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

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> 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
>
> ;-)

Great! :-)

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:4a37676f@news.povray.org...
> I must admit that if the main(?) focus of the IRTC is the technical focus, 
> then I sadly loose interest. I thought that the IRTC was a platform to 
> create (and show) beautiful images through ray-tracing, whatever the 
> technical background.

I quite agree, I wasn't trying to argue for a more technical focus, I was 
just pointing out that the unique combination of rules (which are mostly 
technical in nature) is the reason the IRTC has attracted it's particular 
fan-base, and that any change (towards less rules, or for that matter more 
rules) will make it something us IRTC devotees are less interested in.

Now, if at some future point the IRTC community were to be dwindling and the 
project seemed like it was only appealing to an ever smaller group of 
fanatics, then perhaps some adjustment would be justified. But I think this 
new IRTC should be given a fair chance before anyone goes changing the 
rules.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> And overall, it becomes difficult to define what is
> meant by "the same amount of change".

Allow change C:Image->Image if there exists f:RGB->RGB
with f(I(x,y))) = C(I)(x,y) for each location (x,y)?

But to rescue anti-aliasing it would need to be extended
to small neighborhoods instead of individual pixels ;)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Yes. It's the direct output of the rendering software, not the direct
> output of Photoshop or Gimp.

Hmm, suppose someone patches the graphics windows of POV-Ray
so you can do editing there like you could in Gimp ... would it
be output from rendering software? If not, in what way would
it be different from implementing a post-processing step
which is inherently 2d such as the above AA algorithm?

Sorry can't help playing devils advocate here ;)

I agree that not all post-processing should be allowed, and I
couldn't get decent results out of a 2d paint program anyway.
It just feels to me that the criterion "was touched with
photoshop" = "bad" and "direct result of rendering software
which also supports 3d" = "good" may be too simple.

Post a reply to this message