes across an entire year would 
be a lot nicer than getting hit all-at-once.  In fact, I wondered how I 
could afford to win without selling the computer.  That would be sad.  I 
hope that whoever wins can afford to keep it.  Plus, I'm curious as to the 
power that it would have!  :-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com


"Chris Holtorf" <lho### [at] nwlinkcom> wrote in message 
news:1103_1099054999@news.povray.org...
>   A coworker pointed out a very good benefit to moving the contest 
> deadline to January - taxes. If, by some stroke of extremely very good 
> luck, I should win the first
> place prize, I can delay paying my US federal and state taxes by a year. 
> This is in addition to any potential import duties on the hardware if the 
> machine comes from out
> of the country. It would also give me more time to fill out any paperwork 
> that is required for transactions involving so much money.
>   This is not a trivial amount in my case - potentialy up to 30% of the 
> amount of the winnings. That extra year would give me a lot more time to 
> save up the money.
> Aren't governments fun to deal with !
>
> Chris Holtorf
>
>
>

[Gilles Tran] Re: Competition status [7828 days 11 hours and 17 minutes ago]

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:15:16 GMT

"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
418f6e70@news.povray.org...

> But unless your models lend themselves to being made simply in POV, you 
> will
> save time by using a modeller and hence be able to spend more time making
> your scene look amazing, which is what the judges want IMHO.

There are many areas where the power of POV-Ray's SDL can be harnessed to 
create amazing things without equivalent in a modeller. After all, there's a 
good reason why some sort of script is supported in many high-end 3D 
packages...
Basically, everything that can be built algorithmically through a 
shape-building macro has a definite edge over modellers, where this sort of 
procedure isn't very natural. Creating a macro to generate hundreds or 
thousands of different objects based on a random seed is something quite 
unique to POV-Ray for instance (see Chris Colefax's city generator, or my 
own pipe and cloud macro). POV-Ray's SDL will let you place them 
automatically and cleverly too. High-end modellers can do this sort of 
things, but it's really more work than it would be in POV-Ray (at least from 
my current experience with Rhino and Cinema 4D). If you throw in mesh 
instanciation and a smart use of primitives, it becomes possible to create 
insanely complex-looking structures without a render farm. Actually, POV-Ray 
can manage complexity quite well.

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[scott] Re: Competition status [7828 days 18 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:02:40 GMT

j wrote:
> While "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 is to show the full potential of
> POV-Ray", I am disappointed that objects made in Povray are treated
> equally as objects made with modellers on the assumptions that people
> will spend too much time on modelling (thus neglecting other things)
> and models made in Povray won't be good enough.  I don't object the
> use of modellers but this is not fair to the contestants who will be
> able to deliver, on time, pov models that are comparable to ones made
> with modeller.

But unless your models lend themselves to being made simply in POV, you will
save time by using a modeller and hence be able to spend more time making
your scene look amazing, which is what the judges want IMHO.

Take this shape as an example, it's a sphere with a square cut down the
middle, and all the edges rounded.  It's just one of the sub-objects that
make up an object in my scene.  How long would it take you to do that in POV
code?

I don't think there are that many realistic looking models that are quicker
to do in POV, especially since most things need rounded edges to look right.
It's just too time consuming to do rounds with CSG.

[Gilles Tran] Re: Competition status [7830 days 8 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:30:48 GMT

"j" <phazxero[at]hotmail[dot]com> a écrit dans le message de news: 
web.418d1c60b45fa19e3395a5e60@news.povray.org...

> I don't see the point in continuing as this a complete waste of my effort, 
> I can better spend my
time on other more important matters.

There are things that are better done in SDL. Others are better done with 
modellers. This is nothing new: the old hall of fame from the mid 90s 
featured renders of models created in pure SDL and renders of models created 
in 3D Studio.  Btw, the idea that something done with a modeller is always 
faster and easier is plain wrong. As someone who has been using modellers 
for a while, I can tell you that it's certainly difficult. A single model 
can take weeks or months. And one can spend a lot of time on a mesh model 
and still end up with something ugly. Modellers are not magical tools!

Again, it's the right tool for the right job. If your project is one where 
pure SDL is the perfect tool and that the result is "world-class" (not that 
I'm fond of this expression) it will have demonstrated "the full potential 
of POV-Ray" and will be rewarded accordingly.

In any case, given the variety of talents existing in the POV-Ray community, 
I wouldn't be surprised that the best entries cover the whole gamut of what 
is possible to do with POV-Ray nowdays, from complex constructs built 
entirely in SDL to mesh-based scenes, and mixtures of both. This was already 
the case for the entries submitted so far and the current Hall of fame is 
also a good demonstration of this.

To put it simply, people should not worry about the way the tools they use 
will be perceived by the judges. Use what you think is best to get the 
results you want, and, if you know your trade well, you just can't be wrong.

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Shay] Re: Competition status [7830 days 12 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Sat, 6 Nov 2004 19:05:46 GMT

j wrote:
> While "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 is to show the full potential of POV-Ray",
> I am disappointed that objects made in Povray are treated equally as
> objects made with modellers

POV-Ray has evelved to be a bit more than a renderer. It would be a 
waste IMO if the winner only used the SDL to place a few light sources 
and tweak his rad settings.

  -Shay

[Shay] Re: Competition status [7830 days 12 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Sat, 6 Nov 2004 19:02:53 GMT

St. wrote:

>>  The shapes look awesome, but on this monitor, every picture
>> looks like a crappy render from 1995, or maybe something
>> rendered with +Q1.

>  No, what you're seeing are 'some' models in the image *un-smoothed*.
> At 800x600, you can't see this, or at least, *I* can't.

ROFL. I think you misunderstood. When I said "on this monitor, every 
picture looks...", I meant *every* picture. The monitor is going out. 
It's got nothing to do with *your* pictures.

My Internet service was f'ed at home. The technician just left so I have 
just now gotten to see your pics on a working monitor. Looks great. I've 
got some ideas. I'll start typing an email now.

>> OH man, just got it. I bow to you young Sir!

lol

  -Shay

[j] Re: Competition status [7830 days 12 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:50:01 GMT

While "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 is to show the full potential of POV-Ray", I
am disappointed that objects made in Povray are treated equally as objects
made with modellers on the assumptions that people will spend too much time
on modelling (thus neglecting other things) and models made in Povray won't
be good enough.  I don't object the use of modellers but this is not fair
to the contestants who will be able to deliver, on time, pov models that
are comparable to ones made with modeller. I don't see the point in
continuing as this a complete waste of my effort, I can better spend my
time on other more important matters.

J

[Chris Cason] Re: APPRO are still advertising the old deadline. [7831 days 1 hour and 8 minutes ago]

Sat, 6 Nov 2004 06:24:25 GMT

POVeddie wrote:
> On their Web page APPRO are still advertising the old deadline:
> 
> http://www.appro.com/promotion/3d_contest.asp
> 
> The competition organisers should contact them about this.

I have advised them but they don't seem to have fixed it yet.

Thanks for pointing it out though.

-- Chris

[St ] Re: Competition status [7831 days 2 hours and 50 minutes ago]

Sat, 6 Nov 2004 04:42:55 GMT

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:418bdd9b$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
> >
> > Well, I've been really cheeky and sent you an email. Hope you
don't
> > mind. Just reply Shay.
>
> That looks like a RAM *hawg*!

   Heh, well, close.  ;)

 The shapes look awesome, but on this
> monitor, every picture looks like a crappy render from 1995, or
maybe
> something rendered with +Q1.

 No, what you're seeing are 'some' models in the image *un-smoothed*.
At 800x600, you can't see this, or at least, *I* can't.

  That first image was rendered at bog-standard +a0.0


I wish there were some way to take a screen
> shot of a crappy monitor picture, you'd probably get a laugh out of
> seeing your pic this way.

   'Print Screen' on your keyboard? CTRL-V to any graphics app.


 I'm going to forward it home where I can see
> it and then I'll respond to the "crits welcome" part via email where
I
> won't give anything away.
>
> I'm off to find mine now. I'm sending it from my work address, so I
> won't get any email reply to that address until Monday.

   No probs, looking forward to seeing it Shay. :)

   OH man, just got it. I bow to you young Sir! I'll mail you Monday.

   ~Steve~


>
>   -Shay

[Shay] Re: Competition status [7831 days 11 hours and 25 minutes ago]

Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:07:55 GMT

St. wrote:
> 
> Well, I've been really cheeky and sent you an email. Hope you don't
> mind. Just reply Shay.

That looks like a RAM *hawg*! The shapes look awesome, but on this 
monitor, every picture looks like a crappy render from 1995, or maybe 
something rendered with +Q1. I wish there were some way to take a screen 
shot of a crappy monitor picture, you'd probably get a laugh out of 
seeing your pic this way. I'm going to forward it home where I can see 
it and then I'll respond to the "crits welcome" part via email where I 
won't give anything away.

I'm off to find mine now. I'm sending it from my work address, so I 
won't get any email reply to that address until Monday.

  -Shay

[St ] Re: Competition status [7831 days 11 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:40:27 GMT

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:418ba20f$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
> >
> >    Shay, don't worry about it. Leave it up, and/or improve
> >  it, (I doubt it needs improving from what I've seen from you
> > though).
>
> Thanks, but I did go ahead and withdraw it. Worked on it a bit last
> night, and my heart's just not in it anymore. Same with an aborted
> second entry. I'll mail it to you if you want to check it out.
Figured
> I'd ask first, 'cause it's 1.6 megs.
>
> <hold on>
>
> Don't have your address handy. I remember the front, but can't
remember
> the domain.

  Well, I've been really cheeky and sent you an email. Hope you don't
mind. Just reply Shay.

   Later mate.

    ~Steve~


>
>   -Shay

[Shay] Re: Competition status [7831 days 15 hours and 39 minutes ago]

Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:53:51 GMT

St. wrote:
> 
>    Shay, don't worry about it. Leave it up, and/or improve
>  it, (I doubt it needs improving from what I've seen from you
> though).

Thanks, but I did go ahead and withdraw it. Worked on it a bit last 
night, and my heart's just not in it anymore. Same with an aborted 
second entry. I'll mail it to you if you want to check it out. Figured 
I'd ask first, 'cause it's 1.6 megs.

<hold on>

Don't have your address handy. I remember the front, but can't remember 
the domain.

