Txemi Jendrix wrote:
>Not at all.

I can understand your feelings. This round's results do leave a bad taste.
I don't want to point fingers or start flame wars, but to my admittedly
untrained eye (and judging by the comments, others eyes as well...) there
appeared to be a group of images in this round that were roundly slammed by
someone(s). Unfortunate, but one aspect of the voting system used in the
IRTC is that to someone who doesn't give a damn about fair, or the rules*,
it can be easy to sabotage.

>Talking seriously, I'm considering not to enter anymore.

But I would hate to see you drop out.  Your entries and input are always
good (and El Ojo is a personal favorite!) and that is exactly what is
needed. Dropping out because of a bad round just means that the competition
becomes nothing more than a shoving match for immature egos.

Errant as this rounds results were, I do not think this is the case in every
round. Most rounds I think the voting is fair, and the artists are
participating for the knowledge & experience.  Do not take that away from
yourself and others because of the behavior of a small minority.

>Actually I'm going to enter for the current round, but
>just because it's a kind of birthday (my 1st IRTC

Happy birthday, this last round was my POV birthday... my 1st POV image was
1 year ago.

>entry was for the september-october round back in
>1998, 5 years ago), and also 'cos I have almost completed
>my entry.

And I'll look forward to this one too.

I do hope your considering is still in flux...

RG - *rules?  did anyone else besides a couple of commenters note the
copyright date on this webpage? http://www.c0d3m0nk3y.com

Post a reply to this message

In article <3f72017b@news.povray.org>, Txemi Jendrix wrote:
>Not at all.
>Talking seriously, I'm considering not to enter anymore.
>Actually I'm going to enter for the current round, but
>just because it's a kind of birthday (my 1st IRTC
>entry was for the september-october round back in
>1998, 5 years ago), and also 'cos I have almost completed
>my entry.

Txemi, your entries are some of the best. I especially liked "Leonardo".
You need to keep entering so that people who browse the IRTC are aware
of your art. If it weren't for your IRTC entry, I wouldn't have visited
your web site, and would have missed out on all the neat pictures you've
made.

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

I liked the results overall, even if the overall winner is slightly
off-topic. The only notable omission for me, amongst the winners, was
"Fungi", that I found quite intriguing and well executed.

So, cheers to the winners!

Post a reply to this message

I agree with Peter.  You probably have a lot of fans that you never
realized.  I always look forward to your pictures.  Your modelling is often
incredible.

As far as the IRTC this round, I read one of the image text files that said
something like, "This image sucks, and I only entered it because I wanted to
vote this round, and I'm 12 years old."  It was the image of the giant hand
reaching for the car.  While somewhat impressive for a 12 year old, knowing
that a 12-year-old was voting on the images is somewhat unsettling.
Additionally, only about one quarter of the people who entered actually
voted.  That's not normal.

Personally, I don't find the images at the top to be that far off the mark.
As I pointed out in another post, the gap between the top 4 was pretty
small.  IMHO, POVPlanet lacked in concept, but in artistic and technical, I
think it's quite good.  It may not have had my highest vote, but often the
winners never do.

I've often wondered why Digital Blasphemy's (Ryan Bliss) "Fluorescence"
image has always been so popular (the blue-glowing mushrooms), since it's
not very complex.  It may have never won the IRTC even if the topic was
"Mushrooms", and yet it's probably one of the most popular digital images of
all time.  I would guess that most of us would probably pick an image with
more complexity.

-- 
Jeremy

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:3f71e857@news.povray.org...
|
| I haven't tried a daylight scene yet. Any pointers?

Radiosity + area_light.

|
| I don't mind any REAL suggestions at all.

Don't forget that this suggestion is from someone who placed well below
you.lol

|
| Hmm... too cluttered? I like the idea, though.

I don't mean clutter. What I mean is decreasing the "size" of your scene
and in doing so decreasing the number of elements a viewer expects to
see. This removes the empty look of many scenes. The best example I can
think of is a picture gallery. If you were to model a picture gallery,
you would need a certain number of paintings for each unit space of
wall. If you hung a single bulb fixture in the middle of the ceiling,
then the viewer would expect the gallery to be bedroom sized, and you
would only need to include a few paintings. If you put in an exposed
beam ceiling with dozens of light fixtures, then the viewer would expect
the gallery to be stadium sized, and you would need to include hundreds
of paintings.

That's just stadium sized. A person sees a flat horizon at nine *miles*,
so when you show the unobscured horizon in your pictures, a viewer
expects to see many square miles worth of scene elements!! As large as a
mountain is, it's area is many many times smaller than the viewable flat
land it obscures. So, just by adding a mountain to your scene, you have
decreased the viewer's element expectation by over ninety-nine percent!!

