 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Wilkinson wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> One positive suggestion I make is that entrants should have to provide two images of
the
> same scene from different viewpoints.
[snip]
Well this would certainly weed out a lot of the raytraced entries.
Cheers PoD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
PoD wrote:
>
> David Wilkinson wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > One positive suggestion I make is that entrants should have to provide two images
of the
> > same scene from different viewpoints.
> [snip]
>
> Well this would certainly weed out a lot of the raytraced entries.
>
> Cheers PoD.
Not to mention that it would nearly double the storage space requirments
at the contests server and it would require greater bandwidth to download
double the number of images. I don't think this is practicle at all.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 1000+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 07:08:27 +0930, PoD <pod### [at] merlin netau> wrote:
>David Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> One positive suggestion I make is that entrants should have to provide two images
of the
>> same scene from different viewpoints.
>[snip]
>
>Well this would certainly weed out a lot of the raytraced entries.
>
>Cheers PoD.
Do you mean that ray tracers can't find more than one veiwpoint?
David
------------
dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 14:45:25 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
>Not to mention that it would nearly double the storage space requirments
>at the contests server and it would require greater bandwidth to download
>double the number of images. I don't think this is practicle at all.
Well perhaps we could restrict image size to 640x480 (or smaller)
There must be some way I can get higher in the table without having to produce better
images.
David
------------
dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Wilkinson wrote:
> >Well this would certainly weed out a lot of the raytraced entries.
> >
> >Cheers PoD.
>
> Do you mean that ray tracers can't find more than one veiwpoint?
> David
Actually I think he was thinking about the amount of time it takes to
raytrace a scene vs. scanline render a scene. Scanline rendering is
generaly much faster than raytracing and those that wait until the last
minute with their submissions because of bloated raytracing times will
never have a chance to wait on a second render to finish.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 1000+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Wilkinson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 14:45:25 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
> >
> >Not to mention that it would nearly double the storage space requirments
> >at the contests server and it would require greater bandwidth to download
> >double the number of images. I don't think this is practicle at all.
>
> Well perhaps we could restrict image size to 640x480 (or smaller)
> There must be some way I can get higher in the table without having to produce
better
> images.
> David
I see. David wants to level the playing field a bit in compensation for his
talent or lack thereof.
Perhaps instead there should be two competitions. One for the novice and
one for the advanced.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 1000+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 17:32:09 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>> Well perhaps we could restrict image size to 640x480 (or smaller)
>> There must be some way I can get higher in the table without having to produce
better
>> images.
>> David
>
>I see. David wants to level the playing field a bit in compensation for his
>talent or lack thereof.
>
>Perhaps instead there should be two competitions. One for the novice and
>one for the advanced.
Yes, the novices submit one image, the rest submit two.
David
------------
dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You could cheat with a reflective plane.
David Wilkinson wrote:
>
> 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
> ------------
--
Cheers
Steve email: mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee. 0 PPS
web: http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or: http://start.at/zero-pps
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David would have to enter the Advanced class, hopefully people
like him would be disqualified if they tryed to enter that
complicated stuff in the novice class.
Ken wrote:
>
> David Wilkinson wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 14:45:25 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Not to mention that it would nearly double the storage space requirments
> > >at the contests server and it would require greater bandwidth to download
> > >double the number of images. I don't think this is practicle at all.
> >
> > Well perhaps we could restrict image size to 640x480 (or smaller)
> > There must be some way I can get higher in the table without having to produce
better
> > images.
> > David
>
> I see. David wants to level the playing field a bit in compensation for his
> talent or lack thereof.
>
> Perhaps instead there should be two competitions. One for the novice and
> one for the advanced.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> See my 1000+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
--
Cheers
Steve email: mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee. 0 PPS
web: http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or: http://start.at/zero-pps
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 23:24:09 +0100, Steve <sjl### [at] hotmailcouk> wrote:
>You could cheat with a reflective plane.
>
I suppose it's possible, but this would show a fair degree of technical achievement
:-)
David
------------
dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