  -Shay

[j] Re: Competition status [7832 days 7 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Fri, 5 Nov 2004 00:00:00 GMT

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>     Can I do what? Model something like Mr. Rosenman has? I really
> don't know if I can, I'm trying now, (and btw, when I saw his work, I
> was already modeling something similar, so I was quite shocked to see
> what he's done), and so far, so good, touch wood. But seriously,
> there's no way I could do it directly in PoV-Ray. How would someone
> make the folds in the skin? I've been using PoV for 5 years now, and
> soon learnt early on that translating and rotating was going to be my
> bugbear. I just couldn't do it. It seemed to take ages to move a box
> where I wanted it. Then I tried sPatch, then Wings, (and with Wings,
> you can build an entire scene on your screen if so desired - that's
> the bit I like), and haven't looked back since.
>

When I mentioned about brute force I don't just mean mindlessly putting a
million primitives together to get a ultra high quality model.  Like Gilles
says, use the right tool for the right thing.  I don't have to put
realistic people in my scene for it to be world-class, make use of things
that can be done in Povray and you could be surprised. Don't restrict
yourself to using a modeller because you need high quality models, just be
creative.

It appears to me that with today's CG standards most scenes with organic
models (human in particular) are deemed world-class (not saying that these
kind are the only world-class images).  People can make the most
photorealistic and detail human face but the artistic value is not really
there.  Perhaps my philosophy for cg is different.  I don't think a
world-class image is the direct result of merely using a tool to make
images that parallel other world-class images. A world-class image should
involve things that are unique, inspiring, something that others have not
tried before... and on top of the remaining artistic components. Povray can
do some amazing light effects, so can mental ray (I shouldn't make a
comparison since I haven't used it before). The tools are not really
different, but you, and I, and the way we perceive the world, are.

>      No no, don't take it like that. Keep up the good work! Nobody
> would be wasting their time developing a way of modeling directly in
> PoV if it's achievable. I say fair play to you if that's your goal. I
> don't know what you're doing, but to me, I would say that a massive
> library of different shapes 'could' be a good start - so that someone
> could make a good robot, a good car, a good house, castle, whatever,
> in PoV if they want. I think that would be one way forward. Thoughts?

I've done most of the modeling during the "first phase" of the competition,
so for the remaining month it's going to be improving everything. I am
trying to make my scene 100% povray, hopefully it will be unique.

>     Btw, sorry, I was in one of those moods again last night, and you
> don't want to know... <sigh>
>
>     Good luck to you.
>
>     ~Steve~

My apologies, I guess I was a bit upset but I can see that your intension is
good. Best of luck to you as well.

J

[St ] Re: Competition status [7832 days 9 hours and 41 minutes ago]

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:51:18 GMT

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:418a902a$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
> > I bet you haven't touched a modeler for, ooooh, sometime now?
>
> How about never? :) I did play with Rhino and Wings for a couple of
> evenings, but never actually modeled anything.

    Well, at least you know what's involved with these modelers. I
tried Rhino, and didn't know what I was looking at. :/

>
> > The thing is Shay, I can't see any other way forwards than to
> > use a modeler if you want a complete <and fairly realistic>
> > scene.
>
> I can't afford the RAM to make a scene as "complete" as many of
those in
> the links with *any* tool, especially poster sized, but my image was
not
>   abstract, a mathematical figure, or a procedural landscape.
Probably
> thousands of lines of code. In a few evenings (*if* I had the RAM),
I
> could add a few trees, flags, or whatever filler I wanted and have
the
> frame completely packed with details.

   But I'm the same with only 384Mb's of RAM. You really don't want to
know how many times Wings crashes on me with the models that I make.
In fact, I have Wings3d19, 22, 24, and 25 installed here, and the best
one for me is the '19' version. I think this is because from version
22 on, they used a progress bar, and *I* think this 'hassles' the
progress of modeling in this particular program, (any other Wingers
notice this?) Still, I will reset, and reboot as many times as I have
to, to get that object!  ;)

>
> > If you've achieved this, then I can't wait to see
> > your submission.
>
> Not sure if I'll leave it up. I haven't canceled it yet. I'll
probably
> decide something on Jan 31. I'm just flat out of resources. I could
doll
> it up a *bit* over the next three months, but it would still be a
> two-month scene, and no small part of that two months was spent on
> resource management already. Sort of bringing a knife to a gun
fight,
> and I don't want to submit anything to which I would feel any desire
to
> attach an excuse.

   Shay, don't worry about it. Leave it up, and/or improve it, (I
doubt it needs improving from what I've seen from you though).

  Good luck to you too.

   ~Steve~

>
>   -Shay

[Shay] Re: Competition status [7832 days 11 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 20:25:14 GMT

St. wrote:
> I bet you haven't touched a modeler for, ooooh, sometime now?

How about never? :) I did play with Rhino and Wings for a couple of 
evenings, but never actually modeled anything.

> The thing is Shay, I can't see any other way forwards than to
> use a modeler if you want a complete <and fairly realistic>
> scene.

I can't afford the RAM to make a scene as "complete" as many of those in 
the links with *any* tool, especially poster sized, but my image was not 
  abstract, a mathematical figure, or a procedural landscape. Probably 
thousands of lines of code. In a few evenings (*if* I had the RAM), I 
could add a few trees, flags, or whatever filler I wanted and have the 
frame completely packed with details.

> If you've achieved this, then I can't wait to see
> your submission.

Not sure if I'll leave it up. I haven't canceled it yet. I'll probably 
decide something on Jan 31. I'm just flat out of resources. I could doll 
it up a *bit* over the next three months, but it would still be a 
two-month scene, and no small part of that two months was spent on 
resource management already. Sort of bringing a knife to a gun fight, 
and I don't want to submit anything to which I would feel any desire to 
attach an excuse.

  -Shay

[St ] Re: Competition status [7832 days 13 hours and 4 minutes ago]

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:28:52 GMT

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:418a7044$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
> >   - so that someone could make a good robot, a good car,
> > a good house,  castle, whatever, in PoV if they want. I
> > think that would be one way forward. Thoughts?
>
> My entry was hand-coded.

     I know it was. ;)  I bet you haven't touched a modeler for,
ooooh, sometime now? The thing is Shay, I can't see any other way
forwards than to use a modeler if you want a complete <and fairly
realistic> scene. If you've achieved this, then I can't wait to see
your submission. You know, everyone screams that Wings is good, (and
it is), but it can be equally as hard as PoV itself in the frustration
camp. As David Bowie once sang; "It ain't eeeasy..."   ;)

    ~Steve~


>
>   -Shay

[Shay] Re: Competition status [7832 days 13 hours and 23 minutes ago]

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:09:08 GMT

St. wrote:
>   - so that someone could make a good robot, a good car,
> a good house,  castle, whatever, in PoV if they want. I
> think that would be one way forward. Thoughts?

My entry was hand-coded.

  -Shay

[St ] Re: Competition status [7832 days 13 hours and 43 minutes ago]

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:49:34 GMT

"j" <phazxero[at]hotmail[dot]com> wrote in message
news:web.418a4624b45fa19e4d3bf7670@news.povray.org...
 "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> >    Can you 'please' stop splitting hairs? If you look at
> > http://www.richardrosenman.com/
> >
> >    How can you do this in Pov??  Eh? Eh?
> >
> I give you a modeller, can you?

    Can I do what? Model something like Mr. Rosenman has? I really
don't know if I can, I'm trying now, (and btw, when I saw his work, I
was already modeling something similar, so I was quite shocked to see
what he's done), and so far, so good, touch wood. But seriously,
there's no way I could do it directly in PoV-Ray. How would someone
make the folds in the skin? I've been using PoV for 5 years now, and
soon learnt early on that translating and rotating was going to be my
bugbear. I just couldn't do it. It seemed to take ages to move a box
where I wanted it. Then I tried sPatch, then Wings, (and with Wings,
you can build an entire scene on your screen if so desired - that's
the bit I like), and haven't looked back since.


> I didn't say everything is possible to model in povray. And just
because it
> hasn't been attempted in povray doesn't mean it's not possible.

      I agree.

>
> So it looks like I have already wasted a chunk of time finding
innovative
> ways to make models in povray that people normally don't do it in
povray. I
> don't enjoy doing worthless things.

     No no, don't take it like that. Keep up the good work! Nobody
would be wasting their time developing a way of modeling directly in
PoV if it's achievable. I say fair play to you if that's your goal. I
don't know what you're doing, but to me, I would say that a massive
library of different shapes 'could' be a good start - so that someone
could make a good robot, a good car, a good house, castle, whatever,
in PoV if they want. I think that would be one way forward. Thoughts?


>
> >    Get used to it. Modellers are in, and PoV <YOU> create/s the
> > superior textures, lighting, and finishes.
>
> I would use a modeller if I really have to, but if there are two
equally
> good models, one made in Povray and one made with a modeller, I
think the
> one made with Povray should deserve more credit, and that's the end
of it.

    Absolutely. I would be the first to shake the winners hand if this
is the case.

    Btw, sorry, I was in one of those moods again last night, and you
don't want to know... <sigh>

    Good luck to you.

    ~Steve~

>
> J
>
>

[scott] Re: Competition status [7832 days 16 hours and 11 minutes ago]

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:21:23 GMT

j wrote:
>>    Get used to it. Modellers are in, and PoV <YOU> create/s the
>> superior textures, lighting, and finishes.
>
> I would use a modeller if I really have to, but if there are two
> equally good models, one made in Povray and one made with a modeller,
> I think the one made with Povray should deserve more credit, and
> that's the end of it.

True, but often the one done in a modeller will have taken less time, and if
the organisers want world class final images they should not put any
pressure on people to "waste" time using POV to get a better chance of
winning.

As an example, I spent maybe 45 mins - 1 hour making a model of a plastic
tray in POV for my entry.  It took me a while to get the geometry correct,
the rounds on all the sides, the handle on the front took a lot of trial and
error etc.  For comparison I just made the same thing in our CAD package
here at work, it took me less than 5 minutes.

Now if you gave me 60 minutes to make a "world class" image of a plastic
tray, which method is going to give the best final image?

I understand fully your concerns about using "pure" POV code, but as there
is a time limit to the competition, and the organisers have complained about
the images not being high enough quality, I think it would be sensible for
them to say that there will be no bias given to "pure" POV models over those
done in modellers.  After all, we want to show off to the non-POV community
what POV is capable of in terms of final image quality as a ray tracer, not
as a modeller.

[j] Re: Competition status [7832 days 16 hours and 22 minutes ago]

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:10:01 GMT

"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> Just because something is harder and takes longer I don't think it should
> deserve more credit.  Most of us are only hobbyists, we have a limited time.
> If we are being rewarded for spending 10 hours generating a clever model in
> POV compared to spending 2 hours knocking it up in a modeller, then that's 8
> hours we've lost that could have been spent on texturing/lighting within POV
> to make the final image look world-class.

Making models in Povray doesn't mean you have to spend hours and hours
slapping sphere and cylinder together, there are certainly better and
faster ways to do things in povray. Brute force never works, at least not
in a timed exam.