It's can also be a good idea to limit the viewers "imagination eye" from
wondering off the sides of the picture. "Radio Graves" is a good
example. The sides of the fence around the radios is of course not
visible, but the imagination still recognizes it as a barrier. This is
why no partially cut-off radios are needed to suggest that the elements
continue. The elements don't need to continue, because they are not
expected to.

I've noticed that ninety-nine percent of pictures which show the horizon
are pictures of water, because a viewer's imagination expects water to
be empty and will not question a lack of elements over the many "miles"
he can see.

Of course, don't take my advice too seriously on this. I don't put
together pictures according to that formula at all!!!lol For "scenes",
however, I think this is the way to increase your score, though how you
could value a high score after seeing the results of the last round is
puzzling to me.

|
| I think I should have entered this...     :o[

Yeah, you've done exactly what I'm taking about. You've cut down the
area to only a few virtual square feet. I'll bet this picture would have
scored much higher that the one you did enter.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

I think most of us POVers have a hidden desire to win the IRTC, but the more I've
entered the more I've realized this isn't the
point.

Just because an image wins doesn't mean it's the best.  Art is so subjective there can
never be a best.  Everyone has a different
idea about what is appealing and what's not.  I love raytracing, but in general have
very little time to actually spend working on
images.  The IRTC gives me a broad topic to think about, a deadline, and some
guarantee that a large audience will at least look at
my work for a few seconds.  This spurs me to squeeze the time into my busy life to do
what I love to do.  Does my heart race when I
see "the results are in"?   Sure, but no matter what the results, as long as I'm happy
with the look and feel of my image, who won
or lost is irrelevant.  More important are the comments.  Comments, good or bad, are
proof that you inspired a reaction in your
audience.  If I received absolutely no comments on an image, I might then feel like a
loser, knowing that my effort wasn't even able
to invoke a complaint. ;-)

Don't enter to win.  Enter to learn and grow.  To be honest, my mind hasn't even
associated a name with the current winning image.
But over time, seeing consistently artistic and well executed images from certain
individuals brings more credibility and name
recognition than any single win.  Let's take Gilles as an example.  Gilles isn't a
famous POVer because he won the IRTC.  He's a
famous POVer because he consistently does artistic, well executed work, and pushes the
boundaries of what can be done with our
humble POV.

Don't enter to win.  You'll just set yourself up for disappointment.  Enter so that
you're part of the POV community.  Enter so that
there's a permanent record of your growth as a digital artist.  Enter so that you can
learn to accept the infinite number of
opinions that your work will inspire in people.  Enter so that I can look forward to
viewing and commenting on your next and better
image.

Andrew Wilcox

Post a reply to this message

"Txemi Jendrix" <tji### [at] euskalnetnet> wrote in message
news:3f72017b@news.povray.org...
|
| Not at all.
| Talking seriously, I'm considering not to enter anymore.

Ouch. That's pretty serious. But if you're not getting what you want to
out of it, then you'll only piss yourself off by *not* stepping away. I
certainly wouldn't subject myself to that standard. I saw where one
person gave the winning entry (prob. about 50 lines of code) a nineteen
for technical merit.

Alternately, you could look at understanding the IRTC judging as a sort
of game, and continue to compete by trying to figure out the rules and
then play by them. Sort of a "when in Rome" type of thing. There is
actually a game show on where idiots are found and interviewed, and
contestants attempt to guess which common knowledge questions the idiots
will be able to answer correctly.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

> POVPlanet lacked in concept, but in artistic and technical, I
> think it's quite good.

I made a mistake when voting : for off-topic images I rated Artistic and
technical Merit as honestly as I could, but I was wrong, I think, now that
an off-topic image should be rated (1, 1, 1) : think of an image by Gilles
Tran, "in vitro" for instance, which IMHO is a great image :
http://www.oyonale.com/ldc/francais/invitro.htm, if Gilles had entered a
round whose topic is "railroads" I could have rated him (19, 19, 1) and he
can reach a place in the top-ten which would not have been fair to other
competitors.

Just my opinion

Philippe Gibone

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> a écrit dans le message de
news:3f72f09b$1@news.povray.org...
> I've often wondered why Digital Blasphemy's (Ryan Bliss) "Fluorescence"
> image has always been so popular (the blue-glowing mushrooms), since it's
> not very complex.  It may have never won the IRTC even if the topic was
> "Mushrooms", and yet it's probably one of the most popular digital images
of
> all time.  I would guess that most of us would probably pick an image with
> more complexity.


