> * 3dcomwat.jpg - I am not sure about this.  It's an impressive picture,
> the text says:
>
> IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
>
> Depiction of part of the redevelopment of Brewery Wharf, Leeds.
>
> DESCRIPTION OF HOW THIS IMAGE WAS CREATED:
>
> The scene was modelled in autocad, the materials and lighting achieved in
> 3dviz,
> and the people, foliage and finishing touches completed in photoshop 6.
>
> Which leaves it unclear if it is created specifically for the IRTC and it
> seems to indicate that it is post processed in photoshop.


I'm unsure, but it's possible this means that they drew the people/foliage
in photoshop and then inserted them in the image as 2D image maps, which I
believe is legal. I'm not sure what "finishing touches" means, though.

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Yeah I checked that before resizing one of my entries a while ago, and no-one
> complained. Okay you can argue that resizing it is post-processing, but there
> are some 3D rendering systems that acheive anti-aliasing by simply rendering to
> a larger image then resizing it down.

  I started once a thread about resizing of IRTC entries here and the IRTC
admins all agreed that it's ok.
  I disagree with them, but there's nothing I can do about it.

  As far as I can understand the purpose of the contest and the rules is
to show what a renderer can create. Post-processing is not allowed because
then it wouldn't be solely the product of a renderer. The idea is to show
the "raw" quality and features of the renderer, not some painting program.

  The reason I disagree with the IRTC admins is that allowing resizing as
a post-processing stage can noticeably increase the visual quality of an
image. This means that the final image is not the sole product of the
renderer, but it has been enhanced by other means afterwards. The final
image is not something the renderer (by itself) is able to create.
  In my opinion, this violates the idea of the IRTC rules.

  (Naturally if the resizing trick is done by the renderer *itself* then
it's ok, because then it *is* something the renderer itself can produce.)

  For example, blurring the image as a post-processing step is not
allowed according to the rules. It's thus odd that resizing is allowed,
as enhancing antialiasing is not too much different from blurring (even
the actual code to perform one is very similar to the other).

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Well resizing only enhances the image if it was originally rendered at some much
higher resolution, which is something most of us avoid doing because the render
times go up so much. I see your point, but I guess what I'm saying is that a
renderer should be able to anti-alias to a reasonable level of quality, and that
the rendering overhead incurred in that is comparable to the render time needed
to do the higher res image. Obviously some renderers don't give you much control
over the anti-aliasing settings, so people like to do this post process.

I guess it's different from something like blur or lens flare, because multi
sampling an image is a very simple process that has clearly defined mathmatical
rules about how it should be done, but blur is a much more subjective artistic
thing. Any part of the image which represents creative input from the artist
should be done in the renderer, post processing should consist entirely of
adjusting the resulting image to be suitable for viewing in the irtc (hence
allowing brightness and contrast correction).

Obviously it's a fuzzy line, e.g. personally I never adjust brightness or
contrast, I don't see why I'd make a render that had that wrong in the first
place. But I don't see that resizing an image substantially alters how good it
is. I tend to judge people on their efforts, not the flaws in their renderer's
anti-aliasing.

Still, you have a point.

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com


"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3eb1a04e@news.povray.org...
> Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> > Yeah I checked that before resizing one of my entries a while ago, and
no-one
> > complained. Okay you can argue that resizing it is post-processing, but
there
> > are some 3D rendering systems that acheive anti-aliasing by simply rendering
to
> > a larger image then resizing it down.
>
>   I started once a thread about resizing of IRTC entries here and the IRTC
> admins all agreed that it's ok.
>   I disagree with them, but there's nothing I can do about it.
>
>   As far as I can understand the purpose of the contest and the rules is
> to show what a renderer can create. Post-processing is not allowed because
> then it wouldn't be solely the product of a renderer. The idea is to show
> the "raw" quality and features of the renderer, not some painting program.
>
>   The reason I disagree with the IRTC admins is that allowing resizing as
> a post-processing stage can noticeably increase the visual quality of an
> image. This means that the final image is not the sole product of the
> renderer, but it has been enhanced by other means afterwards. The final
> image is not something the renderer (by itself) is able to create.
>   In my opinion, this violates the idea of the IRTC rules.
>
>   (Naturally if the resizing trick is done by the renderer *itself* then
> it's ok, because then it *is* something the renderer itself can produce.)
>
>   For example, blurring the image as a post-processing step is not
> allowed according to the rules. It's thus odd that resizing is allowed,
> as enhancing antialiasing is not too much different from blurring (even
> the actual code to perform one is very similar to the other).
>
> --
> #macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
> [1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
> -1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote in message news:3eb1988d$1@news.povray.org...
> I'm unsure, but it's possible this means that they drew the people/foliage
> in photoshop and then inserted them in the image as 2D image maps, which I
> believe is legal. I'm not sure what "finishing touches" means, though.