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>    Can you 'please' stop splitting hairs? If you look at
> http://www.richardrosenman.com/
>
>    How can you do this in Pov??  Eh? Eh?
>
I give you a modeller, can you?
I didn't say everything is possible to model in povray. And just because it
hasn't been attempted in povray doesn't mean it's not possible.

So it looks like I have already wasted a chunk of time finding innovative
ways to make models in povray that people normally don't do it in povray. I
don't enjoy doing worthless things.

>    Get used to it. Modellers are in, and PoV <YOU> create/s the
> superior textures, lighting, and finishes.

I would use a modeller if I really have to, but if there are two equally
good models, one made in Povray and one made with a modeller, I think the
one made with Povray should deserve more credit, and that's the end of it.

J

[Chris Cason] Re: Competition status [7833 days 4 hours and 46 minutes ago]

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 02:46:42 GMT

scott wrote:
> But what happens if the quality of work isn't much different by the end of
> January?  Will the prizes be given away then, or will you wait another 3
> months?  Just genuinely curious.

I can think of no circumstances (excluding perhaps major natural calamity) in
which we would extend the deadline again.

I promise this: even if we do not get a single additional render entered into
the contest we will not extend again in order to give more time. That is time
enough. The winners will be announced in February '05.

-- Chris

[St ] Re: Competition status [7833 days 10 hours and 9 minutes ago]

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:23:56 GMT

"j" <phazxero[at]hotmail[dot]com> wrote in message
news:web.4189338fb45fa19e4d3bf7670@news.povray.org...
> "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> > Just because something is harder and takes longer I don't think it
should
> > deserve more credit.
>
> That's true. Things that take longer to make may not necessarily
deserve
> more credit.
>
> > If we are being rewarded for spending 10 hours generating a clever
model in
> > POV compared to spending 2 hours knocking it up in a modeller,
then that's 8
> > hours we've lost that could have been spent on texturing/lighting
within POV
> > to make the final image look world-class.
>
> But then, how do you know that I spent the majority of my time
modeling in
> pov?

   Because you will say so in your text file...


It's the same as saying you spend more time to make fabulous looking
> lighting/texture thus deserving more credit, isn't that sort of the
same as
> spending more time to make fabulous looking model in povray? It is a
Povray
> competition after all.

   Can you 'please' stop splitting hairs? If you look at
http://www.richardrosenman.com/

   How can you do this in Pov??  Eh? Eh?

   Get used to it. Modellers are in, and PoV <YOU> create/s the
superior textures, lighting, and finishes.

   That link was fantastic for me. I think I can get close, at least
conceptually-wise.

   Give it a go, and stop whining please.

    ~Steve~

>
>

[Gilles Tran] Re: Competition status [7833 days 10 hours and 15 minutes ago]

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:17:18 GMT

"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4188f5dc$1@news.povray.org...

> OK sorry I misunderstood.  I was thinking that because I am no expert at 
> 3rd
> party modellers, I would have more of a chance of winning by getting some
> "credit" for doing models in raw POV.  If you are saying that an identical
> model created in both raw POV and a 3rd party modeller gets the same 
> credit,
> then I will have to practise more with what looks like easier tools to use
> for complicated models.

I will expand on this later (with examples) when I write the "POVCOMP hints" 
about modelling but here's a couple of answers:

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.

See for instance this model of typewriter by Jaime Vives Piqueres:
http://www.oyonale.com/iss/english/museum_05.htm
It's certainly one of the most impressive examples of SDL model I've seen. 
It's small, clean code that doesn't use much memory, and, because it's SDL, 
it still looks great on close-up. The same typewriter created with a 
traditional modeller would be a huge, RAM-eating mesh with visible polygons 
that would make testing difficult due to long parsing times. In this case, 
SDL wins. As a judge, I wouldn't reward using SDL per se, but the smart use 
of SDL (and POV-Ray) to create a superior model.

So it comes down to this: use the right tool for the right job. If you can't 
do something as good as you want it to be in SDL, don't. If you can't model 
a good-looking human face in Wings, don't. But if you can do one of these 
things, please do it! If something is going to be rewarded, it's the ability 
to make the best of the tools and time budget available to the artist. Lots 
of impressive stuff can be done in SDL, and often more easily than with a 
mesh modeller, so this can be shown. Also, SDL-based objects can have their 
own specific artistic values and some styles of imagery can also benefit 
from this.

> But what happens if the quality of work isn't much different by the end of
> January?

It will. I'm confident that the good stuff already there will become 
*really* good stuff by the end January. In any case, 3 extra months wouldn't 
make a difference at this point.

> I'll see, the more I think about it the more I'm tempted to carry on :-)

You're welcome!

Gilles

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[j] Re: Competition status [7833 days 11 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:40:00 GMT

"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> Just because something is harder and takes longer I don't think it should
> deserve more credit.

That's true. Things that take longer to make may not necessarily deserve
more credit.

> If we are being rewarded for spending 10 hours generating a clever model in
> POV compared to spending 2 hours knocking it up in a modeller, then that's 8
> hours we've lost that could have been spent on texturing/lighting within POV
> to make the final image look world-class.

But then, how do you know that I spent the majority of my time modeling in
pov? It's the same as saying you spend more time to make fabulous looking
lighting/texture thus deserving more credit, isn't that sort of the same as
spending more time to make fabulous looking model in povray? It is a Povray
competition after all.

[scott] Re: Competition status [7833 days 15 hours and 34 minutes ago]

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:58:02 GMT

j wrote:
> "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
>> OK sorry I misunderstood.  I was thinking that because I am no
>> expert at 3rd party modellers, I would have more of a chance of
>> winning by getting some "credit" for doing models in raw POV.  If
>> you are saying that an identical model created in both raw POV and a
>> 3rd party modeller gets the same credit, then I will have to
>> practise more with what looks like easier tools to use for
>> complicated models.
>
> It will be a pity if models made solely in povray does not deserve
> more credits.

I agree, but by the sounds of it the organisers want world-class images as a
result, *not* world-class POV code.

> The only reasons that I would use a modeller are for
> things like nurbs, organic, some ridiculously oddly looking shape
> that can only be done with meshes. I do agree that it takes some time
> to create high quality models in povray, and because of this I
> believe that models made purely in Povray should deserve extra credit.

Just because something is harder and takes longer I don't think it should
deserve more credit.  Most of us are only hobbyists, we have a limited time.
If we are being rewarded for spending 10 hours generating a clever model in
POV compared to spending 2 hours knocking it up in a modeller, then that's 8
hours we've lost that could have been spent on texturing/lighting within POV
to make the final image look world-class.

[j] Re: Competition status [7833 days 15 hours and 47 minutes ago]

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:45:00 GMT

"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:

> OK sorry I misunderstood.  I was thinking that because I am no expert at 3rd
> party modellers, I would have more of a chance of winning by getting some
> "credit" for doing models in raw POV.  If you are saying that an identical
> model created in both raw POV and a 3rd party modeller gets the same credit,
> then I will have to practise more with what looks like easier tools to use
> for complicated models.

It will be a pity if models made solely in povray does not deserve more
credits. The only reasons that I would use a modeller are for things like
nurbs, organic, some ridiculously oddly looking shape that can only be done
with meshes. I do agree that it takes some time to create high quality
models in povray, and because of this I believe that models made purely in
Povray should deserve extra credit.

[scott] Re: Competition status [7833 days 16 hours and 18 minutes ago]

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:14:36 GMT

Gilles Tran wrote:
> "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> a écrit dans le message de
> news:4188bafe$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Had they made it clear that it was perfectly acceptable to use a 3rd
>> party modeller for creating meshes then I'm sure the quality of
>> entries would have been far higher.
>
> Well, the guidelines say "You are allowed to use any tool you want for
> modeling, texturing etc.". About modeling, they say that "self-made
> models" will be seen in a positive light, but it's vs non-self-made
> models, not 3rd party modelers! The "technical novelty" section also
> says that while using the POV-Ray SDL is a good thing, the goal of
> technical novelty "should not be attained at the expense of
> neglecting any of the other guidelines".

OK sorry I misunderstood.  I was thinking that because I am no expert at 3rd
party modellers, I would have more of a chance of winning by getting some
"credit" for doing models in raw POV.  If you are saying that an identical
model created in both raw POV and a 3rd party modeller gets the same credit,
then I will have to practise more with what looks like easier tools to use
for complicated models.

>> I won't be carrying on with my entry, I don't want to be wasting my
>> time
> on one single image for a prize that might never actually be given
> away.
>
> There's no reason to think that the prizes won't be given away. They
> will.

But what happens if the quality of work isn't much different by the end of
January?  Will the prizes be given away then, or will you wait another 3
months?  Just genuinely curious.

> If you've worked hard to make detailed models, you now have the
> opportunity to create a scene worthy of them that will include
> excellent texturing and lighting.

I'll see, the more I think about it the more I'm tempted to carry on :-)

[Gilles Tran] Re: Competition status [7833 days 17 hours and 36 minutes ago]

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:55:59 GMT

"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4188bafe$1@news.povray.org...

> Had they made it clear that it was perfectly acceptable to use a 3rd party
> modeller for creating meshes then I'm sure the quality of entries would
have
> been far higher.

Well, the guidelines say "You are allowed to use any tool you want for
modeling, texturing etc.". About modeling, they say that "self-made models"
will be seen in a positive light, but it's vs non-self-made models, not 3rd
party modelers! The "technical novelty" section also says that while using
the POV-Ray SDL is a good thing, the goal of technical novelty "should not
be attained at the expense of neglecting any of the other guidelines".

It could perhaps have been made clearer, but then the risk was to make
people think that *not using* 3rd party tools would have been a
disadvantage, which would have turned off the many users POV-Ray users who
are SDL-coders at heart. Indeed, the entries show great models created in
POV-Ray and great models with 3rd party modelers. Some models are best done
with a mesh modeler, and others can benefit a lot from the SDL. It really
comes down to the quality of the models in the end, no matter the tool.

> What I did start with was creating
> models in POV, I never even touched properly on the lighting or textures,
I
> was "leaving that for later".  IMHO this is totally wrong, the contest
> should be all about the lighting, textures, materials etc, not about
seeing
> who can get POV to create the most realistic 3D model.

A good image results from the combination of different skills. You're
absolutely right about the importance of lighting and texturing, but
modeling skills are also part of the exercise.

> I won't be carrying on with my entry, I don't want to be wasting my time
on one single image for a prize that might never actually be given away.