I guess that its popularity is mostly an artefact of Zazzle's "best-seller"
feature in the pre-beta phase, which was actually a "most clicked" feature.
"Fluorescence" was one of the first really good images at Zazzle, got
clicked on a
lot when Zazzle was young and it got stuck forever on the top list, since
people
would click on the first images of the list.

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
>
> -- 
> Jeremy
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Andrew Wilcox" <awi### [at] unpuzzledcom> wrote in message
news:3f7305a1$1@news.povray.org...


> If I received absolutely no comments on an image, I might then feel
like a loser,
> knowing that my effort wasn't even able to invoke a complaint. ;-)

   To be honest, I did feel like a loser because of the lack of
comments for my image. I was expecting some great comments, but didn't
really get many for improving my scene apart from Shay's input and a
couple of others. Yes, I think you're right that most of us DO
secretly want to win, and why not? For me, it adds to the excitement!
I hardly ever enter any other kind of competition and rarely play the
UK lottery, so yes, it's exciting, but can be a little disappointing
too.

  As for the rest of your post Andrew, you should be a politician.
20/20 for concept.

   Nice post.  ;)

   ~Steve~





> Andrew Wilcox
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3f72fb9a@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message
news:3f71e857@news.povray.org...
> |
> | I haven't tried a daylight scene yet. Any pointers?
>
> Radiosity + area_light.

   Ok, that's fine, I'll give it a bash.


>
> |
> | I don't mind any REAL suggestions at all.
>
> Don't forget that this suggestion is from someone who placed well
below
> you.lol

    Heh... Well, I'm sure I'll beat that and get a little lower than
you one day... <g>

>
> |
> | Hmm... too cluttered? I like the idea, though.
>
> I don't mean clutter. What I mean is decreasing the "size" of your
scene
> and in doing so decreasing the number of elements a viewer expects
to
> see. This removes the empty look of many scenes. The best example I
can
> think of is a picture gallery. If you were to model a picture
gallery,
> you would need a certain number of paintings for each unit space of
> wall. If you hung a single bulb fixture in the middle of the
ceiling,
> then the viewer would expect the gallery to be bedroom sized, and
you
> would only need to include a few paintings. If you put in an exposed
> beam ceiling with dozens of light fixtures, then the viewer would
expect
> the gallery to be stadium sized, and you would need to include
hundreds
> of paintings.
>
> That's just stadium sized. A person sees a flat horizon at nine
*miles*,
> so when you show the unobscured horizon in your pictures, a viewer
> expects to see many square miles worth of scene elements!! As large
as a
> mountain is, it's area is many many times smaller than the viewable
flat
> land it obscures. So, just by adding a mountain to your scene, you
have
> decreased the viewer's element expectation by over ninety-nine
percent!!
>
> It's can also be a good idea to limit the viewers "imagination eye"
from
> wondering off the sides of the picture. "Radio Graves" is a good
> example. The sides of the fence around the radios is of course not
> visible, but the imagination still recognizes it as a barrier. This
is
> why no partially cut-off radios are needed to suggest that the
elements
> continue. The elements don't need to continue, because they are not
> expected to.
>
> I've noticed that ninety-nine percent of pictures which show the
horizon
> are pictures of water, because a viewer's imagination expects water
to
> be empty and will not question a lack of elements over the many
"miles"
> he can see.
>
> Of course, don't take my advice too seriously on this. I don't put
> together pictures according to that formula at all!!!lol

  Heheh... You'll have to try it one day then... but you're kidding
that I can't take this too seriously, it's great advice to me and
makes sense, and I've actually saved it to a text file. Thanks.



For "scenes",
> however, I think this is the way to increase your score, though how
you
> could value a high score after seeing the results of the last round
is
> puzzling to me.

    I think that it puzzled more than a few people...

>
> |
> | I think I should have entered this...     :o[
>
> Yeah, you've done exactly what I'm taking about. You've cut down the
> area to only a few virtual square feet. I'll bet this picture would
have
> scored much higher that the one you did enter.

  My thoughts exactly.

    ~Steve~


>
>  -Shay
>
>

Post a reply to this message

If I may add something...

> Enter so that you're part of the POV community.

While I agree with pretty much everything you said, there are people (like
me) who want to take part of the IRTC, but do not use POV. If I succeed on
submitting an entry to the current contest (and that, unfortunately, is a
big IF because of Real Life (TM) getting in the way), it will be probably be
rendered by Pixie or another free, open source Renderman compliant renderer,
because of the speed and flexibility that I can't find (yet) in POV.
However, I'd like to feel I'm part of the IRTC community, even if I'm not a
POV'er. Of course, the IRTC tends to be POV-centric, but all renderers are
allowed.

