 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Loki wrote:
> I'm afraid I totally agree with this, no doubt to Derrick's chagrin.
>
>>Generalisations like, "...I have seen little truly deserving of the top places.", is
just plain upsetting.
>
> The truth hurts sometimes.
>
So, the bottom line is that you think I did not deserve my 2nd place,
yet you offer no solid, pointed criticism as to why. I worked long and
hard on that image, learning more about Pov in that short while than in
all the time I have used it, still having self-doubt whether it was good
enough or not, and whether I should enter it or not. I was elated with
my placing, which was far beyond what I ever expected, and here you go
saying it was not deserving of its place. What the hell is your problem?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Loki wrote:
> Why does the comeptition only rarely see entries of truly high (i.e.
> highend3d.com) quality? It's because the competition doesn't *want*
> entries like that...
I disagree!
If you take a look at recent winners, a lot of them were made with
POV-Ray (simply because the IRTC is popular among POVers), some with
other free tools (e.g. AOI) and some with professional software (e.g. Max).
Most entrants are hobbyists, not 3D professionals. They have limited or
no access to professional tools, limited hardware and limited time. It's
like complaining about that IRTC animations can't compete with "The
Incredibles"...
> because they'd just win hands down month after month...
Well, if it's so easy to win month after month, go ahead and show us!
If your images are of such "truly high quality" that they're just too
good for the IRTC, try calling Pixar, they may be waiting for you...
If you're only iterested in what can be done with the latest software,
huge renderfarms and a team of professionals, the IRTC is the wrong
place to look.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Derrick J Houy wrote:
> Loki wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid I totally agree with this, no doubt to Derrick's chagrin.
>
> >
>
>>> Generalisations like, "...I have seen little truly deserving of the
>>> top places.", is just plain upsetting.
>>
>>
>> The truth hurts sometimes.
>>
>
> So, the bottom line is that you think I did not deserve my 2nd place,
> yet you offer no solid, pointed criticism as to why. I worked long and
> hard on that image, learning more about Pov in that short while than in
> all the time I have used it, still having self-doubt whether it was good
> enough or not, and whether I should enter it or not. I was elated with
> my placing, which was far beyond what I ever expected, and here you go
> saying it was not deserving of its place. What the hell is your problem?
Your image certainly deserves it's second place! Please don't let the
trolls discourage you!
As far as I understand Loki's bottom line is that he's seen better
images on highend3d.com, made with $6000 software by some professionals,
and that the IRTC isn't really even a cometition because it fails to
attract those top artists who could win hands down month after month ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Once more, blood pressure has won out over a reasonable discussion and I get
accused of trolling, again. What is it about some people here that they
either mistakenly or bloody-mindedly misconstrue my intent?
I'm sure, Derrick, you were more than deserving of second place in a
competition which is a bit of fun, and I'm glad you learned a lot about POV
in the process, well done. Here's the thing: at no point did I suggest
that you personally are not a good POV artist. At no point did I suggest
that all the entries to the IRTC are of a poor standard. At no point,
Derrick, did I suggest that I even know which picture was made by you
personally. I still don't. You simply jumped on my *general* comment, my
opinion, which I am of course entitled to hold and express on a free
newsgroup, and took it as a *personal* attack. Note that you only
commented on this discussion after I had stated my point, in which I made
no mention of your image or any other specific image. To consider an
opinion of a general trend to be a personal attack on your own work is to
be perhaps a little touchy, wouldn't you agree?
Now Sascha, your post stated "Some poeple use SDL and CSG to do all their
modeling, some use GUI modelers, some use other free modelers/renderers,
and some use professional software like Max or Maya. But IMHO we shouldn't
care -
what counts are the results." So why, then, am I to be called a troll when
I state truthfully that the images produced and displayed on other
websites, which were made using such professional packages, are of a
generally higher standard than most of those entered in recent rounds of
the IRTC?
You also argue "Well, if it's so easy to win month after month, go ahead and
show us! If your images are of such "truly high quality" that they're just
too good for the IRTC, try calling Pixar, they may be waiting for you..."
Illogical sarcasm. If my images were of truly high quality, I would
already be working for Pixar and wouldn't be here discussing the IRTC here
with you - a situation which I'm sure would be favourable to both of us.