There's no reason to think that the prizes won't be given away. They will.
If you've worked hard to make detailed models, you now have the opportunity
to create a scene worthy of them that will include excellent texturing and
lighting. After working on the "Reach for the stars" space image for several
months, Jaime and I spent quite a bit of time creating scenes featuring some
of (mostly Jaime's) best models that had appeared in the main image, because
we thought that they deserved to be seen in their best light.
http://www.oyonale.com/iss/english/details.htm#Museum

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[scott] Re: Competition status [7833 days 20 hours and 29 minutes ago]

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:03:26 GMT

rben wrote:
> 6) Upon discussing this contest with a friend of mine, he pointed out
> what might be part of the problem.  Since you have explicitely stated
> that artists will be given more credit for self-made models than ones
> borrowed from someone else or created using 3rd party tools, you may
> have narrowed the pool of participants to POV-Ray artists who are
> very good at creating models and in creating impressive images using
> those models.  You have limited the ability for those artists who are
> primarily good at creating impressive images using models that others
> have created.  Personally, I like this, since I make most if not all
> of my own models for each image, but it does narrow the field
> considerably.

If you really want the competition to be about scenes made entirely in POV
with no 3rd party modellers or models, then you are not going to get
amazingly high quality images that are comparable to what people see around
them (films, magazines, photos etc) in such a short time.  POV is not the
best tool for creating complex 3D models, and if you tell people they will
get more credit for trying to use it to do something it wasn't really
designed for, they are going to spend a lot of time doing that rather than
showing off the *real* features that POV is *really* good at.

Had they made it clear that it was perfectly acceptable to use a 3rd party
modeller for creating meshes then I'm sure the quality of entries would have
been far higher.

FWIW I started out planning to enter, but due to a holiday and several trips
with work, I just didn't have the time.  What I did start with was creating
models in POV, I never even touched properly on the lighting or textures, I
was "leaving that for later".  IMHO this is totally wrong, the contest
should be all about the lighting, textures, materials etc, not about seeing
who can get POV to create the most realistic 3D model.  I won't be carrying
on with my entry, I don't want to be wasting my time on one single image for
a prize that might never actually be given away.

[Dave Matthews] Re: POVCOMP hints #1: References in 3D [7834 days 15 hours and 4 minutes ago]

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:28:41 GMT

Gilles Tran wrote:

> The following links are examples of recent 3D work taken outside the POV-Ray 
> community. It's just a very small sample, but it covers a lot of ground. 
> These works are for most of them created by professional graphic artists 
> using high-end expensive tools, and able to spend a lot of time on their 3D 
> work. 

Wow, thanks.  Those are some eye-openers and no mistake.  I was kind of 
stuck in the "how can I make the most realistic and detailed flowers and 
trees" mode.  That was competing with the "to heck with the flowers and 
trees, maybe I can model some stuff on a table in a room" approach. 
Time to do some serious re-thinking (and now we do have time.)

Thanks again.

Dave Matthews

[Chris Cason] Re: Poster Sized Render vs Detailed views [7834 days 23 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:00:51 GMT

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Of course extracting the two detail views from one large render is OK 
> but scaling down a larger render does not comply with this rule.  While 
> you might argue about this making sense or not and making a difference 

You are correct. My apologies to Peter.

-- Chris

[Jim Charter] Re: POVCOMP hints #1: References in 3D [7835 days 6 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 01:02:40 GMT

Thanks Gilles, I think this is very cool what you are doing.

In fact, way back in an earlier thread, there was a little skirmish over 
  whether you would be entering or not and you announced that you would 
not be.  It shocked me at first but then my immediate reaction was to 
want to respond with a proposal that maybe you could act in some sort of 
technical advisory capacity for participants.  But the idea never got 
past the fanciful stage and I wasn't sure how it would be received.  In 
retrospect I kinda wish I'd suggested it then.

On a personal note, I did not enter the contest myself for a complex of 
reasons, but one huge obstacle for me was the high resolution required 
in the specification.  I know that had I made the proposal, and had you 
accepted, questions about the pitfalls of producing high res images 
would have been salient for me.  And still are.  It seems to me that 
that is one of the milestones that separates you and the other 
organizers, who have greater experience technically, from many of us who 
are less far along.  Just wanted to throw that into the mix as you are 
putting together your tuts.

-Jim

[Gilles Tran] POVCOMP hints #1: References in 3D [7835 days 9 hours and 20 minutes ago]

Mon, 1 Nov 2004 22:12:52 GMT

Dear POVCOMP competitors

Following the postponement of the deadline of the POVCOMP and after reading 
the comments posted here, I've decided to write a series of short 
"tutorials" that aim to help the participants to improve their images (if 
necessary). Several topics will be addressed in the weeks to come such as 
concept, composition, modelling, texturing, lighting etc. The term 
"tutorial" is used loosely in fact, as this will be mostly general advice, 
hints and examples taken from the vast world of 3D (or photography). 
Comments, corrections and discussion are welcome of course.

#1: References in 3D

While POVCOMP is a POV-Ray competition, its objective is also to demonstrate 
that our beloved raytracer is a fantastic tool, able to create fantastic 
images, to the large majority of people who have never heard of POV-Ray. 
These people will be seing these images in magazines or at computer trade 
shows: they will not compare the POVCOMP images to other POV-Ray images, but 
to the sort of CG imagery that is now commonplace in movies and advertising. 
The POVCOMP pictures will "compete" with the best, and, as we know, the bar 
has been raised a lot since the early days of POV-Ray.

The following links are examples of recent 3D work taken outside the POV-Ray 
community. It's just a very small sample, but it covers a lot of ground. 
These works are for most of them created by professional graphic artists 
using high-end expensive tools, and able to spend a lot of time on their 3D 
work. Is it possible to do images like these with POV-Ray? There's no good 
answer to that. Let's say that from a rendering perspective, POV-Ray can 
really take you far, or at least far enough for its own limitations not to 
be such an hindrance when it comes to create great images. These limits are 
mostly in the modelling and texturing (but external tools like Moray, Wings 
or Blender can take care of that), in the post-process features (forbidden 
in the POVCOMP anyway) and, somehow in the rendering speed (since it's pure 
raytracing). However, POV-Ray has also its own strengths - the SDL itself, 
macros, functions, isosurfaces or mesh instanciation, for example - and 
POVCOMP participants can build on that.

But above all, an impressive image isn't just a question of computing 
horsepower. If the images below are good, it is also because they are good 
in many things that are perfectly accessible to the POV-Ray user, such as 
concept, composition or lighting. So have a look at the eye candy below, and 
if you have entered (or plan to enter) an image in the competition, try to 
look for images thematically similar to yours and see how those graphic 
artists approached the topic. Look for the similarities and for the 
differences. What did they do that you can't do in POV-Ray? What did they do 
that you *can* do in POV-Ray?

Gilles Tran

Community sites
http://raph.com
http://www.cgtalk.com/

Books
http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/books/expose1/index.php
http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/books/elemental/page_gallery/

Artists' sites
http://www.this-wonderful-life.com/
http://www.dusso.com/
http://www.jsaarinen.com
http://www.rochr.com/
http://www.raycaesar.com
http://www.oken3d.com/index2.html
http://www.cartesiuscreations.com/
http://www.begann.de
http://www.3dluvr.com/pascalb/
http://www.optidigit.com/stevens/
http://olivier.cousinou.free.fr/
http://www.buhovec.mcultra.net/3d_art/_index.htm
http://pyer.3dvf.net/
http://www.h6.dion.ne.jp/~m.mirage/
http://www.neilblevins.com/
http://www.art.net/~jeremy/
http://www.xavier-marquis.com/
http://www.interstation3d.com/
http://www.seaofsaa.com/
http://www.3dluvr.com/elrafo/
http://www.eklettica.com/
http://www.rustboy.com/
http://www.savinoff.com/
http://www.oud-japan.co.jp/
http://lucbianco.free.fr/index_en.html
http://www.alexbroeckel.com
http://www.dermattin.com/3dwerkverzeichnis/
http://www.deluxepaint.net/
http://www.pexel.de/
http://www.trajectons.com/seize/
http://oury.3dvf.net/
http://www.beans-magic.com/home.html
http://www.frederic-st-arnaud.com/
http://www.antropus.com/
http://www.art.eonworks.com/
http://www.flepotron.com/
http://mr2k.3dvf.net
http://www.squeezestudio.com/
http://www.siulong.it/
http://www.3dluvr.com/carles/home_eng.htm
http://www.3dluvr.com/jonkajtys/
http://www.schloerb.com/
http://www.richardrosenman.com/
http://www.musa3d.com/
http://www.trinisica.com/
http://membres.lycos.fr/rimasson/
http://www.vetorzero.com.br/kaya/
http://www.juansiquier.com/
http://www.imago-design.it/gallery3d1.htm
http://www.bprince.com/

Software
http://www.caligari.com/gallery/ImagesGallery/default.asp?Cate=GImages
http://www.softimage.com/community/Xsi/Galleries/v3/Gal_Oct04/Gal_Oct04.asp
http://www.maxon.net/index_e.html
http://www.splutterfish.com/sf/gallery_index.php
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/Gallery/index.php
http://www.vrayrender.com/gallery/
http://www.alias.com/eng/community/galleries/image_gallery/index.jhtml
http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/lw-gallery/index.php?cat=2
http://www4.discreet.com/3dsmax/3dsmax.php?id=515







-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Christoph Hormann] Re: Poster Sized Render vs Detailed views [7835 days 14 hours and 32 minutes ago]

Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:00:02 GMT

Chris Cason wrote:
> 
> If you have the above, then extracting the two detail views from it and then
> submitting a scaled-down version of the main image would be fairly trivial (in
> fact IIRC this is the method used by some others). It's quite legal to do it
> this way and I'm sure there'd be folks here who would help if need be.

Actually no, rule 4d says:

"Each image submitted has to be the direct result of a POV-Ray render. 
No post processing of any kind is permitted. The images have to be 
submitted in JPEG format. (Note: converting from another image format to 
JPEG is not considered 'post processing')."

Of course extracting the two detail views from one large render is OK 
but scaling down a larger render does not comply with this rule.  While 
you might argue about this making sense or not and making a difference 
or not you should remember - winning entries have to supply the scene 
source and if the result can not be reproduced this might lead to 
disqualification.  So unless you know what algorithm your scaling uses 
and that this can be reproduced with appropriate antialiasing settings 
this can be risky.

Another note about the detail views - among the images submitted for the 
original deadline there have been several ones where the detail views 
obviously were not made with exactly the same scene as the main render 
and some detail views were rendered without antialiasing.  Both things 
are likely to give a negative impression in the eyes of the judges and 
the new extended deadline should give enough time to generate high 
quality detail views.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

[Chris Cason] Re: Poster Sized Render vs Detailed views [7835 days 15 hours and 5 minutes ago]

Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:27:53 GMT

Peter Duthie wrote:
> Instead of submitting two detailed views, would it be possible to submit 
> one poster sized render of at least 5 x 5 the original picture 
> dimensions?  Technically this would contain the required two detailed views.
> 
> For those whose works do not require weeks to render, this may be a 
> valid alternative and would show that the competitor is not concealing a 
> lack of detail in areas not selected for a close-up view.