For the record, I've used POV for many years, since POV 2.2, I guess (I
can't remember the version, but one of the examples was a green glass ball
inside a framed box, with some odd reflection above... very cool picture...
around 1995, IIRC). But I can't afford the CPU time to use it right now, and
I'm really into Renderman (fiddling with shaders can be serious *fun*).
Also, I want to make a point on using only Free, open-source software, which
POV isn't (technically, because of the license).

On everything else, I couldn't agree more with you.

Best regards,

Roberto

P.S.: Also, looking back at this post, I think I might be an excellent LISP
programmer. I didn't notice before how I use so many parenthesis. :-)

Post a reply to this message

"Txemi Jendrix" <tji### [at] euskalnetnet> wrote in message
news:3f72017b@news.povray.org...

> Talking seriously, I'm considering not to enter anymore.

    Hey, I'm a fan, you've got to enter! Seriously, don't give up on
it, you've got a lot to offer.

    ~Steve~



> Txemi Jendrix
> http://www.txemijendrix.com
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:3f732af9@news.povray.org...
|
| Heh... Well, I'm sure I'll beat that and get a little lower than
| you one day... <g>

yer on.

|
|   Heheh... You'll have to try it one day then...

This is the funny thing:
A friend wants to start a competition between the two of us where we
would model space ships, so my next major project (set of course in
outer space) may be the exact opposite of all of that.

I am almost strictly 2.5D, but I can't resist the opportunity to model
all of those intricate little space ship details. If we do it, we're
going to do an apples to apples comparison. We will both be re-designing
a Klingon D7. If it's official, I may post in p.o-t to see if I can find
some other joiners.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Well, I certainly didn't mean to exclude anyone not using POV.  I should have said
RayTracing community rather than POV community.
I'm a die hard POVer, so sometimes my view of the IRTC is slightly warped. :-)

Andrew Wilcox

(Isn't that what they call back-peddaling.)

Post a reply to this message

It's not just Zazzle.  I've seen people who know nothing about Zazzle who
have had it as wall-paper.  Perhaps it's just had lots of exposure in
general.

I'll admit that it's oddly compelling.

-- 
Jeremy
"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:3f732613$3@news.povray.org...
>
> I guess that its popularity is mostly an artefact of Zazzle's
"best-seller"
> feature in the pre-beta phase, which was actually a "most clicked"
feature.
> "Fluorescence" was one of the first really good images at Zazzle, got
> clicked on a
> lot when Zazzle was young and it got stuck forever on the top list, since
> people
> would click on the first images of the list.
>
> G.
>
> -- 
>
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters
> >
> > -- 
> > Jeremy
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3f733ce5@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message
news:3f732af9@news.povray.org...
> |
> | Heh... Well, I'm sure I'll beat that and get a little lower than
> | you one day... <g>
>
> yer on.

     Ten bucks says you'll lose. <shakes Shays hand>  ;)


>
> |
> |   Heheh... You'll have to try it one day then...
>
> This is the funny thing:
> A friend wants to start a competition between the two of us where we
> would model space ships, so my next major project (set of course in
> outer space) may be the exact opposite of all of that.

    That would be interesting to see.

>
> I am almost strictly 2.5D,

    You're into 2D as well?

but I can't resist the opportunity to model
> all of those intricate little space ship details.

   And 3D too?!   ;)


If we do it, we're
> going to do an apples to apples comparison. We will both be
re-designing
> a Klingon D7. If it's official, I may post in p.o-t to see if I can
find
> some other joiners.

   Give it a go, and post a 'taster'. I'd be glad to help if I can. My
kind of image.

    ~Steve~


>
>  -Shay
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> Well, I certainly didn't mean to exclude anyone not using POV.  I should
have
> said RayTracing community rather than POV community.
> I'm a die hard POVer, so sometimes my view of the IRTC is slightly warped.
:-)

No problem at all, I've been there. :-)

> (Isn't that what they call back-peddaling.)

Well, I have no idea. English is my second language, and literal translation
of the above to my native language doesn't mean much. :-D

Best regards!!!

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:3f735b33@news.povray.org...

|Shay:
| I am almost strictly 2.5D,

|Steve:
| You're into 2D as well?

Not 2D, 2.5D. What I mean by that is that most of my pictures have
*much* larger x and y than z dimensions, basically showing the patterns
and details of something without bothering to show the shape of that
thing or its relation to its surroundings.

|Steve:
| And 3D too?!   ;)

Well, my IRTC entry is the closest I've gotten to 3D in a while, but the
ship would of course be 3D.

|Steve:
|    Give it a go, and post a 'taster'. I'd be glad to help
| if I can.

