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] pawzaorg> 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

"Loki" <nomail@nomail> 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, because they'd just win hands down month after month and
> it would be no fun for the people who don't have access to a full
> Maya/Renderman rig.  But in its present form there is nothing stopping
> industry professionals entering the IRTC with their work.  Perhaps the IRTC
> should be rebranded to clarify that it is not in fact a raytracing
> competition on the whole, but a POV specific contest.  The way some people
> seem to think of it is that it isn't really even a competition.  It doesn't
> have any prize associated with it, and it doesn't, I'm afraid to say, carry
> any prestige these days.  Perhaps the Internet POV Ray Gallery (IPRG) would
> be a more appropriate name?

The IRTC is a learning tool, in competition form.  And its a good one
because it permits beginners to enter, and doesn't penalize them just
because they're beginners.  Its good that its not only POV, because despite
what some seem to think, getting good results out of ANY 3D software has a
learning curve, and everyone is a beginner sometime.

My entries are usually competing as much with my previous entries as with
the other entries in the round. I'm not a professional CG artist, and I
can't afford $6000+ in software to have all the bells and whistles in one
package, but I would like to be able now and then to produce something like
they do that creates a mood or recreates a scene to a degree that someone
will look at it more than once.

When I look at all of my past entries I see progress. When I started
entering (using Bryce at first, found PovRay after I found IRTC) I had lots
of free time, and I'd spend most of the two months working on it to get
something that was just ok. Now I don't have that much time, and if I can
get a couple weeks in I'm doing good, yet I think I've gotten some pretty
good entries, so I'm happy with that.

The guys who have the money to spend on Maya / 3DMax probably have (a)
already gone through much of that learning stage before they spent the
money, and (b) are setting their sights on generating some return on that
investment. So the IRTC is not going to offer them much.

All that said, I think that in several of the recent rounds there has been a
definite flow of slapped together Bryce/Rhino entries that tends to dilute
the overall level of the round. This has been attributed to a CG class at a
school all submitting. Some of the students seem to get more involved and
actually try to come up with something serious, but for others its clearly
"just another assignment".  I do think that somewhat abuses the "beginners
welcome".  Perhaps the instructor could have his own competition, and only
the top finishers submit to IRTC.

RG

P.S. I thought Derrick's entry was definitely a good one, but I didn't enter
that round, so didn't get to vote :-(  Only critique I had was that the
moon looked too sharp, like it was only 10 ft away, but given the topic, I
wasn't sure that wasn't intentional...

P.P.S. Another one I thought was quite good, and was disappointed at its
finish was Incongruous (Helene Dumur).

Post a reply to this message

"Derrick J Houy" <djh### [at] pawzaorg> 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?

Calm down. He never targeted you specifically. And yours is certainly
deserving 2nd place *in amongst* the submissions. I think his point was that
the overall quality of IRTC submissions hasn't kept up with the advances in
technology, and I would agree with that. Part of the reason is that IRTC
isn't attracting professionals - and I don't just mean those who use really
expensive software. Having said that, there seems to be some bias against
other (non POV) software which may have helped to turn those people off from
IRTC. As a long time (but "light") POV user, I must also sadly admit that
POV is showing its age and its not helping matters. But the main reason,
IMHO, for the lackluster state of IRTC is the proliferation of competitions,
forums and venues for showcasing renderings.

Post a reply to this message

To me the IRTC is a comptetion open for anyone who wants to share their 3d
work with the rest of the world. I think this encourages lots of people who
are not too sure of their own abilities to submit. I have often admired
images made by kids who may not have the ability to make professional

complicated software creatively. They may or may not become the great 3d
artists of the future. Who knows?

I wish I had had that opportunity when I was twelve. Sigh....


challenges and to me the IRTC is an opportunity to receive a constructive
and encouraging critisism. Which is extremely valuable.



to try. I myself waited two years before submitting for the first time,
even though there are no limits on partipication.

By the way: the IRTC ftp server is updated almost immediately showing the

webpage updates late.
Try
ftp://ftp.irtc.org/pub/stills/

choose Help > FTP Server Welcome Message... to see the new topic.

Hildur

Post a reply to this message

ok, i know this thread is already old, but i think it's still relevant...
so, here goes my 2 cents...

The IRTC was always pov-centered, since it's an old competition for
hobbyists who can't afford high-end hardware and software and povray was
the only real good free raytracer back then.  Not to say high-end software
is that huge a step forward than povray, just stating that that's what
professionals use.

So, since it's hobbyist-ridden, there are far too many non-professional
looking images, no surprise.  Look here:

http://highend3d.com/gallery/scenes/3d_scenes/gallerylarge.php?id=663

the guy took 3 weeks to render this in high-end stations and using
professional modelers and renderer.  You can't expect hobbyists to do
something like that.

But, imho, povray makes things bad in a sense, in this way:  many people
using it are technically inclined people, who love to script fractals using
just a text editor and the bare hands.  There's few true artists out there
using povray, because it comes with no GUI modeller of its own, like yafray
comes with Blender.  No non-technically inclined artists will take a serious
look at povray for rendering, except for a few like JVP or Gilles Tran and
even these can be seen more as programmers with an artistic sense than
anything else.  Heck, no non-technical artist would ever come up with such
amazing macros as these guys...

That's why -- not many true artists using pov --, i guess, you see either
many pov-excited-newbie bad images, some good images lacking some true
artistic value and very few that truly get the artistic and technical
aparatus right.  The guy worrying for his 2nd prize should not, it's a nice
image, but i believe he's one of those artistic inclined people:  the theme
is nice, but it lacks lots of technical details that could really make the
image standout, like some media fading near the lamp etc -- media,
caustics, DOF, very complex textures and materials and all are what truly
set professional images apart from hobbyists.  The kind of little povray
technical details that people with artistic sense simply find, i guess, too
cumbersome or simply doesn't even know how to get at it or simply don't have
the time and hardware to implement...

Just my 2 cents.  I, for myself, just love povray amazingly rich and
flexible SDL:  the best anywhere for describing 3D images in words... so,
to me, povray is a mix of things that really attract me, mainly
mathematics, 3D graphics, programming *and* poetry, since that's what a
good povray scene file truly is... :)

Post a reply to this message