Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> my personal opinion on that matter: This example sounds perfectly
> acceptable to me and could also be used to argue the point that it
> should be allowed to do more post-processing.

  Then the IRTC becomes just another Photoshop contest site. Boring.

> If the above procedure actually has a better ratio of quality
> per render time than other anti-aliasing methods one might be
> allowed to ask: Why isn't the method built into the renderer?

  Irrelevant. If the renderer doesn't support it, then it doesn't. The
reasons are rather irrelevant in this.

> Also, if I now build my own patched version of the renderer which
> implements this anti-aliasing method, is it suddenly ok to use it
> because it is now longer a separate post-processing step?

  Yes. It's the direct output of the rendering software, not the direct
output of Photoshop or Gimp.

> Most global 2D effects could conceivably be implemented in SDL
> with multipass renders and evaluating pigments of the input image.
> Does this make it any more or less cheating?

  Yes, because it's the result of a rendering software, not the result of
an image manipulation software.

> My recommendation would be to allow any kind of post-processing
> which is of a "general" nature

  That's the problem: Defining what's allowed and what isn't becomes
really complicated, and you end up with a rule book thicker than the one
in Formula 1 racing. Don't you think *that* is going to discourage people?

  The rule "no post-processing with external software allowed, period"
is simple and straightforward.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message