Give it a go with us! I'd like to see what you come up with. We still
haven't come up with a good way to choose the winner, but will likely
try to find some sci-fi fans to decide.

|Steve:
| My kind of image.

It really isn't mine and I'm not even a Star Trek fan. BUT, a friend who
is started talking about what a good design the original Klingon D7s
were and how poorly they were developed in the movies. He gave me an
interest in seeing if I could come up with an "alternate evolution" of
the ship. We'll be keeping the original configuration (which was only
ever shown from a distance on TV) and working on our ideas of how the
ships *should* have looked up close.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

The rating system on Zazzle SHOULD be based on sales, not on votes.  No
sooner did I submit 2 images, and someone ran in and gave them both a rating
of 1, most likely because they wanted their own image at the top.  I don't
trust rating systems... I trust my own instincts and tastes.  You can tell
me that a bag of dog poop is a great work of art until you're blue in the
face, but if it doesn't do it for me it doesn't do it for me.  If you buy
into all that you are not thinking for yourself.

As far as this round is concerned, some of the results were surprising, but
I don't put a lot of weight into the scores.  Most of us enter because we
enjoy raytracing, most often with POV.  If you're in it to win, you are
probably better off searching for competitions that have a prize of some
sort.  Personally, I look forward to seeing entries by folks like Gilles,
Mick, Jaime, Christoph, etc... images like theirs are what got me into
raytracing in the first place.

--
Doug Eichenberg
www.getinfo.net/douge
dou### [at] nlsnet

Post a reply to this message

First of all, thanks to all for your input.
I think I should explain my point of view, the following
is only my opinion and maybe is a wrong opinion, decide
by yourself:

IRTC is a nice contest (or it was), but this round shows
a dangerous movement that can ruin the competition.
Because this is a competition, isn't it?.
I mean, at least you expect a little of justice.
If I enter my image and get a 35th position and
someone sends one image with ladybugs and
stairs and get the 16th position, my conclusion
is that something is going wrong for me. (I don't
want to offend anybody, but if someone can
explain me this, I would like to hear about it).

IMHO the winner image has nothing to do with
the topic (and I don't want to talk about the link given by
Gonzo in a previous post in this thread, it talks by itself).

So what is the result?.
That the Internet Raytracing Competition is
becoming only the Internet Raytracing, a place
where you can show your images; you don't need
to care about the results 'cos they mean nothing.
If that's the case, I prefer p.b.i.

Because on the other side there are (at least in my case)
a lot of hours invested in an image, time that you have to
steal from other activities (sleep, family, work...)
to get it before the last day.

If the final goal is to make an image, I prefer to have
the time I need and not only 2 months.
I sincerely think that this has nothing to do with
egos. The important thing is not to win but to
enter. Yes, but to enter in what?

PD: I've talked only about my entry, but imo
there are a lot of images that deserve a better
position than the one they have obtained.

Hoping I haven't started a flame war...
Bye.

Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com

Post a reply to this message

Txemi Jendrix wrote:

> 
> So what is the result?.
> That the Internet Raytracing Competition is
> becoming only the Internet Raytracing, a place
> where you can show your images; you don't need
> to care about the results 'cos they mean nothing.
> If that's the case, I prefer p.b.i.
> 

I think the contest definitely offers the opportunity to become 
intellectually involved with a topic and enjoy a shared experience with 
others that entered the same round. And if the effort to respond to the 
topic isn't sincere, then the experience is diminished. So you are 
right, the contest must be credible to work.  But the application of 
numbers to aesthetic and intellectual experience can be deceptive 
because they suggest more accuracy than may actually have meaning. 
Usually the artist's intellectual involvement with the topic is 
recognized and rewarded but not always.  The tool of assigning scores 
and averaging them all is a common sense way to do it but is capable of 
only so much discrimination.  This is one reason that I have tried to 
give some attention in these newsgroups to the content side of the works 
being produced, but I can only even attempt it because of the presence 
of a topic and the assumption of people's sincere involvement.  So I 
think that when you enter the contest you do take some risk.  You are 
hoping to have your idea rewarded in the ranking and it may not be.
The results don't mean nothing, but they are not the only judgement on 
your work either. It's tough.  Unless you make yourself vulnerable there 
can be no reward. But at the same time you are responsible for your own 
feelings.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

> If the final goal is to make an image, I prefer to have
> the time I need and not only 2 months.
> I sincerely think that this has nothing to do with
> egos. The important thing is not to win but to
> enter. Yes, but to enter in what?

