 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Michael Hunter wrote:
> 1) You can use any tool to generate your model and textures. POV-coding is not
> required but is preferred.
Officially, POV isn't preferred. Technically, many judges (remember,
though, it's the entrants themselves who do the judging!) prefer POV
because they're more familiar with it, and so they can more easily judge
an author's effort and skill.
> 3) You must do the rendering in POV-Ray (Should this be with radiosity turned
> on?)
Wrong. The rendering must be raytraced. There are now literally dozens
if not hundreds of free raytracers you may use. POV is popular not
because the IRTC supports it in any way, but for precisely the opposite
reason: POV supports the IRTC. A large portion of the community is
introduced to the IRTC as "the" place to challenge yourself. No other
raytracer that I know of promotes the IRTC this heavily; thus, the
apparent (but nonexistent) bias.
> 4) You may not do any post-production on the final image or animation
Post-production which is general in nature is usually accepted, that is,
if the same operation is done to every pixel (like gamma correction).
Post-production used for artistic purposes, like color balance or focal
blur, are more controversial.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemail every1net> wrote:
> algorithm really is. Can I put it on my pasta?
Not a good idea. You might end up with...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_programming
;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> my personal opinion on that matter: This example sounds perfectly
> acceptable to me and could also be used to argue the point that it
> should be allowed to do more post-processing.
Then the IRTC becomes just another Photoshop contest site. Boring.
> If the above procedure actually has a better ratio of quality
> per render time than other anti-aliasing methods one might be
> allowed to ask: Why isn't the method built into the renderer?
Irrelevant. If the renderer doesn't support it, then it doesn't. The
reasons are rather irrelevant in this.
> Also, if I now build my own patched version of the renderer which
> implements this anti-aliasing method, is it suddenly ok to use it
> because it is now longer a separate post-processing step?
Yes. It's the direct output of the rendering software, not the direct
output of Photoshop or Gimp.
> Most global 2D effects could conceivably be implemented in SDL
> with multipass renders and evaluating pigments of the input image.
> Does this make it any more or less cheating?
Yes, because it's the result of a rendering software, not the result of
an image manipulation software.
> My recommendation would be to allow any kind of post-processing
> which is of a "general" nature
That's the problem: Defining what's allowed and what isn't becomes
really complicated, and you end up with a rule book thicker than the one
in Formula 1 racing. Don't you think *that* is going to discourage people?
The rule "no post-processing with external software allowed, period"
is simple and straightforward.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Then the IRTC becomes just another Photoshop contest site. Boring.
knowing the difference between a painted image or a photo or a raytraced image,
or can they easily be fooled?
Here is a quiz where people can test their capabilities to tell the difference?
http://dac.escet.urjc.es/rvmaster/rm/
> > If the above procedure actually has a better ratio of quality
> > per render time than other anti-aliasing methods one might be
> > allowed to ask: Why isn't the method built into the renderer?
>
> Irrelevant. If the renderer doesn't support it, then it doesn't. The
> reasons are rather irrelevant in this.
The reason for aliasing is usually shortcomings in the software and/or hardware.
It has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the artist. If the
rendering. Then we have an absolute beginner. Some scenes are difficult in this
regard, others are easy. If this can be solved in a quick and effective manner,
then it can save people enormous render times. Not everybody has an extra PC to
use while the other one is occupied doing a three week render. Is that
irrelevant?
Is it illegal to render big and then scale the image down? Because in the past
people did recommend that to me in comments, on a scene with a difficult AA
situation. Is it?
>
> > Also, if I now build my own patched version of the renderer which
> > implements this anti-aliasing method, is it suddenly ok to use it
> > because it is now longer a separate post-processing step?
>
> Yes. It's the direct output of the rendering software, not the direct
> output of Photoshop or Gimp.
If I do gamma corrections and add my name, is it then still a direct output from
the rendering software?
Is adjusting Levels a acceptable method of gamma correction? Because in PS,
there is no button named "gamma". Or should I stick with Brightness/Contrast?
