Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
> > It has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the artist.
>
>   A talented artist can probably create better images with a physical brush,
> paint and canvas than most people with all the rendering software in the
> world, and the work of these talented artists is extremely admirable. However,
> I don't think the IRTC in particular is the proper website for their work.

I was referring to Anti Aliasing in this sentence. It could read, the ability to
get rid of AA artifacts in a not so perfect software (which could be any
software) has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the artist. It has
everything to do with the software being used.
>
> > Is it illegal to render big and then scale the image down? Because in the past
> > people did recommend that to me in comments, on a scene with a difficult AA
> > situation. Is it?
>
>   IMO it should be (for the IRTC). Of course I'm not the one making the
> decisions, so my opinion is rather inconsecuential.




make smaller files than the more colorful ones. Should people making colorful

as big renderings and are not allowed to downsize and therefore have more
aliasing?
>
> > If I do gamma corrections and add my name, is it then still a direct output from
> > the rendering software?
>
>   What did you use to make gamma corrections and add your name? Photoshop or
> Gimp? Then it's *not* the direct output from the rendering software.

Exactly. BTW, can you compress a jpg image in your renderer?

So what? It's still something
> which the *rendering software itself* is doing, rather than an external,
> unrelated software.


suffer? You want only those who can afford the expensive plug-in driven special
effects packages to enjoy their toys, when the rest using free tools just have
to live with what they have?

>   Then the rules become rather arbitrary and illogical. Why those effects
> in particular, and not others?

You can argue that effects which are -relevant- to raytracing should be allowed.
Like effects which are already present in several well known software packages.
That would automatically exclude Photoshop only effects like painting with a
brush, and filters like canvas or brush strokes etc.
>
>   And as said, any such effects can be abused to produce visual effects
> which the original rendering software might be unable to produce directly.


caught or not?


>   A lens flare effect affects every pixel in the image, and thus it becomes
> allowed by that rule of thumb.

Maybe this is not a good rule, maybe it should be changed ;)

>   Yes, let's make this a Photoshop contest while we are at it.




But right now we stand at a juncture. The IRTC has been down for more than two
years and is being resurrected. Which is quite a feat! This gives us as a
community, a very good opportunity to review the rules to find out what has
worked well in the past and what has not. Therefore we are having this
discussion because, like everything in this world, these rules may not be
perfect. There can always be room for improvement.

I personally would like to see moderate change of the rules, to give everybody
better room to make certain improvements to our work.


certain features and tools, which could easily come in handy from time to time
when my renderings need slight improvement.
>
>   Or a contest about who can abuse the rules the most to achieve things
> which have nothing to do with the rendering software.


o.k. to do certain things.

Or, by being inflexible, you could be encouraging people to start using another
renderers with inbuilt post processing effects and thereby push them away from
using Povray. Is that your intention?

Hildur

Post a reply to this message