> Hoping I haven't started a flame war...
> Txemi Jendrix

I'll be on your side
Philippe Gibone

Post a reply to this message

>
> I think the contest definitely offers the opportunity to become
> intellectually involved with a topic

That's the point, and to see images definitely off-topic, being rewarded and
even at the first place is disappointing (consider this as an
understatement)

Philippe Gibone

Post a reply to this message

Txemi Jendrix <tji### [at] euskalnetnet> wrote in message
news:3f7395a1@news.povray.org...
> First of all, thanks to all for your input.
> I think I should explain my point of view, the following
> is only my opinion and maybe is a wrong opinion, decide
> by yourself:
>
> IRTC is a nice contest (or it was), but this round shows
> a dangerous movement that can ruin the competition.
> Because this is a competition, isn't it?.
> I mean, at least you expect a little of justice.
> If I enter my image and get a 35th position and
> someone sends one image with ladybugs and
> stairs and get the 16th position, my conclusion
> is that something is going wrong for me. (I don't
> want to offend anybody, but if someone can
> explain me this, I would like to hear about it).

I agree that this round showed up some negative aspects in the voting. I was
pretty blown away when I saw the tabulated scores, but I was willing to
believe that they were just a more-extreme-than-usual variation which the
variety of entries says was likely.

But after I had time to read all the comments I was pissed. In past rounds
there is usually some correlation between the score and the number and
caliber of the comments. High scoring images get a lot of comments, and
those comments tend to be very emphatic and positive. Low scoring images
tend to get less comments, and the comments are usually not negative, but
more passively worded. So when I see an image garner 15 comments out of only
28 voters, and those comments are almost all emphatically positive and the
image ends up 11th place, there is something wrong. And that one wasn't the
only one, there were several where the scoring was just way out of whack.

And yes, it is a competition, so yes the scores should mean something,
regardless of whether you are trying to win or not. That's what a
competition is, you may not go for the win, but you are going for a score,
so it leaves a bad feeling when the scoring is bad.   I enter mainly because
having a topic makes me create things that I otherwise would probably never
create, and I don't worry about winning (good thing, since I've never
won...) but I do like to think my scores mean something, if nothing else
than to compare to my earliest scores to see if I've gotten any better, but
even that is meaningless if I feel the scoring is meaningless.

So I don't think your opinion is wrong, besides, its yours and you are
entitled to it. But I do think (hope) that you are wrong as far as it being
a movement. The scoring is not usually like this, I think that it is just a
temporary detour. The IRTC is usually a positive experience, largely because
of artists like yourself who share their artistic perspectives and
experience, and their comments and knowledge.  And the scoring isn't
everything. I know that in the time I've been entering, my own images have
improved from the feedback, and often the best feedback has come with not so
good scores.  You should do what your feelings tell you to do, but I hope
you will remember all the good rounds, and the good images and positive
comments, and not let them be buried by one bad round.  And my best wishes,
whatever you decide.


> Hoping I haven't started a flame war...

Well, if there is a war, I won't blame it on you.

This is my last rant on the subject, I've said what I think and that was
really more than I started to, but I've had 2 shots of Corazon Anejo now, so
I'm feeling better.

RG - another day, another shot and I'll be ok.

P.S. Ok, 1 rant addendum...  I do not think any of the top 3 were bad, they
are all fine images, I just feel that there were better, and that I find it
odd that so many excellent images received such poor scores.

Post a reply to this message

> P.S. Ok, 1 rant addendum...  I do not think any of the top 3 were bad,
they
> are all fine images, I just feel that there were better, and that I find
it
> odd that so many excellent images received such poor scores.

After having thought about this whole issue, and after having slept on it.
I think the biggest problem is that most of us IRTC folks aren't actually
artists, and have had no formal art training.  "Surrealism" is a very artful
topic, being voted on by largely non-artists who may know nothing of the
surrealist movement other than seeing a few of Dali's soft-watches.

This round is "Decay".  Art is not a major component of the topic itself.  I
personally expect judging to be more normal.  This round seemed to be the
exception rather than the rule.

-- 
Jeremy

Post a reply to this message

Why don't we change the rules for voting? Can we have a "jury" winner and a
"popular" winner?

I think that the winning entries should be chosen by a jury of 12 people,
formed by 6 permanent judges, and the 6 winners of the previous round (or
perhaps 6 - 3 permanent, and 3 winners of the previous round). What do you
think? Is that feasible?

The "popular" jury would be the present mode of voting.

BTW, I vote for Gilles Tran, Jaime Vives, Txemi Jendrix and Jim Charter for
the permanent board. :-)

Regards,

Roberto

Post a reply to this message

"Roberto A." <wol### [at] hot-mailcom> wrote in message
news:3f74532c@news.povray.org...
|
| Why don't we change the rules for voting?