> > Most global 2D effects could conceivably be implemented in SDL
> > with multipass renders and evaluating pigments of the input image.
> > Does this make it any more or less cheating?
>
> Yes, because it's the result of a rendering software, not the result of
> an image manipulation software.
> > My recommendation would be to allow any kind of post-processing
> > which is of a "general" nature
>
> That's the problem: Defining what's allowed and what isn't becomes
> really complicated, and you end up with a rule book thicker than the one
> in Formula 1 racing. Don't you think *that* is going to discourage people?
Not necessary to make it thick. Simply make a short list of allowed effects. The
rule of thumb could be (like it already is) that the process should affect every
pixel in the image. Then you could write down several options, like scaling,
blurring, gamma (how?), color correcting etc. How about glow? That is a post
effect in some raytracers.
>
> The rule "no post-processing with external software allowed, period"
> is simple and straightforward.
And often a liability and restriction to people who want to utilize the utmost
capabilities of the renderer, but have to choose between
reflections/isosurfaces/focal blur/radiosity and whatever, simply because you
The bottom line is that people using Povray should be very eager to change the
many of advanced processes almost demand you to have a supercomputer. Give
Hildur K.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
message de news: 4a389314$1@news.povray.org...
> Likewise, using a program like Moray to model a scene and export it to POV
> is OK; positioning figures in Poser and exporting them to your favorite
> raytracer is OK; rendering a scene using the scanline renderer in Blender
> is not.
>
The problem with the "raytracing" part is that the days of scanline vs
raytracing are long gone now. Modern renderers use and combine a wide array
of rendering techniques and even post-processing is sometimes built in the
rendering interface. For the end user, knowing what algorithm is actually
used may be fuzzy, particularly for commercial renderers. Raytracing is a
*** historical *** rendering method, that is still relevant in certain areas
(real-time rendering) but no longer prominent in production or even amateur
environment, at least as a stand-alone technology. Restricting the rendering
method to "raytracing" seems a step backward, unless the IRTC is meant to be
some sort of "good ole times" competition, just like there are vintage car
shows ;)
This is really the heart of the problem here. The IRTC was created at a time
where the most promising, best-looking rendering technology (raytracing) had
become affordable for amateurs so it was all kinds of exciting. But now this
makes really little sense outside the POV-Ray community, since the other
rendering engines (including some POV-Ray patches!) have gone far beyond
raytracing, and amateur 3D artists and coders have much more tools to play
with.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hildur K. <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote:
> The reason for aliasing is usually shortcomings in the software and/or hardware.
And that's what I want to see: What rendering software can do. I'm not
interested in seeing what Photoshop can do.
As I said, if you want to see what Photoshop can do, just google for
"photoshop contest". You should get plenty of results.
> It has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the artist.
A talented artist can probably create better images with a physical brush,
paint and canvas than most people with all the rendering software in the
world, and the work of these talented artists is extremely admirable. However,
I don't think the IRTC in particular is the proper website for their work.
> Is it illegal to render big and then scale the image down? Because in the past
> people did recommend that to me in comments, on a scene with a difficult AA
> situation. Is it?
IMO it should be (for the IRTC). Of course I'm not the one making the
decisions, so my opinion is rather inconsecuential.
> If I do gamma corrections and add my name, is it then still a direct output from
> the rendering software?
What did you use to make gamma corrections and add your name? Photoshop or
Gimp? Then it's *not* the direct output from the rendering software.
> Is adjusting Levels a acceptable method of gamma correction?
All kinds of external post-processing can be abused to create images
which the rendering software itself might not be capable of producing.
> Adding post effects in a 3D software is NOT raytracing, it??s an effect added on
> top of the image after it??s finished rendering.
Writing the image to a file in PNG format (or, for that matter, in any
format, even raw RGB) isn't raytracing either. So what? It's still something
which the *rendering software itself* is doing, rather than an external,
unrelated software.
> > > My recommendation would be to allow any kind of post-processing
> > > which is of a "general" nature
> >
> > That's the problem: Defining what's allowed and what isn't becomes
> > really complicated, and you end up with a rule book thicker than the one
> > in Formula 1 racing. Don't you think *that* is going to discourage people?
