"Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:40D### [at] hotmailcom...
<snip>
> > I think that this technique is probably okay to use in the IRTC, but I
> > wonder if it would be considered a post-processing step or not....
> >
>
> Only if it can be done in one step.  It sounds like it's a 2 part process
> (render scene then take image and add bloom effect), which could disqualify
> it, since it's done through the renderer.
>

That's pretty much my take on it also.  That 2nd step is getting into pretty
gray territory rulewise.  There have been in-renderer effects used in the
IRTC in the past and they have sometimes not been well received. On the
other hand, sometimes they are... it probably all depends on which crowd
shows up for the voting ;-)


> However, somewhere deep in the rules documentation, it says that post
> processing is essentially ok if it applies to the whole image (i.e. it's ok
> to blur, gamma correct, etc.), in which case it would be ok.

I think it says that while gamma correcting is ok, blur is not. At least it
specifically says post processed motion blur is not.  My reading of that
part of the rules is that it's ok to use the three basic processes that are
commonly applied to any image (brightness, contrast & gamma), but that
effect filters such as blur or halo are not.

And even that's iffey, since I could conceivably take a mediocre render and
turn it into a completely different and dynamic abstract by applying 175%
contrast...

RG

Post a reply to this message