Here's a much better idea: Start your own competition. The shortest-code
competition was popular enough and was IIRC not an official competition.
Just select a topic and a jury, find a little web space to post the
images, and then announce your competition in p.gen. I'm sure you can
get enough takers if the topic is good. You might try looking on the
IRTC topic suggestion list for ideas.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

I don't think we're taking into account the core problem with the voting.  Voting on
other images that are competing against yours
is a conflict of interest.  Now most of us I'm sure do try and be objective, and rate
fairly, but that doesn't mean everyone does.
The short-term desire to win can overshadow the long-term goal of a fun and fair
competition.  As the number of voters decreases the
conflict of interest will tend to make the results chaotic.  I can even think of one
way to cheat and put almost any image near the
top, although I would never do it, unless I wanted to prove it could be done.  My
point is, at core the IRTC really is more of a
community event than a competition.  The only way to get truly consistent results
would be a panel of impartial judges.  I'm not
suggesting we change the voting, just realize that it is what it is.

Andrew Wilcox

Post a reply to this message

The "Surrealism" topic certainly intimidated me, and I didn't vote
this round (panel judge) because I didn't trust my ability to judge
the topic. While I enjoy Dali's work, most surrealistic works don't
interest me. I'm thinking the judging will improve next round (not
just because I plan to vote! :-) as many others may have had the
same feeling.

That said, there are always entries that finish in the 10-20 range
that I thought should be top 3, maybe even the winner. Entrants/
artists/programmers should always be prepared for their work not
to be understood or appreciated. Nature of the game?

By the way, I toyed with entering the Surrealism round with a
warped/stretched lama. Title to be...The Dali Lama

One thought (from someone who spends most of his Spring and
Summer on a bicycle) is the voting would be easier if the images
were made available for voting as they are posted.

Post a reply to this message

Renderdog wrote:
>One thought (from someone who spends most of his Spring and
>Summer on a bicycle) is the voting would be easier if the images
>were made available for voting as they are posted.

Oops, I just realized that would never work. No one would want the
competition checking out their images before they entered, so they'd
wait to enter.

Post a reply to this message

Roberto A. wrote:
> Why don't we change the rules for voting? Can we have a "jury" winner and a
> "popular" winner?
> 
> I think that the winning entries should be chosen by a jury of 12 people,
> formed by 6 permanent judges, and the 6 winners of the previous round (or
> perhaps 6 - 3 permanent, and 3 winners of the previous round). What do you
> think? Is that feasible?
> 
> The "popular" jury would be the present mode of voting.
> 
> BTW, I vote for Gilles Tran, Jaime Vives, Txemi Jendrix and Jim Charter for
> the permanent board. :-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Roberto
> 
> 
I am certainly flattered to have my name mentioned for such a mission. 
  Your suggestion of distinquishing a 'popular' and a 'jury' winner does 
point up the problem that the winner, as it now stands, is the popular 
winner. ie. The one that most people can agree on for possibly 
contradictory reasons. It therefore may not exhibit the most 
originality, beauty, expressiveness, cogency or other qualities we value 
in art, independant of its popular appeal, because we can never totally 
agree on these issues.  So there is room for a "dark horse" to sneak 
through, because it draws the minimum disagreement.  The other deception 
in my view, is that just because we can assign a bunch of scores, 
average them to several decimal places, and end up with a continuous 
ranking of the images from highest to lowest, doesn't mean that we can 
truly discover the quality of the images to this degree of accuracy. 
There is some gratuitous fun perhaps in beating out another competitor 
by a couple of places but realistically we know that the relationship 
between popular ranking and artistic quality must be viewed in a much 
more general way. I think your suggestion has merit because it 
accurately points to where the artifacts now exist in the system.  But I 
find that the contest as it is structured has a rough and ready appeal 
and greater durability.  The trick is to realize where some artifacts 
may lie and take them in stride.  Meanwhile there will always be a bias 
in any permanent panel we can put together.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

Well put. I agree with you.

Post a reply to this message

> Here's a much better idea: Start your own competition. The shortest-code
> competition was popular enough and was IIRC not an official competition.
> Just select a topic and a jury, find a little web space to post the
> images, and then announce your competition in p.gen. I'm sure you can
> get enough takers if the topic is good. You might try looking on the
> IRTC topic suggestion list for ideas.

Well, unfortunately I don't have the time for that. In fact, I'm such a
nobody on the general raytracing community that I strongly doubt anyone
would be much interested. :-) But I agree with you, there's plenty of room
for other competitions.