> Not necessary to make it thick. Simply make a short list of allowed effects.
Then the rules become rather arbitrary and illogical. Why those effects
in particular, and not others?
And as said, any such effects can be abused to produce visual effects
which the original rendering software might be unable to produce directly.
> The
> rule of thumb could be (like it already is) that the process should affect every
> pixel in the image.
A lens flare effect affects every pixel in the image, and thus it becomes
allowed by that rule of thumb.
And no, "it should affect every pixel the same amount" does not fix the
problem. For example gamma correction applies a different amount of change
to different pixels. And overall, it becomes difficult to define what is
meant by "the same amount of change".
> Then you could write down several options, like scaling,
> blurring, gamma (how?), color correcting etc. How about glow? That is a post
> effect in some raytracers.
Yes, let's make this a Photoshop contest while we are at it.
Or a contest about who can abuse the rules the most to achieve things
which have nothing to do with the rendering software.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> > It has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the artist.
>
> A talented artist can probably create better images with a physical brush,
> paint and canvas than most people with all the rendering software in the
> world, and the work of these talented artists is extremely admirable. However,
> I don't think the IRTC in particular is the proper website for their work.
I was referring to Anti Aliasing in this sentence. It could read, the ability to
get rid of AA artifacts in a not so perfect software (which could be any
software) has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the artist. It has
everything to do with the software being used.
>
> > Is it illegal to render big and then scale the image down? Because in the past
> > people did recommend that to me in comments, on a scene with a difficult AA
> > situation. Is it?
>
> IMO it should be (for the IRTC). Of course I'm not the one making the
> decisions, so my opinion is rather inconsecuential.
make smaller files than the more colorful ones. Should people making colorful
as big renderings and are not allowed to downsize and therefore have more
aliasing?
>
> > If I do gamma corrections and add my name, is it then still a direct output from
> > the rendering software?
>
> What did you use to make gamma corrections and add your name? Photoshop or
> Gimp? Then it's *not* the direct output from the rendering software.
Exactly. BTW, can you compress a jpg image in your renderer?
So what? It's still something
> which the *rendering software itself* is doing, rather than an external,
> unrelated software.
suffer? You want only those who can afford the expensive plug-in driven special
effects packages to enjoy their toys, when the rest using free tools just have
to live with what they have?
> Then the rules become rather arbitrary and illogical. Why those effects
> in particular, and not others?
You can argue that effects which are -relevant- to raytracing should be allowed.
Like effects which are already present in several well known software packages.
That would automatically exclude Photoshop only effects like painting with a
brush, and filters like canvas or brush strokes etc.
>
> And as said, any such effects can be abused to produce visual effects
> which the original rendering software might be unable to produce directly.
caught or not?
> A lens flare effect affects every pixel in the image, and thus it becomes
> allowed by that rule of thumb.
Maybe this is not a good rule, maybe it should be changed ;)
> Yes, let's make this a Photoshop contest while we are at it.
But right now we stand at a juncture. The IRTC has been down for more than two
years and is being resurrected. Which is quite a feat! This gives us as a
community, a very good opportunity to review the rules to find out what has
worked well in the past and what has not. Therefore we are having this
discussion because, like everything in this world, these rules may not be
perfect. There can always be room for improvement.
I personally would like to see moderate change of the rules, to give everybody
better room to make certain improvements to our work.
certain features and tools, which could easily come in handy from time to time
when my renderings need slight improvement.
>
> Or a contest about who can abuse the rules the most to achieve things
> which have nothing to do with the rendering software.
o.k. to do certain things.
Or, by being inflexible, you could be encouraging people to start using another
renderers with inbuilt post processing effects and thereby push them away from
using Povray. Is that your intention?
