|
|
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 03:26:26 GMT, par### [at] fwicom (Ron Parker) wrote:
>Did the IRTC become the Internet Rendering Tools Competition while I
>slept last night? If not, how did this win?
>
>>RENDERER USED:
>> 3D Studio Max default renderer
>
>And what about this?
>
>>the sun was softened by a fadin Lens Effect Flare
>>rendered in Video post.
>
>Can we have a clarification on the question of whether
>postprocessing being "built in" to your renderer makes it legal?
>Should I start working on that Photoshop plugin patch for POV-Ray now?
>
>And please note that this is not sour grapes. I didn't enter the
>competition this round. I'm just disappointed to see a bunch of
>imagemaps rendered with a scanline renderer in seven minutes win this
>round when there were so many more deserving entries.
I have been pondering on how IRTC submissions may be judged to give a result which the
majority think is a fair outcome. It's a controversial subject because it must
involve
that most personal of human attributes - judgement.
I suspect that many people, like me, find it difficult to judge technical merit
because
1) the entrants don't give enough technical detail (fair enough if you first language
isn't English)
2) my experience is limited to ray tracing with POV and I don't know how easy, or hard
it
is to generate scenes using other methods such as line scan rendering.
I would also like to say that rendering time is no help whatsoever in judging merit in
any
of the categories. I accept Juha's point about "cross contamination" but I like the
idea
of the three criteria and don't see how it would be possible to avoid a judgment on,
say,
artistic merit, having some effect on one's feelings about the technical merit of a
submission.
One positive suggestion I make is that entrants should have to provide two images of
the
same scene from different viewpoints. This fairly simple modification to the rules
may
stick in the gullets of those artists who believe that any scene has only one perfect
composition, but it may help to sort out some of the image plasterers from the true
ray
tracers. The use of two images would allow an overall artistic view of the scene, and
a
close-up showing some of the interesting technical detail. It should help to give a
better
appreciation of technical merit.
Another, more controversial suggestion, might be some sort of weighted apportionment
of
the points awarded. But on reflection I think not :-)
Just to quell any suggestions of sour grapes, I think my result this time, 31st out of
87
is pretty fair, but I was sorry that Christian Radek's image of the same subject as
mine
only merited 8th place. I fear that he suffered because there were two similar
images.
Lighthouses may have suffered similarly, but this suggestion falls down in the case of
Pyramids :-)
David
------------
dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|