If you have the above, then extracting the two detail views from it and then
submitting a scaled-down version of the main image would be fairly trivial (in
fact IIRC this is the method used by some others). It's quite legal to do it
this way and I'm sure there'd be folks here who would help if need be.

-- Chris

[Warp] Re: Poster Sized Render vs Detailed views [7835 days 20 hours and 58 minutes ago]

Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:34:48 GMT

Peter Duthie <pd_### [at] warlordsofbeercom> wrote:
> Thoughts?

  OTOH you have to take into account that most judges will be viewing the
images over the internet. A 25-times larger image could take some space...

-- 
#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 -

[Peter Duthie] Poster Sized Render vs Detailed views [7836 days 3 hours and 48 minutes ago]

Mon, 1 Nov 2004 03:44:10 GMT

Instead of submitting two detailed views, would it be possible to submit 
one poster sized render of at least 5 x 5 the original picture 
dimensions?  Technically this would contain the required two detailed views.

For those whose works do not require weeks to render, this may be a 
valid alternative and would show that the competitor is not concealing a 
lack of detail in areas not selected for a close-up view.

Of course, this would require a change to the submission interface, but 
not necessarily the competition rules.

Thoughts?

Peter Duthie.

[Chris Holtorf] A good benefit for moving the contest finish date [7838 days 18 hours and 31 minutes ago]

Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:01:26 GMT

A coworker pointed out a very good benefit to moving the contest deadline to January -
taxes. If, by some stroke of extremely very good luck, I should win the first 
place prize, I can delay paying my US federal and state taxes by a year. This is in
addition to any potential import duties on the hardware if the machine comes from out 
of the country. It would also give me more time to fill out any paperwork that is
required for transactions involving so much money. 
   This is not a trivial amount in my case - potentialy up to 30% of the amount of the
winnings. That extra year would give me a lot more time to save up the money. 
Aren't governments fun to deal with !

Chris Holtorf

[m1j] Re: Competition status [7839 days 9 hours and 37 minutes ago]

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:55:00 GMT

"jute" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> > he means that he encourages the povcomp team to seek legal counseling before
> > finalizing the deadline extention. That seems like sound advice.
>
> I stand corrected.  Sorry m1j.
>
> --
> jussi.kantola

I should apologize as well. I did not state my points clear enough.

[Jim Charter] Re: Competition status [7839 days 11 hours and 18 minutes ago]

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:14:23 GMT

Gena wrote:


> It's a pity that from competition were excluded people who
> proved their commitment to POV-Ray during many years and who
> really deserve the prize.
> 
If that describes anyone, it describes you, Gena.

[Christoph Hormann] Re: Competition status [7839 days 14 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:50:02 GMT

Gena wrote:
> 
>> If there were no prizes that wouldn't be much
>> a problem, but with a financial incentive, it would immediately lead to
>> suspicion and to all sorts of potential troubles, including legal ones.
> 
> 
> It's a pity that from competition were excluded people who
> proved their commitment to POV-Ray during many years and who
> really deserve the prize.

I don't think this is about deserving or not.  If Appro, Zazzle or any 
other company is interested in an image from Gilles or me they know we 
are both open to doing contract work when time permits. :-)

I'd rather see the prizes as an encouragement for those participating 
and the whole contest as a chance for people to exercise and present 
their abilities.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

[Gena] Re: Competition status [7839 days 15 hours and 39 minutes ago]

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:53:13 GMT

> It's prohibited by the rules. 

But you yourself make the rules :)


> If there were no prizes that wouldn't be much
> a problem, but with a financial incentive, it would immediately lead to
> suspicion and to all sorts of potential troubles, including legal ones.

It's a pity that from competition were excluded people who
proved their commitment to POV-Ray during many years and who
really deserve the prize.

Gena.

[jute] Re: Competition status [7839 days 21 hours and 12 minutes ago]

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:20:00 GMT

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> he means that he encourages the povcomp team to seek legal counseling before
> finalizing the deadline extention. That seems like sound advice.

I stand corrected.  Sorry m1j.

--
jussi.kantola

[Gilles Tran] Re: Competition status [7839 days 23 hours and 15 minutes ago]

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:16:57 GMT

"Gena" <gen### [at] yahoocom> a écrit dans le message de
news:417de0cd$1@news.povray.org...

> I think everybody can participate now including organizers. Why not?

It's prohibited by the rules. If there were no prizes that wouldn't be much
a problem, but with a financial incentive, it would immediately lead to
suspicion and to all sorts of potential troubles, including legal ones.

G.


-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Dave Matthews] Re: Competition status [7840 days 7 hours and 5 minutes ago]

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:27:18 GMT

Gena wrote:

> Dave Matthews wrote:
> 
>> And I do think that it is very important to get submissions from more 
>> of the
>> really great POVers, especially since you and Christoph and some of the
>> other experts exempted yourselves in order to organize the competition.
> 
> 
> I think everybody can participate now including organizers. Why not?
> 
> Gena.
> 

I'd love it, but I thought that they'd decided not to.  (I wonder what 
that first prize would be capable of in Christoph's or Gilles' hands?)

Dave Matthews

[Gilles Tran] POVCOMP site updated [7840 days 11 hours and 40 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:52:21 GMT

... with the new deadline. The rules and the registration agreement have 
been updated accordingly.
http://www.povcomp.com/

So I guess it's official now!

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[POVeddie] APPRO are still advertising the old deadline. [7840 days 11 hours and 47 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:45:00 GMT

On their Web page APPRO are still advertising the old deadline:

http://www.appro.com/promotion/3d_contest.asp

The competition organisers should contact them about this.

Cheers
Eddie

[Emperor Pygosceles] Re: Competition status [7840 days 12 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:40:00 GMT

Well, I guess I really can't say whether this extension is a good thing or a
bad thing.  I had dropped out of this competition when I was almost
finished with a *not very refined* entry due to time constraints.  Since
the closure of the contest, I have been able to dedicate more of my effort
to other demanding (and exceptionally gluttonous) time-devouring subjects.
Now that it has reopened, I will have to finish my work and submit it.
This will hog a lot more of my already scarce commodity (time), but I think
it will be rather more rewarding than most of my mandated pursuits (aka
school :p).  I really don't care where I stand or will stand as far as
comparative quality, I just want to be able to satisfy my own imagination
(it's finicky, that's for sure!)
Let's oil those engines and get back in the race!
Don't worry about getting frustrated; If worst comes to worst, come and join
me in Antarctica, I'll have the Penguins put on some more hot chocolate.

Good luck one and all (not just to the entrants, I mean everybody)!

[m1j] Re: Competition status [7840 days 14 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:05:00 GMT

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> "jute" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
> news:web.417f69eab45fa19e67c1c3ff0@news.povray.org...
> > "m1j" <mik### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > > There is no suggesting in my post. I was just stating a warning. We
> could
> >
> > Of course the was.  You suggested that, and I quote, '[if] anyoneone has
> > access to legal advice I would encourage some counseling'.
> >
> > You'd better calm down a bit before your next post.
> >
> > --
> > jussi.kantola
> >
> >
> >
>
> i think you might have misunderstood his intentions. so did i initially (it
> sounded like veiled threats honestly), but by reading his response i trust
> he means that he encourages the povcomp team to seek legal counseling before
> finalizing the deadline extention. That seems like sound advice.
>
> -r

Thank you very much for accurately reading my post. I intended no threat
from me but just concern that some one could and might.

[Ross] Re: Competition status [7840 days 15 hours and 25 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:07:50 GMT

"jute" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.417f69eab45fa19e67c1c3ff0@news.povray.org...
> "m1j" <mik### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > There is no suggesting in my post. I was just stating a warning. We
could
>
> Of course the was.  You suggested that, and I quote, '[if] anyoneone has
> access to legal advice I would encourage some counseling'.
>
> You'd better calm down a bit before your next post.
>
> --
> jussi.kantola
>
>
>

i think you might have misunderstood his intentions. so did i initially (it
sounded like veiled threats honestly), but by reading his response i trust
he means that he encourages the povcomp team to seek legal counseling before
finalizing the deadline extention. That seems like sound advice.

-r

[Gilles Tran] Re: Competition status [7840 days 15 hours and 30 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:02:22 GMT

"j" <phazxero[at]hotmail[dot]com> a écrit dans le message de
news:web.417faecbb45fa19edb959710@news.povray.org...

> I think people will be much less angry if the deadline is extended BEFORE
> the initial deadline is reached.

That would have been better for everyone in retrospect, but it was not
possible to take such a decision before the deadline without knowing the
final number of entries. We had some inkling of the problem when some folks
reported that they were quitting the competition in these groups, but this
alone wasn't enough to postpone it. The fact that 75% the registered
contestants had dropped out was an unwelcome surprise to say the less.

> Agreed, and this shouldn't be limited to just models, but textures as
well.
> It is not easy to make really good procedural textures in Povray but in
> many cases it is possible. So I think the judges should have a certain
> level of weighing on pov-made texture as well.  Will all the judges be
> familar with Povray so that they can evaluate the technical aspects of the
> entries?

Most judges won't be familiar with POV-Ray. However, the judges will discuss
the pictures and those with POV-Ray experience will have the opportunity to
point out the POV-specific qualities of the images.

G.


-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Warp] Re: Competition status [7840 days 16 hours and 15 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:17:25 GMT

j <phazxero[at]hotmail[dot]com> wrote:
> I think people will be much less angry if the deadline is extended BEFORE
> the initial deadline is reached.

  I suppose the team was hoping that it was just a case of people working
hard until the last possible moment before submitting their work, and
that they would get a flood of entries close to the deadline. Unfortunately
that seemed to be a wrong assumption. The deadline came and no flood.

-- 
#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 -

[j] Re: Competition status [7840 days 17 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:25:00 GMT

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>   Extending the deadline serves everyone, ending the competition now
> serves no-one (except perhaps the winner).

Good thing that there is no chance in hell that I will be the winner.

>   Extending the deadline serves the entrants and potential entrants:
> Many people complained that they did not have the time to make an entry
> even though they would have wanted. Some even complained that they started
> making an entry but did not make it in time. Some entrants have expressed
> that they did not have time to develop the image as much as they would
> have wanted.

I think people will be much less angry if the deadline is extended BEFORE
the initial deadline is reached. I have seen these complains on the forum
earlier, and perhaps people should've voiced their concerns well before the
competition ends.

