There have been many interesting discussions and debates about what 
should be the "new rules" in the previous threads.

The goal of this thread is simply to give everyone interested the 
opportunity to voice his opinions and desires about the rules in a short 
and concise way , without trying to convice anyone or to prove that 
"this is the best" (or the more logical, or the more blah blah blah). 
Just to know what the people think (even if the people which express 
their opinion here are only a small subset of the participants of the IRTC).


So, in my case :


-  I think the rules should simply state that a ray-tracer has to be the 
main tool to produce the image, and give a lot of freedom to the 
participants concerning their method and other tools used.


Thibaut

Post a reply to this message

Thibaut Jonckheere <tua### [at] MAPSONyahoofr> wrote:

>
> -  I think the rules should simply state that a ray-tracer has to be the
> main tool to produce the image, and give a lot of freedom to the
> participants concerning their method and other tools used.

We are already using many different tools as an aid to produce the final image.
Allowing people to use other software tools prior to final rendering, but not
after, may not always be practical. The rules could reflect that the raytracing
software should always be the main tool used, as this is after all a raytracting
competition, but more flexibility regarding other tools should be allowed to
make better use of the software available and add different possibilities to
the creative and technological potential.

Different way of producing images may also encourage changes in the future
versions of the software itself. The participants of the IRTC have always been
test bunnies for the Povray developers. They show what can and cannot be done
with the software. The way we produce images must show to the developers what
needs to be implemented and what needs to be changed or fixed in future


we might risk they become a liability and limit both the user and the
development of raytracing software like Povray.

Post a reply to this message

Thibaut Jonckheere <tua### [at] MAPSONyahoofr> wrote:
> There have been many interesting discussions and debates about what
> should be the "new rules" in the previous threads.
>
> The goal of this thread is simply to give everyone interested the
> opportunity to voice his opinions and desires about the rules in a short
> and concise way , without trying to convice anyone or to prove that
> "this is the best" (or the more logical, or the more blah blah blah).
> Just to know what the people think (even if the people which express
> their opinion here are only a small subset of the participants of the IRTC).
>
>
> So, in my case :
>
>
> -  I think the rules should simply state that a ray-tracer has to be the
> main tool to produce the image, and give a lot of freedom to the
> participants concerning their method and other tools used.
>
>
> Thibaut

At the risk of sounding like Slim Pickens' character in 'Blazing Saddles',
"Ditto."

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Thibaut Jonckheere <tua### [at] MAPSONyahoofr> wrote:
> The goal of this thread is simply to give everyone interested the
> opportunity to voice his opinions and desires about the rules in a short
> and concise way , without trying to convice anyone or to prove that
> "this is the best" (or the more logical, or the more blah blah blah).
> Just to know what the people think (even if the people which express
> their opinion here are only a small subset of the participants of the IRTC).

I think the rules should emphasize that the contest is a 3D rendering contest.
Entries should be both created and judged accodingly; use of non-trivial
post-processing technology should be discouraged unless supporting the 3D
rendering process, in which case such use should be openly declared by the
author, to submit it to the voters' judgement.

Distinction should be made by technology actually employed, not by software
category; that is, for instance using POV-Ray for post-processing should be
judged no differently than using Photoshop instead.

Examples should be given for what can be considered trivial, what can typically
be considered ok, and what is to be considered a no-go; in any case, common
sense should be employed, on a case-by-case basis.

Adding a signature or watermark should be considered trivial.

Converting between file formats, changing resolutions, and fixing contrast,
brightness or gamma should be considered trivial as well.

Compositing multiple rendered images according to rendered masks should be
considered as supporting the 3D rendering process, and therefore ok but
requiring declaration.

Adding lense flares, artistic blur or similar effects should be considered
inappropriate (unless achieved through a genuine 3D rendering technique).


Rules should be followed, and compliance judged, according to the spirit, not
the letter.


3D rendering should be interpreted in a broad sense, including other 3D
rendering technologies besides raytracing. The rules should explicitly state
that although IRTC is an acronym for "International Ray Tracing Contest", this
is for historical reasons, and should instead be read as "International 3D
Rendering Contest".