I was thinking that, but if you look at the trees in the middle of the building,
you'll see they cast no shadow. This suggests they were added afterwards. Though
if that's the case with all the trees he's done a lot of work in photoshop to
fake those reflections!

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>> Yeah I checked that before resizing one of my entries a while ago, and
>> no-one complained. Okay you can argue that resizing it is
>> post-processing, but there are some 3D rendering systems that acheive
>> anti-aliasing by simply rendering to a larger image then resizing it
>> down.
> 
>   I started once a thread about resizing of IRTC entries here and the IRTC
> admins all agreed that it's ok.
>   I disagree with them, but there's nothing I can do about it.
> 
>   As far as I can understand the purpose of the contest and the rules is
> to show what a renderer can create. Post-processing is not allowed because
> then it wouldn't be solely the product of a renderer. The idea is to show
> the "raw" quality and features of the renderer, not some painting program.
> 
>   The reason I disagree with the IRTC admins is that allowing resizing as
> a post-processing stage can noticeably increase the visual quality of an
> image. This means that the final image is not the sole product of the
> renderer, but it has been enhanced by other means afterwards. The final
> image is not something the renderer (by itself) is able to create.
>   In my opinion, this violates the idea of the IRTC rules.
> 
>   (Naturally if the resizing trick is done by the renderer *itself* then
> it's ok, because then it *is* something the renderer itself can produce.)
> 
>   For example, blurring the image as a post-processing step is not
> allowed according to the rules. It's thus odd that resizing is allowed,
> as enhancing antialiasing is not too much different from blurring (even
> the actual code to perform one is very similar to the other).
> 

Well why can't we post our 10MB PNG images then? *G*

Post a reply to this message

> So if indeed the intention of the IRTC admins is to allow resizing
> operations some clarification of the rules would be good.

I agree.  The rules should specifically allow for it, since it is apparely
ok.

For my last entry in Old Technology, resizing would have fixed a focal blur
problem that I had (not enough samples) that simply would have been
practically impossible otherwise, afaik.  To use the number of samples that
I needed to get rid of the artifacts, I would have had to render forever,
but to render the image at 4X would have only taken about 8 days.  Either
way, I didn't have enough time, so the graininess remained.  Nobody seemed
to notice, though.  Incidentally, the 1600x1200 version on the Hi-Res page
was simply resized from the 3200x2400 version, and it looks better than any
other size as a result.

Having said all of that, I perfectly understand your point.  I was able to
"fix" something via resizing that I would not have been able to fix in my
renderer.  That makes me somewhat nervous that people would use resizing in
that way in the IRTC.  I think my response in the mailing list said
something along the lines of it being a trade-off or perhaps gamble.  If you
leave the artifacts are you more likely to be judged lower than if you
resize the image to remove them?

-- 
Slash

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 01 May 2003 21:51:13 +0200
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> 
> Browsed through the images of this round for the first time - a lot of
> very interesting images but i think there are a few possible rule
> violations:
> 
> * home.jpg - 3 images put together in an imaging program, it is
> clearly mentioned in the text file, probably the author was just not
> aware of the rules.

Stills FAQ, 1.1.20:

Q: Can I enter an image that is a composite of two or more views of the
same scene, perhaps from different angles? That is, can I submit the
larger image, with a "detail" panel in it?    

A: Yes. Although this is, strictly speaking, post-processing, it does
not affect the actual pixels of the image. Just make sure that it's
obvious what you did and why, and perhaps note in your text what is
going on. 