"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> This being a POV-Ray competition, asking people to show off their POV-Ray
> skills is somehow mandatory. Can this turn off people? Perhaps, but the best
> POV-Ray images should be intrinsically POV-Ray made

Agreed, and this shouldn't be limited to just models, but textures as well.
It is not easy to make really good procedural textures in Povray but in
many cases it is possible. So I think the judges should have a certain
level of weighing on pov-made texture as well.  Will all the judges be
familar with Povray so that they can evaluate the technical aspects of the
entries?

J

[Warp] Re: Competition status [7840 days 18 hours and 51 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:41:11 GMT

m1j <mik### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> If the deadline is moved officially I will put more time in to my image. I
> am glad to be able to do so. But, this is not the normal way to handle
> these problems in normal competition.

  That's where you are wrong. It's very usual for competitions (not only
computer graphics competitions, but also other similar ones) to extend
deadlines if the amount of entrants was too small for a reasonable
competition.

  I really don't understand why you are disappointed and why you are
suggesting this silly idea that the prices should be given now
regardless of the quality of the competition.

  Extending the deadline serves everyone, ending the competition now
serves no-one (except perhaps the winner).

  Extending the deadline serves the entrants and potential entrants:
Many people complained that they did not have the time to make an entry
even though they would have wanted. Some even complained that they started
making an entry but did not make it in time. Some entrants have expressed
that they did not have time to develop the image as much as they would
have wanted.
  And why should existing entrants complain? It's a fact that deadlines
make people work harder. That's the reason why there are deadlines (and
often even several ones) in school and work projects. Now, the entrants
have made a lot of work for their entry because of the deadline; now that
the deadline was extended they can work even more on their entries. The
total amount of work put into the entry can in many cases be even larger
than what it would have been if the deadline would have been set to January
in the first place. This means that (hopefully) many of the entries will
be better than they would have been, which is good for the entrant and
everyone.

  Extending the deadline serves the competition organizers: If the overall
quality and amount of entries increases, the goal which was set for the
competition will be reached more easily.

  Extending the deadline serves the sponsors: They get "more bang for
their buck", as one could say. The sponsors will be happier and might
be more willing to sponsor future competitions.

  Extending the deadline serves the public: If the overall quality of
the competition increases, the public will get more "wow!" experiences.

  Stopping the competition would not serve the entrants: Many were not
able to participate at all, and many of the ones who did participate did
so with hastily created entries which they themselves are not happy with.
The prices would go to the ones who were able to get something more or
less cool done fast, not necessarily the ones who are most talented.
  We are not measuring speed here; that's not the purpose of this
competition. We are measuring quality.

  Stopping the competition would not serve the organizers: The purpose
of the competition was to get a large amount of high-quality, well-worked
images for, among other things, to promote POV-Ray as a high-quality
program, not to see who gets something done fast.

  Stopping the competition would not serve the sponsors: If they get
disappointed, they might not be willing to sponsor any further competitions
in the future, which certainly does not serve the POV-Ray community or
anyone. Also if the reputation of POV-Ray, the pov-team and the POV-Ray
community gets a stain in the eyes of the "big guys", that can only be
negative.

  Stopping the competition would not serve the public: The public could
get disappointed and the reputation issues above would also have negative
consequences from the big public.

> Like I said before; there could be
> legal issues that could change things. If anyone has access to legal advice
> I would encourage some counseling.

  Ah, but I see now that you were just joking, so no harm done.

-- 
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 -

[jute] Re: Competition status [7840 days 22 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:30:00 GMT

"m1j" <mik### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> There is no suggesting in my post. I was just stating a warning. We could

Of course the was.  You suggested that, and I quote, '[if] anyoneone has
access to legal advice I would encourage some counseling'.

You'd better calm down a bit before your next post.

--
jussi.kantola

[jute] Re: Competition status [7840 days 22 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:25:01 GMT

"m1j" <mik### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I do however believe more respect to those that did make the deadline should
> be shown.

How do you know if the organizer's haven't prepared some kind of
consolidation already?  It's just that practically nothing can be done at
this point, the competition continues.  Do you think it would be fair if
some authors or works was put on the pedestal at this point?

It's life.  It's not supposed to be predictable or set in stone.  Just try
to learn to adjust.

> with writing povray and I agree but now when we push and work to produce
> with in the given required timeline we get blasted for not producing well
> enough.

The organizer's have taken all the responsibility and blame.  The images
were good for a three-month competition, but the organizer's realized that
what they really were after were the kind of results that could be expected
after 6 months of amateur work.  I don't see why you would feel a need to
take any of this so personally, unless it's a general problem with personal
insecurity.  D'oh.

> I am sure everyone has learned something from this.

Seems to me that not everyone, not yet.

> But, this is not the normal way to handle these problems in normal
> competition.

Oh but doesn't that just fit?  The normal way to handle a box in a 3D
software would be to click on a button.  :)

> Like I said before; there could be legal issues that could change things.
> If anyone has access to legal advice I would encourage some counseling.

Now *that's* the adult way of coping with the world.  Just sue 'em.

--
jussi.kantola

[Lance Birch] Re: Competition status [7841 days 6 hours and 25 minutes ago]

Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:07:51 GMT

"m1j" <mik### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.417ee390b45fa19ef7635e200@news.povray.org...
> emkaah <emkaah@yahoodotcom> wrote:
> > m1j wrote:
> > > the improvements for later and go again with the improvements. If the
> > > companies that donated the prizes expected this competition to be
perfect
> > > then perhaps new sponsors are needed anyway.
> > Dumbo.
> >
> > > legal issues that could change things. If anyone has access to legal
advice
> > > I would encourage some counseling.
> > >
> > Suggesting to sue a bunch of VOLUNTEERS working hard to make an OPEN
> > competition for a FREEWARE product a success, isn't mine style. And
> > neither should be yours.
> >
> > -Em
>
> There is no suggesting in my post. I was just stating a warning. We could
> all go blindly forward thinking no one here would do something like this
> but with $14,000 in prize money there could be someone now or after the
> finals are posted in Feb. that after losing decides they where not dealt
> properly. The rules are conditions to a contract that was ratified by each
> of us submitting an entry. To change the rules now with out first
including
> all those involved is a breach of contract. With such a team of volunteers
> it would be a very easy win for anyone who lacking in integrity would
spend
> the money to file a suit. The Pov team would have no funds to fight and
> would be force to agree to a settlement. That would be a very bad deal for
> all of us. I am just worried. I am not sure if this issue was considered
in
> the decision.

There is no legal issue, because everyone who registered agreed to this:

http://www.povcomp.com/rules/agreement/

Specifically, "5. By registering or entering the competition you accept and
agree that:" "b. Neither the competition organisers nor anyone associated
with the competition may be held responsible for any loss or damage of any
sort whatsoever, howsoever caused, that you may suffer as a result of
entering."

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

[m1j] Re: Competition status [7841 days 7 hours and 37 minutes ago]

Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:55:00 GMT

emkaah <emkaah@yahoodotcom> wrote:
> m1j wrote:
> > the improvements for later and go again with the improvements. If the
> > companies that donated the prizes expected this competition to be perfect
> > then perhaps new sponsors are needed anyway.
> Dumbo.
>
> > legal issues that could change things. If anyone has access to legal advice
> > I would encourage some counseling.
> >
> Suggesting to sue a bunch of VOLUNTEERS working hard to make an OPEN
> competition for a FREEWARE product a success, isn't mine style. And
> neither should be yours.
>
> -Em

There is no suggesting in my post. I was just stating a warning. We could
all go blindly forward thinking no one here would do something like this
but with $14,000 in prize money there could be someone now or after the
finals are posted in Feb. that after losing decides they where not dealt
properly. The rules are conditions to a contract that was ratified by each
of us submitting an entry. To change the rules now with out first including
all those involved is a breach of contract. With such a team of volunteers
it would be a very easy win for anyone who lacking in integrity would spend
the money to file a suit. The Pov team would have no funds to fight and
would be force to agree to a settlement. That would be a very bad deal for
all of us. I am just worried. I am not sure if this issue was considered in
the decision.

[emkaah] Re: Competition status [7841 days 7 hours and 57 minutes ago]

Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:35:47 GMT

m1j wrote:
> the improvements for later and go again with the improvements. If the
> companies that donated the prizes expected this competition to be perfect
> then perhaps new sponsors are needed anyway. 
Dumbo.

> legal issues that could change things. If anyone has access to legal advice
> I would encourage some counseling.
> 
Suggesting to sue a bunch of VOLUNTEERS working hard to make an OPEN 
competition for a FREEWARE product a success, isn't mine style. And 
neither should be yours.

-Em

[m1j] Re: Competition status [7841 days 9 hours and 52 minutes ago]

Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:40:00 GMT

"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Disclaimer: this is not an official statement. An official announcement from
> the POVCOMP organizers will follow (some details are still being worked on)
> and participants will be emailed privately.
>
> There are 56 entries. Among these, there are exceptional images, that would
> be worthy of the main prizes. People have been working hard, and these
> images are a good testimony of what can be achieved with POV-Ray.
>
> However, these exceptional images are too few. The competition was all about
> getting the best out of POV-Ray, and while most entries are very good, they
> are on the whole not up to the standard that can be observed in current 3D
> contests. It's not an easy thing to say and we understand that this may be
> offending to some. Be sure that we fully realise the amount of work that was
> put in all entries: it's just that the bar has been raised very high in 3D
> these days. The feedback on the new hall of fame was extremely positive:
> this newfound reputation should not be squandered. We all know that POV-Ray
> is an exceptional piece of software, so we need lots of exceptional artworks
> to prove it.
>
> One major reason for the lack of exceptional pieces may have been that the
> time period of two and a half months was too short. POVCOMP is of an order
> of magnitude harder than the IRTC, and the organisers underestimated the
> time needed to create this sort of work without giving up on real life.
> People couldn't find the time to complete their entries, and among those
> submitted, we feel that many can be improved.
>
> Accordingly, it has been decided to postpone the deadline until January 31,
> 2005. That's almost 3 additional months for people to resume or complete
> their work, or submit new ones.
> In a nutshell:
> - Those of you who have submitted an image will be given the opportunity to
> unsubmit it and resume work.
> - Those of you who did not submit due to lack of time are encouraged to
> resume work on their creation.
> - For those who are happy with what they have submitted already, their image
> will remain in its 'submitted' state. Of course, you can always create a new
> work.
>
> The precise procedures to do so will be explained later.
>
> Again, this was not an easy decision to take. I'm painfully aware of how
> difficult this must be for the POVCOMP participants. We hope, however, that
> these 3 extra months will result in many exceptional pictures.
>
> Gilles Tran
>
> --
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters

First of all I would have to say I am disappointed. There where rules for
this competition that we all had to follow. If the level of art was not up
to standard there was no prevision in the rules to cover this. In such
there could be legal issues involved. I do not want to stop any further
competitions by scaring the organizers away. I do however believe more
respect to those that did make the deadline should be shown. Could my image
be better? Yes but I made the dead line with the best I could make. I have
heard here many times how the pov team must balance their time and life
with writing povray and I agree but now when we push and work to produce
with in the given required timeline we get blasted for not producing well
enough.