My images, for what they are worth, are almost all available on these
newsgroups.
This is my final post on the matter. Feel free to argue amongst yourselves,
but I have neither the time nor willpower for a protracted debate about
some opinions that you've convinced yourselves are mine.
L
-
PS @Derrick. To finally try to convince you that I intend no ill will, I
offer some constructive criticism, as you requested.
The image is too dark around the edges. If I look closely I can just about
make out the sea in the background I think. I know the single bulb above
the bather is the primary light, but try including a soft shadowless fill
light to one side, probably of a blue tint, in orger to pick out detail in
the dark portion to the bottom right of the image. The darkness makes the
composition too emtpy and rather oppressive.
Secondly, on texturing. The moon is an extremely recognisable object. Use
an image map, there are lots available online. Metal textures (I presume
the lamppost should be metal) I would use a lower diffuse value, quite high
brilliance and variable reflection with a slightly lowered exponent.
Modelling-wise the image is fine, though sparse. That is more to do with
composition. Look at the left hand side of the image. It's all dark and
empty. In a film, including that portion would make the viewer tense, as
if a sinister figure were about to walk out of that gloom. Try moving the
camera closer into the subject of the shot. You could change the aspect
ratio of the shot to an upright frame, which might play well with the
length of the lamppost too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, enough is enough, and I don't want to make enemies or cause any
further upset. If you didn't mean anything personal, then fine, I apologise.
(I had this at the bottom of the mail, but figured you may not read that
far--and this is the most important part I wanted to say)
----
Firstly Loki, thank you for the constructive feedback. The image looked
better on my monitor than on others (on some you cannot even see the
sail boat in the background), so I have a lot to learn about getting the
lighting right, so it looks good on all monitors. Your feedback will be
very helpful to me.
Secondly, my blood pressure soared because, if this statement from your
last email is true:
> At no point,
> Derrick, did I suggest that I even know which picture was made by you
> personally. I still don't.
then this statement from your first email does not make sense to me:
> but looking at the entries for the past few rounds I have seen
> little truly deserving of the top places.
And I found the following statement, in response to my complaint, just
plain hurtful (if you hadn't meant anything personal, I do not
understand you saying this, in direct response to something that had
clearly become personal):
> > Generalisations like, "...I have seen little truly deserving of the
> > top places.", is just plain upsetting.
> The truth hurts sometimes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...I state truthfully that the images produced and displayed on other
> websites, which were made using such professional packages, are of a
> generally higher standard than most of those entered in recent rounds of
> the IRTC...
First, you are comparing apples and oranges! For an IRTC image the rules
say that it must be unique, you basically have got 2 months to create it
from scratch, and it has to be related to a topic. There are no such
constraints for images in galleries like the one on highend3d.com.
Second, I do not think that images on other websites are of a "generally
higher standard". Perhaps we can agree upon art being in the eye of the
beholder.
Third, it's not about the tools used (if you've got enough money to
spend thousands of $ for professional 3d software, be happy - not
everyone has) - it's about the people. You can't compare images or
animations made by individual amateurs (with limited time and limited
software/hardware) and images or animations made by professionals (with
access to all those high end soft- and hardware) or film studios!
The IRTC website states that "The competition is not about winning. You
do not have to be a professional, or even any good! Experts are welcome,
but the contest is run by and for amateurs with cheap tools. Those lucky
enough to have more impressive skills and equipment are asked to share
their wisdom, but we are more impressed by someone who can be creative
with what they have, than someone who has everything.", but also that
usage of commercial software is legitimate.
> This is my final post on the matter. Feel free to argue amongst
yourselves...
If you don't have time for an argument, why do you start it?
> So why, then, am I to be called a troll...
Your posts are an affront against everyone who spent their spare-time to
run or enter the IRTC. Excusing this with "freedom of speech" is also
common troll behavior.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Persson wrote:
> ..or is there anybody else that gets flashbacks
> from IRTC 6-8 years ago? I'm talking about the
> entries in the competition and rather the artistic
> quality of them.. Is this thing qoing to die out?
>
> Stefan
>
>
I'm going to chime in..
Overall, After looking at the entries from the last competition..
