"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:40D### [at] hotmailcom...
> Hello everyone. Today I made a scene file which takes an image and
> applies a 'bloom' effect to the bright parts. The example attached is a
> bit overdone to show the results. I can control which values in the
> image are active.

It really is a nice effect, Samuel.  In fact, most of the things you show
here amaze me.   You're certainly working at a level of understanding which
far surpasses my own.

Incredible work!  :-)

>
> 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.

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.  But...  From
having had this discussion once before, not everyone is aware of that in the
rules FAQ, and so to some voters, any post-processing may get you into
trouble.  The last time I remember being involved in a rules discussion, I
think someone said (maybe it was me) to state the rule in your accompanying
text file with a referencing URL as to why your post processing technique is
valid.

It bothers me when people use the rules too literally, though.  I think the
general idea is simply not to add new elements to your image, nor to use
post-processing to touch-up a bad rendering job, but others may disagree.  I
have thought that unless you're a panel judge, you should just vote on the
image "as is" and let the panel judges decide if it's a violation or not,
but that opens up a whole new can-o-worms.

Now having said all of that, I'll say that I actually hate IRTC
post-processing rule discussions...  bleh

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

Post a reply to this message