Hildur K. wrote:
> The way I understand it, the issue Michael here is trying to raise is: 

> this a ideal time and opportunity to review the IRTC rules? Because 10+
 years
> is really a long time in the history of computer generated imaging.
> 
> And if this is a fact, that people claim, that the IRTC was meant to be
 for
> raytracing only, why are images that were created in other type of rend
erers
> being accepted? Why have they on several occasions won the competition?


tively,
> why would you want to vote down a wonderful computer generated image, s
imply

> 
	?? "Ray tracing" isn't a synonym for "Povray", or even for "free 
software" you know. Most commercial packages include a ray tracer 
and some very high end professional renderers are ray tracers 
(Mental Ray for example).

	Moreover, the "ray-tracing" in IRTC has always been taken to mean 
more "3D rendering" than strictly "ray tracing". IOW a valid image 
is an image that was created by the computer from a 3D model using 
3D algorithms even if those aren't strictly speaking "ray tracing".

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)