 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapg inrafr> wrote in message
news:3f5c8cf5@news.povray.org...
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.jpg
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.txt
I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:3f5c92fe@news.povray.org...
> I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
> post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
From the feature list and screen shots
(http://www.ulead.com/cool3d/screen.htm) Cool 3D looks indeed like a 3D
modeller/renderer, but a highly specialised one for titles and 3D effects to
be used in websites, presentations and publications. So it's perhaps
blurring the line a little between 2D and 3D (hard to say without trying it)
but it's still within the rules IMHO.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>news:3f5c92fe[at]news.povray.org...
>> I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
>> post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
>
>From the feature list and screen shots
>(http://www://www.ulead.com/cool3d/screen.htm Cool 3D looks indeed like a 3D
>modeller/renderer, but a highly specialised one for titles and 3D effects to
>be used in websites, presentations and publications. So it's perhaps
>blurring the line a little between 2D and 3D (hard to say without trying it)
>but it's still within the rules IMHO.
I remembered that I have a copy of Cool3d that I used to create a band logo
awhile back. It is essentially the same as an old shareware program called
Xara3d. It does indeed toe the line between 2d & 3d. It basically take a
2d image such as a font, and extrudes it into a 3d shape. The extrusion
and rendering processes allow you to apply effects & filters much like in
2d programs like Photoshop.
Questionable whether it's truly 3d, since many of the effects/filters can
only be applied in the final render, not to the object itself, but I don't
really see any difference between that and post-process effects being done
in a render in for example Mega-POV. The rules don't say an effect has to
be 3d, they just say they have to be done in a 3d program. For the image in
question, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
> news:3f5c8cf5@news.povray.org...
>
> http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.jpg
> http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.txt
>
> I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
> post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
>
> -Shay
>
>
While we're on the topic, what about "Blue Cone". Does the technical
description make any sense? Too technical for me.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3f5d17e2@news.povray.org...
> While we're on the topic, what about "Blue Cone". Does the technical
> description make any sense? Too technical for me.
Ermmm... well... ahhhhh... important BFD sampling in a studio with some
models... sounds fun but exhausting...
The image description was more in my league... highly detailed, yet concise
and to the point.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gonzo wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
> news:3f5d17e2@news.povray.org...
>
>>While we're on the topic, what about "Blue Cone". Does the technical
>>description make any sense? Too technical for me.
>
>
> Ermmm... well... ahhhhh... important BFD sampling in a studio with some
> models... sounds fun but exhausting...
> The image description was more in my league... highly detailed, yet concise
> and to the point.
>
> RG
>
>
lol I guess it was the reference to large studio lights that unnerved me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message
news:3f53cddc@news.povray.org...
|
| Gonna be tough to score.
Ahhhhhhh! There are so many!
This is actually tough. I'm trying once again to leave some comment on
every image as I vote. Even keeping those comments very short, I find
that I can only get through a few images without taking a break. I try
to give "constructive" criticism on the images in which I see areas for
improvement, but this is of course awkward because I have done or
accomplished nothing to give myself the authority to do so. One thing is
for certain. If I ever submit a competitive entry for the IRTC, I will
need to do so under a false name in order to have any chance of winning.
My usual goal of 'second to last' place doesn't require such
politicking.lol
Just want to add that my last comment is not meant to be
self-deprecating. I find self-deprecation disgusting. I only meant that
if at least *one* person enjoys seeing one of my submissions (reflected
by my not getting last place) then it was worth rushing to complete an
entry by the deadline. Otherwise, I should have finished on my own time.
If I only wanted to antagonize, I could find more efficient ways of
doing so.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>This is actually tough. I'm trying once again to leave some comment on
>every image as I vote. Even keeping those comments very short, I find
>that I can only get through a few images without taking a break. I try
>to give "constructive" criticism on the images in which I see areas for
>improvement, but this is of course awkward because I have done or
>accomplished nothing to give myself the authority to do so.
Well, constructive to me isn't a matter of your credentials. Your authority
to do so is that you are a viewer. Even if I totally disagree with your
comment it is still a good reminder that not everyone views an image the
same way I do.
But this is a tough round to score, and even tougher to comment. The topic
is broad and many images have little or no comparison to anything real. I
also try to say something constructive but in this round I often can't tell
if what I'm seeing is intentional or not. I'm giving a lot of benefit of
doubt...
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message
news:web.3f5e3b4c32318703a0c272b50@news.povray.org...
|
| Well, constructive to me isn't a matter of your credentials.
| Your authority to do so is that you are a viewer.
You've got to admit that it is odd, however, for people in competition
to comment on each other's work. Having created an image yourself, you
have already shown clearly what you believe to be the best
interpretation of the topic. By criticizing someone's image, you are in
effect comparing it to your own, an act which is effectively your
creating a case for your own interpretation. It's really like some type
of twisted, passive-aggressive debate. Very surreal in itself if you
think about it.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.3f5e3b4c32318703a0c272b50@news.povray.org>, gonzo wrote:
>Well, constructive to me isn't a matter of your credentials. Your authority
>to do so is that you are a viewer. Even if I totally disagree with your
>comment it is still a good reminder that not everyone views an image the
>same way I do.
>
>But this is a tough round to score, and even tougher to comment. The topic
>is broad and many images have little or no comparison to anything real. I
>also try to say something constructive but in this round I often can't tell
>if what I'm seeing is intentional or not. I'm giving a lot of benefit of
>doubt...
>
I think that a lot of people think of "Surrealism" as pretty much "anything
goes." And so I see a lot of images that I would term abstract instead of
surreal. On the other other hand, I see some images that use abstract
components that are arranged in a surrealistic manner, and this makes it
difficult to judge, and it gets really subjective at that point.
My biggest problem with this round is that many of the really surrealistic-
feeling images recycled old ideas from established artists in the genre.
I got particularly tired of the clock theme from Dali, and one particular
image that I had rated very highly on the first pass, moved down considerably
after going back to it later. My own entry leaned on old cliches; perhaps
the whole topic is a bit worn out.
Anyway - back to your comment - when I see those images that "don't
relate to anything real," as you put it, I get very suspicious that what
I am seeing is in fact an abstract work rather than a surrealistic one. A very
common trait of Surrealism is that the objects are usually very recognizable,
perhaps normal at first glance, but obviously there is something "strange"
about them. The best surrealistic images, I thought, were the ones where the
author wasn't exactly sure what it meant. Some artists tried to tell a story
with their entries, or tried to make every little thing significant. Upon
reading their descriptions, their work moved from the surreal to the concrete
because the whole thing had been explained to me.
Significance in surrealism is accidental, the content is recognizable, yet
bizarre. I found that most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots
of low concept scores. I must admit that there was some beautiful art this
round, though. I gave out a number of 20s on that aspect. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
