On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:21:16 -0400, Michael Hunter wrote:

> I’m afraid this discussion has driven off to a different topic. My
> concern was more directed to what constitutes an acceptable entry not
> how submissions should be judged.

Well, perhaps a little bit, but the two are interrelated - something 
that's deemed an acceptable entry needs to meet a certain minimum set of 
criteria based on what the judging criteria are.

That said, yeah, the breakdown by skill level I suggested does go a bit 
farther off topic than just that, and would better be discussed in 
another thread.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

I think this heated debate shows not just how strongly people feel about the
IRTC but also how varied the views are about the purpose of the organization.
No matter what happens there will always be people engaged in this group for
different reasons. I think I agree with Hildur that this is a positive aspect
though I wish people were less angry.



share ideas and learn from each other. I at least try hard to explain what I

helps them with whatever they are trying to do. My work may not be relevant to
everyone but I hope I can help some people. This is what I think is the spirit
of the IRTC.

I get the impression that I have given off the wrong signals again. Beyond the
spirit of friendly competition there are two subjects that we are called upon
to address: The current topic of course but also an on-going topic of how to
make 3D. I never meant to side tract the IRTC into an image processing
competition or a competition of who can buy the most expensive software.
Nothing that I have said in any way should be or could reasonably be considered
to be against any software including POV-Ray or a subversion of the group away
from the making of 3D. Moreover I do not want anyone to think that I am in any
way looking down on hobbyist or people who choose not to buy 3D modeling
software (I believe this is a choice and not an economic matter for most people
even today).

Before you rush to judge me (rather than my work) you should know a bit about


the group. I decided that I wanted to work more with 3D. So I had to choose
what tools I was going to master. I chose to buy what I believed to be the


with it then your doing 3D more and paying for it as you go. So far I have just
barely recouped my investment. To be fair 3D, no matter how you do it, requires
years of practice and trial and error to master it. It took me a while to learn
3D Studio Max and now that I think I have some skill I hope to do this
full-time. Somehow. I am the CEO of Interactive Technologies, Inc. I am also

also a life-long artist. I studied it in school and got an MFA in New York. My
personal goal is to make the best art I can and to help people with their art
or at least make it less mysterious for average people. Hate me if you want but


But now I am running off the subject at hand. What do you want to be accepted
into the competition? Do you want to limit it to people who are hobbyists? Or


question is how restrictive should the rules be and that seems to be related to
what are we trying to work-out as a group. I hope you see the reward of being
part of the IRTC to be what you learn rather than what you win. Could we have
more friendly comments about this? I think we need to establish some core
values we all agree to before drafting a minimum requirements document. It is a
sticky business we have gotten ourselves into but we have to face this.

Post a reply to this message

> I think there is a lot to discuss and consider related to modern

> interested in joining our group if we restrict images to only what can be
> rendered simultaneously. More than anyone else POV-Ray-ers could benefit
> by a more open methodology allowing them to make essentially real-time
> adjustments to their scenes much of which is built into high-end

> any animation or image that is 3D regardless of how it was assembled so
> the conversation can be about that methodology and new techniques that
> have yet to be invented.
> 

   I think the original spirit of the competition always allowed that kind of
  layer-rendering, even if the original authors of the rules never thought on
this possibility. It was just some of the judges and entrants who thought
this was forbidden, but for me it is clear that anything affecting equally
all pixels was legal. Fortunately, I've a copy of the Rules and FAQ, and
specially the FAQ seems very clear to me:

> [1.1.11] Exactly what do you mean by "post-processing"? That means
> running any image-manipulation program on the image after it is rendered.
> Paint programs, photo manipulation programs, and the like are generally
> not allowed, except for a few explicit exceptions. We want the image to
> be the output of a renderer, not a human or special-effects program. One
> guideline that has been mentioned is that any process which affects every
> pixel in the image is usually okay, but that's not a hard and fast
> rule--it's just used to encompass gamma correction, resizing, conversion
> to JPEG format, and so forth, all of which are legal. Another guideline
> is, don't do anything to the image that you wouldn't be prepared to do
> for every frame of a 30-minute animation.