Post a reply to this message

Thibaut Jonckheere <tua### [at] MAPSONyahoofr> wrote:
>
> -  I think the rules should simply state that a ray-tracer has to be the
> main tool to produce the image, and give a lot of freedom to the
> participants concerning their method and other tools used.
>

Ditto:

Now for debate and trying to convince folks that this is the best.  On one hand,
I'm sure we'd all hate it if the contest were to become a showcase for 2D
plug-ins in paint programs. Yuck.  On the other hand, I really don't like the
attitude that someone's 24 h render which required no post-processing is
inferior to the 24h render which --oops-- required a last-minute gamma
correction to get it right. Yuck, yuck, yuck on images where the gamma
correction is spot-on perfect immediately out of a raytracer.

I'm one of the bigger critics of attempts at exhaustive photorealism (read: the
bottom of Uncanny Valley ravine) "art". I think being a purist bully about
post-processing is not bad in and of itself, but that it implies a spirit of
dried-bones perfection rather than providing entertainment with 3D software. Is
the competition about entertaining our friends or showing off your photorealism?

It's also interesting that it's possible for an image to have "2D manipulation"
and at the same time be the first and only output of raytracing software.
Megapov's camera_view pigment ( **not** even it's post-processing features)
allow for one to apply effects to a box painted with camera_view before
anything is ever written to HDD.  So if you do go purist, you have to
accomodate for this option in your rules.

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4a477610418f4db2b2d47f1d0@news.povray.org...
> Ditto:
>
> Now for debate and trying to convince folks that this is the best.  On one 
> hand,
> I'm sure we'd all hate it if the contest were to become a showcase for 2D
> plug-ins in paint programs. Yuck.  On the other hand, I really don't like 
> the
> attitude that someone's 24 h render which required no post-processing is
> inferior to the 24h render which --oops-- required a last-minute gamma
> correction to get it right. Yuck, yuck, yuck on images where the gamma
> correction is spot-on perfect immediately out of a raytracer.
>
> I'm one of the bigger critics of attempts at exhaustive photorealism 
> (read: the
> bottom of Uncanny Valley ravine) "art". I think being a purist bully about
> post-processing is not bad in and of itself, but that it implies a spirit 
> of
> dried-bones perfection rather than providing entertainment with 3D 
> software. Is
> the competition about entertaining our friends or showing off your 
> photorealism?
>
> It's also interesting that it's possible for an image to have "2D 
> manipulation"
> and at the same time be the first and only output of raytracing software.
> Megapov's camera_view pigment ( **not** even it's post-processing 
> features)
> allow for one to apply effects to a box painted with camera_view before
> anything is ever written to HDD.  So if you do go purist, you have to
> accomodate for this option in your rules.
>

And ditto.

Personally, I want to keep away from the Uncanny Valley.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> Personally, I want to keep away from the Uncanny Valley.
> 

   But the peak at other side of the valley is even higher... you don't want
to get there? Personally, I dream about being able to get to the other side
of the valley someday, although I'm pretty sure that I will be trapped here
at the bottom forever... ;)


--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a4a150d$1@news.povray.org...
>   But the peak at other side of the valley is even higher... you don't 
> want
> to get there? Personally, I dream about being able to get to the other 
> side
> of the valley someday, although I'm pretty sure that I will be trapped 
> here
> at the bottom forever... ;)
>
Ah yes... How true indeed... :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> schreef in bericht
> news:4a4a150d$1@news.povray.org...
> >   But the peak at other side of the valley is even higher... you don't
> > want
> > to get there? Personally, I dream about being able to get to the other
> > side
> > of the valley someday, although I'm pretty sure that I will be trapped
> > here
> > at the bottom forever... ;)
> >
> Ah yes... How true indeed... :-)
>

The valley can be used to effect as artists in traditional media have done.

As for the rules I think that it should be a Raytracing competition like it says
in the name.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message