The idea of a competition was great. The execution was fair given that it
was a first run. It is time to complete this one, award the prizes, state
the improvements for later and go again with the improvements. If the
companies that donated the prizes expected this competition to be perfect
then perhaps new sponsors are needed anyway. I am sure everyone has learned
something from this.

If the deadline is moved officially I will put more time in to my image. I
am glad to be able to do so. But, this is not the normal way to handle
these problems in normal competition. Like I said before; there could be
legal issues that could change things. If anyone has access to legal advice
I would encourage some counseling.

[Gena] Re: Competition status [7842 days 2 hours and 3 minutes ago]

Tue, 26 Oct 2004 05:29:49 GMT

Dave Matthews wrote:
> And I do think that it is very important to get submissions from more of the
> really great POVers, especially since you and Christoph and some of the
> other experts exempted yourselves in order to organize the competition.

I think everybody can participate now including organizers. Why not?

Gena.

[Gilles Tran] Re: Competition status [7842 days 7 hours and 35 minutes ago]

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:57:19 GMT

"rben" <ray### [at] comcastnet> a écrit dans le message de news: 
web.417d11adb45fa19e497bbfc0@news.povray.org...

> Thanks for the response and the clarifications.  I apologize if I was a 
> bit
> crabby.

Thanks. No harm done. Well, bad news are bad news, no matter how they are 
delivered.

> 1) Add the explanation about copyright to the official rules.  You might
> also explain that any other information in the image that can be used to
> identify the entrant should be removed.  For instance, I noticed that in 
> my
> image, there is a directory path in part of the image that has my name in
> it.  I also have a picture of myself included, but I'm pretty sure that
> none of the judges know who I am based on my picture....

Well, putting some identifying items (other than a signature) in the image 
can be an artistic choice and I'm of the opinion that this should not be 
regulated. If you want to put a picture of yourself in the image, or a 
directory path, because it adds artistic value to the image, this is your 
choice and I think that it has to be accepted as such.

In any case, total anonymity is close to impossible. People can have 
recognisable styles, use favourite objects, topics or textures etc. But 
since most of the judges won't be familiar with the community, this 
shouldn't be a problem. I'd say that we should trust the judges to do their 
best to ignore the names of the entrants (for instance, they won't do 
intensive searches to discover who is who...), and that entrants should do 
their best to keep to the guidelines as they are written now. Let's have 
common sense and good manners prevail.

> 2) Set a lower limit on the number of images that need to be submitted
> before judging can go forward.

I have no prior experience in organising contests, so it's difficult for me 
to comment on that. I'd be willing to know how the sort of issues we're 
facing right now are taken into consideration in other competitions (though 
it's too late now).

> 3) Continue to try to get publicity for the contest and encourage all
> current entrants to encourage others to get involved.

We'll certainly try to do that in the weeks to come. I'm glad that a good 
number of people have already declared their interest in participating.

> 4) Perhaps someone could set up an IRC channel #povcomp2004, where artists
> can waste time and talk about new ways to procrastinate.
> 5) Provide some kind of acknowledgement, perhaps a t-shirt or some bit of
> inexpensive swag, to the people who met the first deadline.

I'll run this with the organisers. I'm not sure about the "inexpensive swag" 
thing, as it could be perceived as condescending by some folks.

> 6) Upon discussing this contest with a friend of mine, he pointed out what
> might be part of the problem.  Since you have explicitely stated that
> artists will be given more credit for self-made models than ones borrowed
> from someone else or created using 3rd party tools, you may have narrowed
> the pool of participants to POV-Ray artists who are very good at creating
> models and in creating impressive images using those models.

(note that the guidelines do not say "3rd party tools", but "3rd party 
models", but your point remains valid)

Part of POV-Ray's greatness and specificity is the use of code to create 
models. I've been a mesh user for years, a promoter of mesh and image maps 
in POV-Ray, and a big user of 3rd party objects and tools but if I had 
entered the competition, I would certainly have made sure that some 
prominent models in the scene would have been both original and hand-coded. 
This being a POV-Ray competition, asking people to show off their POV-Ray 
skills is somehow mandatory. Can this turn off people? Perhaps, but the best 
POV-Ray images should be intrinsically POV-Ray made, just like Poser 
contests, for instance, have the use of Poser models as a central point. 
This would be different if the competition was open to other renderers (like 
the IRTC).

> If, as I expect, you don't have any problem with an artist using/adapting
> models they created in the past in this image, then it might be best to 
> say
> so explicitly.

This could be made more explicit. On a side note, writing guidelines (and 
contracts) is always a "damned-if-you-do, damned if you don't" exercise. 
Write too much of it, and a sizeable number of people will misread it or 
fail to read it. Write not enough of it, and a equally sizeable number of 
people will be confused by the lack of guidance and start seeing things 
where there's nothing to see. Finding the right balance is tough.

> I hope this is of some help.

Your help is welcome !

Gilles


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[Dave Matthews] Re: Competition status [7842 days 12 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:30:00 GMT

But what am I going to do with the 10,000 lawyers I have on retainer to
swoop in and file suits alleging fraud and/or disenfranchisement?  I can't
afford to keep them around until January.

Well, for me, personally, thank you.  By next week all the bandages will be
removed from my right hand, and the pins will be out of my finger, and I
should be POVing ahead full steam.  (Not that my submission would have
altered the committee's opinion about overall quality.)

And I do think that it is very important to get submissions from more of the
really great POVers, especially since you and Christoph and some of the
other experts exempted yourselves in order to organize the competition.
Not to name names, but it would be nice to get entries from the likes of
Tor Olav, Shay, Tek, St. (Steve), etc.  Just off the top of my head, I can
think of 50 regular contributors to p.b.i. who are capable of some very
impressive stuff, and there must be at least twice that many more who only
lurk, or don't bother visiting the newsgroups at all, who are of a similar
caliber.

Let me also add my voice of support and thanks to all of you for the
tremendous amount of work you put into making POVRay and the POVRay
community such a success.

Dave Matthews

[Warp] Re: Competition status [7842 days 12 hours and 58 minutes ago]

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:34:09 GMT

Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
> Still, I have a hard time imagining an experienced Maya user who would start
> learning POV-Ray only to participate in the competition...

  The first price should be incentive enough... :P

-- 
#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 -

[Gilles Tran] Re: Competition status [7842 days 16 hours and 11 minutes ago]

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:21:35 GMT

"Eli" <eli### [at] jehoelnet> a écrit dans le message de
news:417ce89e@news.povray.org...

> Gilles, I can imagine how the sponsors would feel with so many prices and
so
> little participants.....

I don't know how they'd feel, but organising a second event like this would
sure be a little bit more difficult (and it wasn't easy in the first
place)...

> Maybe non-pov users might be interested in participating and trying
pov-ray.
> If someone managed to use POV-Ray as a renderer with maya or a package
like
> that........ that would be interesting!

Truly, I've seen nice stuff concerted from Maya and rendered in POV-Ray.
Still, I have a hard time imagining an experienced Maya user who would start
learning POV-Ray only to participate in the competition... (Of course, it
may have already been the case in this competition, who knows?)

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

[rben] Re: Competition status [7842 days 16 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:50:01 GMT

"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> "rben" <ray### [at] comcastnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
> web.417aa863b45fa19e497bbfc0@news.povray.org...
> > First of all, thank you for finally telling us what is going on.
>
> We certainly owed it to you.
>
> > Being told that the sum of the efforts that were
> > submitted was not good enough for you to award a prize is a slap in the
> > face to all of us.

Thanks for the response and the clarifications.  I apologize if I was a bit
crabby.

Well, now that I've had time to get used to the idea, I can certainly see a
lot of things I'd like to improve in my image, so I'll probably be
submitting it anew for the competition once I've got those changes done.

I would like to make a few more suggestions that I hope are helpful:

1) Add the explanation about copyright to the official rules.  You might
also explain that any other information in the image that can be used to
identify the entrant should be removed.  For instance, I noticed that in my
image, there is a directory path in part of the image that has my name in
it.  I also have a picture of myself included, but I'm pretty sure that
none of the judges know who I am based on my picture....

2) Set a lower limit on the number of images that need to be submitted
before judging can go forward.  I know that whatever you pick will be a bit
arbitrary, but it will make it a bit easier to manage expectations.

3) Continue to try to get publicity for the contest and encourage all
current entrants to encourage others to get involved.  There is still a lot
of time between now and January 31st, and I'm sure that lots of people
could create a good image in the time between now and then.

4) Perhaps someone could set up an IRC channel #povcomp2004, where artists
can waste time and talk about new ways to procrastinate.

5) Provide some kind of acknowledgement, perhaps a t-shirt or some bit of
inexpensive swag, to the people who met the first deadline.

6) Upon discussing this contest with a friend of mine, he pointed out what
might be part of the problem.  Since you have explicitely stated that
artists will be given more credit for self-made models than ones borrowed
from someone else or created using 3rd party tools, you may have narrowed
the pool of participants to POV-Ray artists who are very good at creating
models and in creating impressive images using those models.  You have
limited the ability for those artists who are primarily good at creating
impressive images using models that others have created.  Personally, I
like this, since I make most if not all of my own models for each image,
but it does narrow the field considerably.

It might make sense to arrange the Guidelines in the order in which they
will affect the judging, that might help people to better understand the
tradeoffs they might be making in thier image.

7) Reading through the posts I've gotten the impression that some people
believe that using old models that were created for other images either
isn't allowed or will count against you.  I can't find anything in the
rules that says that.  The rules just say that trivial modifications of
older images aren't acceptable.  This is good, because many of the finest
IRTC images were created by artists who dipped into their extensive
libraries of previously constructed models.

If, as I expect, you don't have any problem with an artist using/adapting
models they created in the past in this image, then it might be best to say
so explicitly.

I hope this is of some help.
  Ray

[Phlip] Re: Competition status [7842 days 16 hours and 53 minutes ago]

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:39:51 GMT

Eli wrote:

> Gilles, I can imagine how the sponsors would feel with so many prices and
so
> little participants.....
>
> Maybe non-pov users might be interested in participating and trying
pov-ray.

Could you live with yourself if the prize winner was a cube?

-- 
  Phlip
  http://industrialxp.org/community/bin/view/Main/TestFirstUserInterfaces

[Eli] Re: Competition status [7842 days 19 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:50:54 GMT

Gilles, I can imagine how the sponsors would feel with so many prices and so 
little participants.....