   In any case, to make it really clear that it is allowed, the new FAQ could
use an entry very similar to this old one, just replacing "parts" by "layers":

> [1.1.15] How about rendering my image in two / three / twenty-six parts
> and then combining them? Is that post-processing? It is post-processing,
> but it doesn't affect the actual pixels of the images, so it is perfectly
> legal.

   Regards,


--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Hildur K. wrote:
> The way I understand it, the issue Michael here is trying to raise is: 

> this a ideal time and opportunity to review the IRTC rules? Because 10+
 years
> is really a long time in the history of computer generated imaging.
> 
> And if this is a fact, that people claim, that the IRTC was meant to be
 for
> raytracing only, why are images that were created in other type of rend
erers
> being accepted? Why have they on several occasions won the competition?


tively,
> why would you want to vote down a wonderful computer generated image, s
imply

> 
	?? "Ray tracing" isn't a synonym for "Povray", or even for "free 
software" you know. Most commercial packages include a ray tracer 
and some very high end professional renderers are ray tracers 
(Mental Ray for example).

	Moreover, the "ray-tracing" in IRTC has always been taken to mean 
more "3D rendering" than strictly "ray tracing". IOW a valid image 
is an image that was created by the computer from a 3D model using 
3D algorithms even if those aren't strictly speaking "ray tracing".

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)

Well, I was replying to comments already made here, like:

"I think ultimately most considered IRTC to be a
coding contest..."



there is a wide variety and many of the winners were using modelers. I could
make a long list.






Hildur

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:28:42 -0400, Hildur K. wrote:

> Well, I was replying to comments already made here, like:
> 
> "I think ultimately most considered IRTC to be a coding contest..."
> 
> This is where I don´t agree.  

That's OK.  My history goes back quite a ways (back to the POVRAY forum 
on CompuServe) and that's my recollection from that time.  I haven't kept 
up with it.

> I myself couldn´t make an image in pure code even though my life
> depended on it. I´m sure I´m not the only one.

Neither could I, truth be told, at least not a very complex image.  
That's why if you look at the history, you'll see no submissions from me.

At the same time, if you look at some of the images Shay (I believe) has 
posted in p.b.i, I understand those are all pure code, and he's adamant 
he's not a coder (again IIRC).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

> Neither could I, truth be told, at least not a very complex image.
> That's why if you look at the history, you'll see no submissions from me.
>

make renderings in pure code?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:20:02 -0400, Hildur K. wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>> Neither could I, truth be told, at least not a very complex image.
>> That's why if you look at the history, you'll see no submissions from
>> me.
>>
> Let me see if I understand this right, have you not submitted because
> you don´t make renderings in pure code?

Correct, that and I haven't felt that anything I've done was particularly 
noteworthy.  I tended (in the past) to do just simple geometric shapes 
using Moray or (more recently) single objects with Wings3D or Blender.

I've also had very little success is coming up with textures that I 
thought looked good - but I haven't had the time to spend to learn how to 
do better.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Or it could be sticking a sequence of 3D renderings side-by-side to show a
sequence of events. Or it could be changing everything to sepia color. Or it









Maybe we should apply the same logic to the problem of post-processing. If what
it done overall is not sufficiently masterful in 3D then it just gets bad

shades of gray. Is that reasonable?


Submissions are expected to primarily demonstrate and document the use of 3D
software. Scores are awarded based on artistic, technical and conceptual merit.

That keeps the work about 3D, does not dictate methodology or tools. But allows
the IRTC community to applaud work that is most significant. What is

always, in the end, in the hands of the community to decide.



powerful, heart-felt work is not always pretty. If it means something more than


for size:

Submissions are expected to primarily demonstrate and document the use of 3D
software. Scores are awarded based on artistic/conceptual, and technical merit.






How about this:

Submissions are expected to primarily demonstrate and document the use of 3D
software. Scores are awarded based on artistic/conceptual, technical merit and
quality of documentation.

That puts us back at three scores per image.

So there you go! Problem solved. Right? Something missing?

Post a reply to this message

"Michael Hunter" <int### [at] onenet> wrote:

> Submissions are expected to primarily demonstrate and document the use of 3D
> software. Scores are awarded based on artistic/conceptual, technical merit and
> quality of documentation.
>
> That puts us back at three scores per image.
>
> So there you go! Problem solved. Right? Something missing?




based on a brilliant idea.

Post a reply to this message