> 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

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:55:41 EDT, "Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net>
wrote:

>"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?
>

>

Nor me!


>based on a brilliant idea.
>

It is the Technical rating that gets to me. Being a Pover, albeit I use a
modeller. I feel that I can score Pov scenes on Technical but how can I rate
something that uses software I don't know about? 

Also a technically simple scene can look great so concept is important too.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

From: Hildur K




wash. The artistic score cancels out the rise in the conceptual score. Why or

or are we dictating that all images must be beautiful to win?

From: Stephen



it would be like comparing apples to oranges when you are judging technical

where someone has really done something extraordinary, say created their own
rendered.


would be something like:



must be made in PhotoShop and be mostly red with small black specks. The


In the end we could vote on how well people followed the instructions and the
round would be filled with red apples that all looked more or less the same.
Standardization may make judging easier but at the same time destroy the
diversity we all love in the competition.

I have thought for a while it might be less of a problem if there were only one
score given which would account for all of the positive aspects found in a

side is that you would be less able to know what aspect was liked or disliked


some other aspect no one considered that might show up in a round. For example


add anything else in the way of concept. So maybe in a round like that we might


Sure this is silly the next thing you know we would have dozens of aspects,

things you might say are being accounted for now but lumped under another


clear.

Personally I think I would like to make a spreadsheet with two dozen qualities I
look for. Judge each entry on each topic and give them a total as the score.

It seems now that there is more debate about scoring than what should be in the
competition. Should this be considered and endorsement of my first sentence as
the sole criteria for what constitutes an acceptable submission?

From: Michael Hunter



Then the bit about judging:
Scores are based on a variety criteria which may including but not limited to:
originality, difficulty, beauty or expressiveness and documentation.

I think this is how things have been judged anyway but this puts it in writing
and acknowledges the imprecise nature of voting.

Post a reply to this message