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.

* 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.  

* 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.  

Resizing an image, no matter if a trivial resize (leaving out certain
pixels) or a more sophisticated one (filtering before and/or
interpolation) is a violation of the current rules.  There are only three
exceptions from the post processing disallowance:

i.You may convert images to JPEG format. 
ii.You may add text information (name, title, email address, copyright
etc...) to your image. 
iii.You may gamma-correct and contrast/brightness adjust the image. 

Everyone may of course think about this making sense or not as he/she
wants to and the IRTC admins could change this but the rules are clear as
they are right now.  

In my personal opinion the current rules are good since they draw a clear
line (only allowing modifications working on the individual pixels of the
image like brightness/contrast/gamma adjustments).  Allowing resizing but
disallowing convolution matrix filters (sharpen/soften, etc.) would
technically not make sense. 

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

Please tell me, where do you get to see the entrances for the architecture

yet?
Have they? Or are you referring to ftp? Can you give me the url?

Thanks, Hildur

Post a reply to this message

> * home.jpg
3 images, not one render, sounds like violation.

> * 3dcomwat.jpg
Sounds like they admit violating the rules by adding people via photoshop.
The people don't look 3D, so that's probably the case.

> * m_fairyt.jpg and jg_w3way.jpg
I must disagree with you here and quote the FAQ (yes, I'm FAQ-happy today
indeed).
"[1.1.14] Is it legal to resize my image after it is rendered?
Yes, it is. Be careful doing it, though--unless done correctly, resizing can
often add unwanted visual artifacts to an image. "
and
"[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."

-- 
Slash

Post a reply to this message

We're sneeky and get them from here, before the Web page is updated. ;-)
http://www.irtc.org/stills/2003-04-30/view.html

-- 
Slash
"Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote in message
news:web.3eb18860cf1d146abbba8c650@news.povray.org...
> Please tell me, where do you get to see the entrances for the architecture

> yet?
> Have they? Or are you referring to ftp? Can you give me the url?
>
> Thanks, Hildur
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

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.

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


"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3eb18ce7$1@news.povray.org...
> > * home.jpg
> 3 images, not one render, sounds like violation.
>
> > * 3dcomwat.jpg
> Sounds like they admit violating the rules by adding people via photoshop.
> The people don't look 3D, so that's probably the case.
>
> > * m_fairyt.jpg and jg_w3way.jpg
> I must disagree with you here and quote the FAQ (yes, I'm FAQ-happy today
> indeed).
> "[1.1.14] Is it legal to resize my image after it is rendered?
> Yes, it is. Be careful doing it, though--unless done correctly, resizing can
> often add unwanted visual artifacts to an image. "
> and
> "[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."
>
> --
> Slash
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Slashdolt wrote:
> 
> [...]
> I must disagree with you here and quote the FAQ (yes, I'm FAQ-happy today
> indeed).
> "[1.1.14] Is it legal to resize my image after it is rendered?
> Yes, it is. Be careful doing it, though--unless done correctly, resizing can
> often add unwanted visual artifacts to an image. "

All right, when 'resizing' without any further specification is allowed in
the FAQ that is a good argument.  None the less this - as i said - renders
the post processing disallowance quite meaningless in terms of filters
applied to the image.  Most better resizing functions use some kind of
filtering internally.  

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

artefacts without resizing afterwards, see for example:

http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2002-04-30/frosted.txt

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

> * 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