Maybe non-pov users might be interested in participating and trying pov-ray. 
If someone managed to use POV-Ray as a renderer with maya or a package like 
that........ that would be interesting!

[gonzo] Re: Competition status [7843 days 3 hours and 42 minutes ago]

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:50:00 GMT

"Jaap" <jws### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> "j" <phazxero[at]hotmail[dot]com> wrote:
> > I believe it has to do with how I
> > selected "Edit Message" once before I submit.
>
> i noticed the same thing a while ago, i think i even reported this error,
> but i'm not sure. if you need to edit a mesage, simply copy/paste the text
> to a new mesage and cancel the first.

And it also seems to have something to do with browser. I've had this same
problem, but more frequently when posting from work (InternetExplorer) than
from home (Mozilla).

And only with webview, posting from newsreader works everytime.

RG

[selsek] Re: Competition status [7843 days 8 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:25:00 GMT

>But for this, we have to provide strict rules concerning the size of the
>detail images: experience shows that not giving precise rules always means
>big trouble, so we would have ended up making them anyway.

Example: in my image, there's a car i've modelled. I've put much details in
it.
1- the car takes a big part of the image: there's nothing more to show,
there's no more details, you won't see more things if i give you a detailed
image, but if i must provide one, i'll just provide an near-empty image.
2-the car in very small in the whole image: if i want to provide the 1/25th
of the image, i'll have to show the things that aren't needed to be shown
around the car. But I want to show you the car, not the things around that
will waste cpu time. In that case i'll have to make a BIG picture to show
its details, and so some rendering time will be wasted.
Because it's a long and hard work, just by asking at least two detailed
images, we'll show where we have gone into details, we don't need rules to
show what we can do. And the judges don't need a specifically sized view to
see where the artist has gone into details.
I can't see what you get from the rules on these detailed views. What do you
loose if i give a 1/40th view instead of a 1/10th? Can't i just show my
work?
Maybe you don't have to put precise rules, but only the aim of it, why you
need theses.

>Personally I still don't think that the detail rules are so complicated:
>it's just a simple ratio, and nothing that could possibly scare an
>experienced POV-Ray user who's playing with complex CSG, isosurfaces
> and the like!

Well, just try one thing: make an image where a sphere takes 80% of the
image and show me a detailed view according to these rules. Now do the same
thing with a tiny sphere that takes 2% of the picture. Pretty hard to do,
no?

> But it's true that some people found them confusing, and
> indeed, if people have a better way to express them, please do so.

No rules at all! yeah! :))

>> And why can't the entries be modified once submitted? I may want to submit
>> it once to be sure to participate, and to modify it as long as i still
>> have time.
>I'm not sure of what you mean by "to be sure to participate". Participation
>is defined by the registration.

"to have one entry"
Example: I submit my image, and then i'm sure that that even if i don't
modify it, even if i fell sick, the judges will see it, but i still can
easily modify it if i want, anytime. Instead, here, you have to: 1-
complete it 2- submit it 3- no 3, you can't modify, you just delete it and
restart the process (i haven't spent much time on that, though).

>No, it's just that all of us are a little spoiled by the very relaxed rules
>of the IRTC, and by the fact that we don't have experienced 3D pros
> walking among us. Just have a look at other 3D competitions or sites
> like Raph.com to see what I mean. As I said, the bar has been raised
> very high these days, and I mean *** high ***. See for instance:
>http://cgnetworks.com/challenge/machineflesh/

In those competitions, there are pros who compete to get a name in order to
find a job...
And most of povray community is made of hobbyists.
And, as it's written on the homepage of povcomp, it's not professionnaly
used for its artistic side.

>we want to give more POV-Ray users the opportunity to create
> truly exceptional work.

This sentence has to be on the homepage of povcomp!

selsek

[Tor Olav Kristensen] Re: Competition status [7843 days 11 hours and 7 minutes ago]

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:25:34 GMT

Phlip wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> 
> 
>>As some of you know, I planned to participate in this
>>competition with an Escher-like scene.
> 
> 
>>Now I wonder:
>>
>>Can I carry on with this scene and submit it when it
>>is finished, or have I revealed too much about it ?
> 
> 
> An Escher-like scene ... ?
> 
> Hey, that sounds like a good idea!!!
> 
> (Does that answer your question?;)

Hehe - yes. And I get your point.

(But it wouldn't bother me much if other people were
to submit Escher-like renderings too.)

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.net
http://subcube.com

[Tor Olav Kristensen] Re: Competition status [7843 days 11 hours and 11 minutes ago]

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:21:47 GMT

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> "Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] TOBEREMOVEDgmailcom> wrote in message 
> news:417ae63d$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>As some of you know, I planned to participate...
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>Can I carry on with this scene and submit it when it
>>is finished, or have I revealed too much about it ?
>>
> 
> 
> While I can't provide you with an official response, I can remind you of 
> Chris Cason's response regarding anonymity:
> 
> "Please be aware that a significant proportion of the judges will not be
> folks who tend to hang around this server. This is intentional. Some will
> have no connection to POV-Ray at all.

Yes now I remember.


> "Also they will not see the registration list or anything of the sort prior
> to their votes being cast."
> 
> To me, that sounds like you're free to continue, and if any judges recognize 
> the work as yours, well, that's bound to happen in some cases, regardless. 
> Additionally, I would guess that 3 months from now, most people will have 
> forgotten what you just said, and would probably not connect anything to 
> your picture(s).

You and Gilles are probably right Jeremy, so I'll just continue my work.


> Another option for you might be to work on something very similar, in order 
> to utilize some of what you've created.  Just a thought.

I'll do that too if I have enough time, which is very unlikely...

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.net
http://subcube.com

[Tor Olav Kristensen] Re: Competition status [7843 days 11 hours and 11 minutes ago]

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:21:41 GMT

Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] TOBEREMOVEDgmailcom> a écrit dans le 
> message de news: 417ae63d$1@news.povray.org...
> 
> 
>>Can I carry on with this scene and submit it when it
>>is finished, or have I revealed too much about it ?
> 
> 
> Yes (my opinion at least). The judging is "blind" (at least according the 
> current rules, which may or may not change), but since most of the judges 
> won't be familiar with the POV-Ray community, I wouldn't call this a matter 
> of concern. When it comes to art, anonymity is always relative, otherwise 
> there wouldn't be something called "style".

I see. Thank you for your opinion.

Btw. I'm very happy about the new deadline !

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.net
http://subcube.com

[Jaap] Re: Competition status [7843 days 12 hours and 27 minutes ago]

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:05:00 GMT

"j" <phazxero[at]hotmail[dot]com> wrote:
> I believe it has to do with how I
> selected "Edit Message" once before I submit.

i noticed the same thing a while ago, i think i even reported this error,
but i'm not sure. if you need to edit a mesage, simply copy/paste the text
to a new mesage and cancel the first.

jaap.

[Peter] Re: Competition status [7843 days 13 hours and 22 minutes ago]

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:10:01 GMT

Hi

Here are my thoughts:

In a way I am quite glad that the deadline has been relaxed. It means I will
have enough time to sort out my lighting and improve on my scene. On the
other hand I have very little time now the summer is over and I will
actually not be able to spend much more time on it. The deadline being so
close inspired me to do a lot of work and now I have until january I am not
sure I will be able to motivate myself to go through the code again. Once I
finish a project like this I tend to want to stay far away from it so
having two deadlines in that sense is bad. I had also been looking forward
to seeing some beautiful images pretty soon. Guess I'll have to wait.

I do not think the pictures should be posted or even looked at by the
judeges now. If this happens, people will build up negative comments about
the pictures which, even if the cause of the problem is fixed in the final
submission, will cause the final judging to be predudiced.

Peter

[j] Re: Competition status [7843 days 14 hours and 47 minutes ago]

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:45:00 GMT

Thanks, sounds like this postponement is for sure so I am starting to get
working.

About the new thread being created, I believe it has to do with how I
selected "Edit Message" once before I submit. It will be quite obvious,
especially to myself, if I chose to create a new thread rather than post a
reply.

J

"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> "j" <phazxero[at]hotmail[dot]com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> web.417bcf7bb45fa19ea4b29dd90@news.povray.org...
> >I see it's a good thing that I can reconstruct my image, and hopefully more
> > people will participate because of this.  When is POVCOMP making the
> > official announcement? I would like to get started with it as soon as
> > possible since I will be stuck with work, a rtos porject and a school
> > report for the next couple of months.
>
> There'll be an official announcement when the various issues due to the
> postponement are sorted out (like the resubmitting process and other
> things). Meanwhile you can start having a look at your image and see what
> you can change.
> Thanks for your renewed interest in the competition!
>
> Gilles
>
>
> --
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters

[Warp] Re: Competition status [7843 days 15 hours and 2 minutes ago]

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:30:21 GMT

rben <ray### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
>  Being told that the sum of the efforts that were
> submitted was not good enough for you to award a prize is a slap in the
> face to all of us.  This doesn't encourage me to provide you with a better
> work, this makes me reluctant to continue to participate.
> Personally, I feel that you should award the prizes and organize a new
> contest if you feel that you didn't get what you wanted from this one.

  I'm not talking officially as a TAG member, so this is a completely
unofficial remark - and pardon my french but, would you just shut up?
Your thinking is just ... simple (I have a really strong urge to write
a much stronger expression here, and it requires lots of strength to
refrain from doing so.)

  The team organized a really big competition and got sponsors to join
with huge prices, all in good faith, and when they realize they made
a miscalculation and want to remedy it, they only get idiotic responses
from people like you.

  "Organize a new contest"... Haha! Do you think AMD and Zazzle will be
pleased and willing to sponsor regularly competitions with enormous prices
but with hastily developed entries? Who will give the prices next? You?
  If people need time to create superb images, that's what they should get.

  Comments like yours are only going to cause the team to not to organize
anything like this anymore. And I'm not just talking here, I'm serious.
  The team should get our gratitude from organizing such big events,
not reprimands.

  You simply don't know what you are talking about, so please just shut
up, will you?

-- 
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 -

[Gilles Tran] Re: Competition status [7843 days 15 hours and 12 minutes ago]

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:20:32 GMT

"j" <phazxero[at]hotmail[dot]com> a écrit dans le message de news: 
web.417bcf7bb45fa19ea4b29dd90@news.povray.org...
>I see it's a good thing that I can reconstruct my image, and hopefully more
> people will participate because of this.  When is POVCOMP making the
> official announcement? I would like to get started with it as soon as
> possible since I will be stuck with work, a rtos porject and a school
> report for the next couple of months.

There'll be an official announcement when the various issues due to the 
postponement are sorted out (like the resubmitting process and other 
things). Meanwhile you can start having a look at your image and see what 
you can change.
Thanks for your renewed interest in the competition!

Gilles


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters