 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
The admins said several times that rendering in general is OK, same with
me. But for the post filters I allways give a malus. Looks like a lot of
people don't read the texts that belong to the pics, but that doesn't
wonder me.
This wasn't the only pic that used postprocessing. Anyway I did enter so
I better shut up! :-P
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nieminen Juha
Subject: Re: What's with the landmarks IRTC winner?
Date: 17 Sep 1999 03:39:34
Message: <37e1f036@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What we are seeing here is the infamous cross-contamination of voting
categories. If the image looks great it will receive lots of points in
each category regardless of whether it is good in that specific category
or not.
In this case the technical merit became blown up because the image looks
so pleasant to the eye although the image doesn't deserve it. As you said,
it's only a bunch of image maps rendered on a scanline rendering program
and with possible post-processing. This has no technical merit at all.
Honorable mention for artistic merit? Perhaps. But not a winner, that's for
sure.
'Canyon' got 13.972 points for TMerit while 'triangle' got 13.514. Almost
the same amount of points although the difference in technical merit is
enormous.
Why there are different voting categories? Just a few people takes them
into account anyways.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 03:26:26 GMT, par### [at] fwi com (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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] merlinnetau> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