> * 3dcomwat.jpg - I am not sure about this.  It's an impressive
> picture, the text says:

  For what I can see on the image, the persons do not seem added over
the rendered image, but used as thin figures on the scene. This is a
technique used widely on architecture renders. Look at the shadows and
the borders of the figures, they are perfectly integrated. Even the
reflection is right on terms of perspective! 

> * m_fairyt.jpg and jg_w3way.jpg - resized from larger renders
> according to the text file.  The latter elaborates on the problem and
> states this is not a violation of the rules referring to a discussion
> in the IRTC mailing list.  I have not followed the mailing list
> closely recently but this quite clearly is not right.  

Stuills FAQ, 1.1.14:

Q: Is it legal to resize my image after it is rendered?    
A: Yes, it is. Be careful doing it, though--unless done correctly,
resizing can often add unwanted visual artifacts to an image.

Note: I know this one is outdated because today resizing techniques on
the average program are much better, but it is on the FAQ, so it is a
sort of "approved" behavior until revised by the admins.

P.S.: As always, I prefer the way "let's the judges decide".

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres		
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> 
> 
> > * 3dcomwat.jpg - I am not sure about this.  It's an impressive
> > picture, the text says:
> 
>   For what I can see on the image, the persons do not seem added over
> the rendered image, but used as thin figures on the scene. This is a
> technique used widely on architecture renders. Look at the shadows and
> the borders of the figures, they are perfectly integrated. Even the
> reflection is right on terms of perspective!

Well, the relections are quite clearly 'fake' (they have quite some
inconsistencies when you look closely).  Whether they are added afterwards
or just a painted reflection map used in the render can't be said for sure
of course.  Same applies for the tree that lack's a shadow (shadows could
be simply turned off for it although there is no obvious reason why one
should do that).  

> 
> Note: I know this one is outdated because today resizing techniques on
> the average program are much better, but it is on the FAQ, so it is a
> sort of "approved" behavior until revised by the admins.

As already said i agree on that - if the FAQ allowes something although
the rules don't it can't be forbidden.

> P.S.: As always, I prefer the way "let's the judges decide".

In that case you should have a rule 'allow everything but require to
describe what techniques are used'.  Otherwise the judge can't decide
because he does not know (this in fact is a problem about all images with
near to no description in the text file).  

I want to make clear that i don't have anything against any of the images
discussed in this thread, i just think if there are rules they should be
clear and objective and they have to be enforced.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>On Thu, 01 May 2003 21:51:13 +0200
>Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>
>> * 3dcomwat.jpg - I am not sure about this.  It's an impressive
>> picture, the text says:
>
>  For what I can see on the image, the persons do not seem added over
>the rendered image, but used as thin figures on the scene. This is a
>technique used widely on architecture renders. Look at the shadows and
>the borders of the figures, they are perfectly integrated. Even the
>reflection is right on terms of perspective!
>

That seems to be the case for the foreground figures, but the plants in the
middle of the image neither cast or receive shadows.  The bushes in the
middle right should clearly be in the shadow of the building, yet the
lighting is exactly the same as the bushes further to the left in bright
sunlight. (and they look like the same bushes for that matter...)

A good reason why one should put more info in the textfile.

RG

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 May 2003 18:45:39 +0200
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> Well, the relections are quite clearly 'fake' (they have quite some
> inconsistencies when you look closely).  Whether they are added
> afterwards or just a painted reflection map used in the render can't
> be said for sure of course.  Same applies for the tree that lack's a
> shadow (shadows could be simply turned off for it although there is no
> obvious reason why one should do that).  

  Hmmm... now that I look closer I see that tree without shadow... and
also notice now the bushes thing noted by Gonzo. It seems fake, but I
can't understand why, being so easy to cheat *inside* the renderer (for
me much more than postprocesing shadows and reflections later). 

> I want to make clear that i don't have anything against any of the
> images discussed in this thread, i just think if there are rules they
> should be clear and objective and they have to be enforced.

  I think the rules are clear enough, but they are there for the judges
mainly. Historically, except on extreme cases, were the judges
who "disqualified" illegal images by rating it poorly, and I think this
worked well to the date. At least for an amateur competition withouth
prizes, administered on free time basis.

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres
		
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message