Hildur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote in message
news:4a38e15e@news.povray.org...
| "Chambers" <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> a crit dans
le
| message de news: 4a389314$1@news.povray.org...
| > Likewise, using a program like Moray to model a scene and export it
to POV
| > is OK; positioning figures in Poser and exporting them to your
favorite
| > raytracer is OK; rendering a scene using the scanline renderer in
Blender
| > is not.
| >
|
| The problem with the "raytracing" part is that the days of scanline vs
| raytracing are long gone now. Modern renderers use and combine a wide
array
| of rendering techniques and even post-processing is sometimes built in
the
| rendering interface. For the end user, knowing what algorithm is
actually
| used may be fuzzy, particularly for commercial renderers. Raytracing
is a
| *** historical *** rendering method, that is still relevant in certain
areas
| (real-time rendering) but no longer prominent in production or even
amateur
| environment, at least as a stand-alone technology. Restricting the
rendering
| method to "raytracing" seems a step backward, unless the IRTC is meant
to be
| some sort of "good ole times" competition, just like there are vintage
car
| shows ;)
|
| This is really the heart of the problem here. The IRTC was created at
a time
| where the most promising, best-looking rendering technology
(raytracing) had
| become affordable for amateurs so it was all kinds of exciting. But
now this
| makes really little sense outside the POV-Ray community, since the
other
| rendering engines (including some POV-Ray patches!) have gone far
beyond
| raytracing, and amateur 3D artists and coders have much more tools to
play
| with.
|
| G.
|
Gilles,
Which 'open source'/freeware renderers best represent your description
of
a post ray tracing software ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Michael Hunter" <int### [at] onenet> wrote:
> be considered minimum requirements for the competition."...
>
>
> The issue of a particular image or animation showing a good use of 3D is a
> matter I think is best left up to judging and comments and to be done on a case
> by case basis. Whereas the minimum requirements should only be used to maintain
> the focal point on 3D work. Nothing more.
>
> I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this...
Dear "Other Mike":
I have two basic points to make, after which I shall ramble on a bit for no
particularly good reason.
1. I am almost entirely in agreement with your position.
2. We (you and I as opposed to the human race generally) are doomed.
This situation is a specific case of a very basic choice that we poor
humans face repeatedly in the conduct of our social affairs, specifically:
Do we organize our interactions based primarily upon an assumption that
we shall, generally speaking, work together in good faith toward the
achievement of a common goal and structure our activities so as to
facilitate the best possible contributions from all those involved?
-or-
Do we proceed according to a competing assumption that our behavior will
be dominated by the pursuit of unenlightened self-interest and adopt
systems geared primarily toward the regulation and restraint of abhorrent
behavior?
I am (and believe that you may be) the sort of person who leans as heavily
as practicality will permit toward the former. I'd be quite happy to see
the IRTC conducted along the lines you suggest for the specific prupose
of encouraging the broadest possible range of creative contributions,
fully realizing that part of the price to be paid for this advantage
would be the likelihood that there would not always be perfect consensus
with regard to whether or not a given entry is sufficiently focused on
ray tracing as its method of production. It could even happen that
someone could be awarded a prize (gasp, shock and horror!) in a manner
not in accordance with a set of rigidly defined rules.
This is where we are doomed. I have seen this scenario played out many
times with only one outcome ever resulting.
The "It's all about the Art" position will be crushed by the "No, it's
ONLY about who WINS" position. The good news is that those of us who do
focus primarily upon the opportunity for artistic expression remain free
to do so regardless of the particular rule structure in place.
Conditions and limits can become a source of positive challenge and
inspiration rather than merely impediments if we choose to adopt that
positive frame of mind.
Yes, we could resolve this issue by loosening up our attachment to
regulation and control rather than tightening up the rules, but we
won't... and we know it.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:4a391791@news.povray.org...
> Gilles,
>
> Which 'open source'/freeware renderers best represent your description
> of a post ray tracing software ?
Indigo, Kerkythea, LuxRender for instance. There's also Yafaray, which is a
"reboot" of Yafray. It's described as a raytracer but supports other
rendering algorithms. Of course POV-Ray itself is also "post raytracing"
since it supports GI and photon mapping.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
