Renderdog wrote:
> 
> Shay wrote:
> >I will accept that Mael's entry was equivalent modeling wise with those
> >three entries, but where are Mael's technical merit points for making
> >his image clear and distinct, something the other three failed to do?
> >Mael had at the bare minimum equal modeling technique to the others and
> >in addition had superior textures and lighting.
> 
> I'm not sure the use of HDR lighting merits a high technical score. Not to
> take anything away from this image, which is very good, but it's basically
> a single model with a few textures. It looks great, no doubt, but lighting
> a single model is easier than lighting a full environment; I'm sure most
> judges rate images according to their degree of difficulty.

Everyone should be allowed to rate according to personal preferences.  One
can only hope that in the average a fairly adequate rating comes out.  But
in case of the technical rating you can at least try to find some
objective measures.  For me this is mostly the technical ability of the
artist shown in the image.  This can be in various fields, ranging from
some interesting algorithm to generate mathematically defined shapes to
well drawn image maps.  But you should not make the mistake to ignore
things that don't explicitly show up in the image but none the less were
important for generating it.  In this case you might know (or not, he did
not mention it in the text file) that it was Mael who added HDR image
based lighting support to POV-Ray.  IMO this is an equally good argument
for a high technical score as any technically interesting modelling
technique etc.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message