Catastrophe. I'm really beginning to think there's a group of people out
there that don't give a rat's back-side about what the topic is. I mean
- how is a floating coke can a catastrophe? ... How are *very* badly
modelled cats a catastroph.. ohh, hah hah, I get it. But seriously, Some
of this looks like it was thrown together in all of about 15 minutes and
called competition-worthy.
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Firstly Loki, thank you for the constructive feedback. The image looked
> better on my monitor than on others (on some you cannot even see the
> sail boat in the background), so I have a lot to learn about getting the
> lighting right, so it looks good on all monitors. Your feedback will be
> very helpful to me.
There's a sailboat?! ;) Sure, I hope you take something positive from this.
I'm sticking to what I said and not responding to any other statements (but
perhaps that's troll behaviour to some people too... I'm beginning to think
opening my mouth is enough to qualify me ;) ) but regarding your image, I
do think it's primarily let down by the lighting and composition. One of
my gripes generally is that people spend days, weeks whatever modelling and
texturing their scene, but then don't take the time to compose and light
the thing effectively and an otherwise strong image is let down. I suggest
you consider these things before you settle on a final render:
Subject lighting (Is the focal point of the image actually lit as if it is
important? Badly placed lights can draw attention away from your best
model)
Fill lighting (Soft- or no-shadowed lighting to illuminate the recessed
areas a little, but weaker than the key light above)
Back lighting (Usually from above and behind the image. Picks out specular
highlights) (Radiosity lighting is often unneccesary if you light a scene
this way)
Camera direction. (Look out for the presence of strong parallel lines which
can draw the eye along the image. If there is something important at the
convergence of the lines this can be a positive thing, but it can also be
distracting. For example, imagine a perspective shot of a station
platform. The eye follows the convergent lines of the tracks, platform
edge, roof etc to a point at the far end of the platform. Affective
composition means there should be something over there, like a train
pulling in or a man with a gun or whatever. If there's nothing there,
consider shooting the scene from a more sideways angle so the lines are
parallel, not convergent.)
Angle of view. (Strongly zooming in on a scene destroys perspective and
distance (but makes lateral movement across the screen appear very fast -
just in case you ever do an animation.) For small objects this might be
desirable, as it makes them look genuinely small. Wider lenses exaggerate
fore/aft movement and distance but can cause perspective distortion and
make lateral motion very slow. Consider the difference between moving the
camera closer compared to zooming in.)
Focal blur (This is a great indicator of scale and shouldn't be thought of
as just a special effect. Strong zooms and tight focus makes everything
look compressed and claustrophobic. Wide angles with strong blur can be
very artistic for still-life type shots.)
There are loads of good books on film and photography composition that are
worth getting out of the library. Some of the more technical ones are
useful too because they go into a lot of detail about lens types, light
temperatures (colours) and so on. Most of it can be at least approximated
in POV.
L
-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks Loki, there's a lot of very useful information there. I actually
spent fairly little time modelling, but battled for days and days to
fiddle with textures, lighting and camera position--all of which I
totally redid countless times. Mostly I was poking around in the dark,
with a little gut-feel here and there, interspersed with the occasional
tid-bit of useful information that I could find. I sacrificed detail to
play with textures and lighting, both of which I am fairly clueless about.
The libraries where I live have limited good information on photography
and such, and the cost of importing good books on the subject is
prohibitive, so thank you again for the great input; which shall be duly
filed in my growing library of useful information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Derrick J Houy <djh### [at] paw zaorg> wrote:
> Thanks Loki, there's a lot of very useful information there. I actually
> spent fairly little time modelling, but battled for days and days to
> fiddle with textures, lighting and camera position--all of which I
> totally redid countless times. Mostly I was poking around in the dark,
> with a little gut-feel here and there, interspersed with the occasional
> tid-bit of useful information that I could find. I sacrificed detail to
> play with textures and lighting, both of which I am fairly clueless about.
>
> The libraries where I live have limited good information on photography
> and such, and the cost of importing good books on the subject is
> prohibitive, so thank you again for the great input; which shall be duly
> filed in my growing library of useful information.
No probs, glad to be of help. I expect you'll find the same info on the web
somewhere, at least where lighting/composition goes. Texturing methods are
obviously specific to POV though.
L
-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
