You could cheat with a reflective plane. 

David Wilkinson wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 03:26:26 GMT, par### [at] fwicom (Ron Parker) wrote:
> 
> >Did the IRTC become the Internet Rendering Tools Competition while I
> >slept last night?  If not, how did this win?
> >
> >>RENDERER USED:
> >>    3D Studio Max default renderer
> >
> >And what about this?
> >
> >>the sun was softened by a fadin Lens Effect Flare
> >>rendered in Video post.
> >
> >Can we have a clarification on the question of whether
> >postprocessing being "built in" to your renderer makes it legal?
> >Should I start working on that Photoshop plugin patch for POV-Ray now?
> >
> >And please note that this is not sour grapes.  I didn't enter the
> >competition this round.  I'm just disappointed to see a bunch of
> >imagemaps rendered with a scanline renderer in seven minutes win this
> >round when there were so many more deserving entries.
> 
> I have been pondering on how IRTC submissions may be judged to give a result which
the
> majority think is a fair outcome.  It's a controversial subject because it must
involve
> that most personal of human attributes - judgement.
> 
>  I suspect that many people, like me, find it difficult to judge technical merit
because
> 1) the entrants don't give enough technical detail (fair enough if you first
language
> isn't English)
> 2) my experience is limited to ray tracing with POV and I don't know how easy, or
hard it
> is to generate scenes using other methods such as line scan rendering.
> 
> I would also like to say that rendering time is no help whatsoever in judging merit
in any
> of the categories.  I accept Juha's point about "cross contamination" but I like the
idea
> of the three criteria and don't see how it would be possible to avoid a judgment on,
say,
> artistic merit, having some effect on one's feelings about the technical merit of a
> submission.
> 
> One positive suggestion I make is that entrants should have to provide two images of
the
> same scene from different viewpoints.  This fairly simple modification to the rules
may
> stick in the gullets of those artists who believe that any scene has only one
perfect
> composition, but it may help to sort out some of the image plasterers from the true
ray
> tracers.  The use of two images would allow an overall artistic view of the scene,
and a
> close-up showing some of the interesting technical detail. It should help to give a
better
> appreciation of technical merit.
> 
> Another, more controversial suggestion, might be some sort of weighted apportionment
of
> the points awarded.  But on reflection I think not :-)
> 
> Just to quell any suggestions of sour grapes, I think my result this time, 31st out
of  87
> is pretty fair, but I was sorry that Christian Radek's image of the same subject as
mine
> only merited 8th place.  I fear that he suffered because there were two similar
images.
> Lighthouses may have suffered similarly, but this suggestion falls down in the case
of
> Pyramids :-)
> David
> ------------
> dav### [at] cwcomnet
> http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
> ------------

-- 
Cheers       
Steve        email: mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk   

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee.   0 PPS

web: http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/   
 or: http://start.at/zero-pps

Post a reply to this message