Several images like that have been allowed in the past. The intent of the 
rule was to prevent alteration of the image, e.g. for effects that weren't 
available in your 3D program. Though personally I have no problem with 2D 
effects as long as they are rendered and not hand-painted (though of course 
that distinction could be quite hard to define).

I can't find the IRTC rules page now but wasn't there something about 
"source should be available on request", which I believe was intended for 
ensuring the rules could be enforced. Though for non-povray users even that 
could be hard to pin down.

Perhaps something generic like: "Images should not be 'photoshopped' to 
alter the appearance of the rendered scene."

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4a3ba5b69bb9b5fc85627c70@news.povray.org...
> Under the "Pure Ray Tracing" rule system that some have advocated, the 
> attached
> image, entitled 'First Cup of the Morning', would not constitute a "legal"
> entry.  Each of the two panels was created
> from scratch using POV-Ray.  All objects were created using only CSG.  The 
> final
> image would be disallowed, however, because the two panels were stuck
> together with "post processing" software (Irfanview). Now, I certainly 
> wouldn't
> expect to receive any technical merit points for the simple act of 
> sticking two
> images together, but it seems silly to me that this would be enough to get 
> the
> image tossed out altogether.
>
> Allow me to suggest something like this:
> (There is most certainly room for improving upon the wording.)
>
> ===============================================================
> Because this is the "Internet RAY TRACING Contest", judges are encouraged 
> to
> award points in all categories with a very strong emphasis on how well the
> unique potentials of ray tracing as a method for producing images are 
> used.
> Non-ray tracing aspects of image production which are used well and 
> logically
> shall be considered neutrally, while producing an effect in such a manner 
> that
> could have been done better through ray tracing will be considered just 
> grounds
> for reducing a score substantially.
> ===============================================================
>
> This does leave quite a bit up to the individual judge, but I don't see 
> this as
> a problem inasmuch as making judgments is, by definition, what judges are 
> here
> to do.  I would suggest that the goal of exploring the full potential of 
> ray
> tracing can be better pursued if we include the possibilities of how the 
> method
> can be used in conjunction with other tools rather than limiting ourselves 
> to
> that which can achieved by using our beloved process under conditions of 
> extreme
> isolation.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.
>
>

Post a reply to this message