That was only a wild suggestion to draw ideas from to improve the current
IRTC. Take a look on Jim Charter's answer, it was pretty illustrative of the
reason behind my suggestion.

Regards!

Post a reply to this message

"Txemi Jendrix" <tji### [at] euskalnetnet> a écrit dans le message de
news:3f7395a1@news.povray.org...

> If I enter my image and get a 35th position and
> someone sends one image with ladybugs and
> stairs and get the 16th position, my conclusion
> is that something is going wrong for me.

Well, one third of the votes is between 10 and 12... and this includes your
image and the ladybugs one. It's a very narrow range after all. I'd say that
the voters just expressed the feeling that all these images were not very
distinguishable from a quality point of view.

> IMHO the winner image has nothing to do with
> the topic (and I don't want to talk about the link given by
> Gonzo in a previous post in this thread, it talks by itself).

Actually there was never any doubt for me that the winning image was the
best one. It's a great image, possibly one of the best I've seen on the
IRTC, and well above the competition. And yes, it's completely off-topic and
(possibly) done last year so that's 2 violations and on these grounds alone
it shouldn't have been allowed to run. Still, if I had voted in this round,
I probably would have voted it best picture since there's no "on-topicness"
note (the concept for this image is very good too so there's no reason to
vote it down there).

The IRTC is an open competition. This is what makes it interesting: not only
anyone can run but the voting is quite fair IMHO (little bias, little fraud,
voters are by people who care). It's simpler to administrate too, I guess.
But of course, this also allows situations like this one (off-topic image
winning) or even a situation like the Architecture round, where the winner
image was a highly professional-looking image, but also off-topic due to its
lack of content. This also leads to an awful lot of bad entries, which not
only makes viewing and voting somehow tedious but also makes the IRTC a hard
to take seriously as far as 3D competition go (hence no sponsors, for
instance).

The alternative I can see is to have a prior selection of the entries, with
a panel entitled to accept and reject images on the ground of content. This
would certainly lead to better, always on-topic images and more
consideration outside the IRTC community. But it would add a lot of overhead
on the admins (maintaining the panel, writing rejection emails...). There
would be some some bitching from the authors of rejected pictures,
accusations of partiality etc. And, of course, it would be less friendly in
general.

G.


-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:3f748490$1@news.povray.org...
|
| Still, if I had voted in this round, I probably would have
| voted [PovPlanet] best picture since there's no "on-topicness"
| note

Technical Merit? Yes, many beautiful abstract images can be made with
seed(123) and a few while loops. I see that you're impressed with this
one, but the voting categories make it plain to me that this competition
is about the artistic as well as constructive nature of 3D images. The
frustration felt by many here is I believe caused not by simple
disagreement with the judges, but by the bewilderment caused by the
judges' fudging of the category scores.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

In article <3f748490$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
>IRTC, and well above the competition. And yes, it's completely off-topic and
>(possibly) done last year so that's 2 violations and on these grounds alone
>it shouldn't have been allowed to run. Still, if I had voted in this round,
>I probably would have voted it best picture since there's no "on-topicness"
>note (the concept for this image is very good too so there's no reason to
>vote it down there).

According to the FAQ, there *is* good reason for voting it down on 
concept/theme if the picture is not on-topic. I haven't entered in quite 
a while, but I do keep that in mind when I vote.

"The third category, concept/theme, is in some ways a contradiction--the 
more creative artists get, the less some judges think they are adhering 
to the theme.  The original name for the category was "creative 
interpretation of theme". How you interpret this category--as reward for 
creativity or punishment for failing to stick to the topic--is up to 
you."

So either way is fine, but there definitely *is* reason to vote it down 
if you think it isn't on-topic. It just isn't required--but then, 
nothing is. You can vote a high technical score because they used a lot 
of blue if you want. "They mean whatever you want them to mean, in         
general."

Jerry
-- 
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you've
depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
(http://www.ItIsntMurder.com/)

Post a reply to this message

> ... (from someone who spends most of his Spring and
> Summer on a bicycle)....

Nice to see you here again!  I'd wondered where you had been off to, but I
had actually figured you were out bicycling (cycling?) somewhere.  For me,
it's mostly gardening that keeps me away from the computer (at home anyway)
during Spring and Summer.  Plus, it's just hard to go into the basement and
plug away when it stays light until 10:00pm all through June and July.

Real Life is more fun in the Summer, I guess.  Virtual Reality rules the
Winter...  ;-)

-- 
Jeremy

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> a écrit dans le message de
news:3f748d35@news.povray.org...
>
> Technical Merit? Yes, many beautiful abstract images can be made with
> seed(123) and a few while loops. I see that you're impressed with this
> one, but the voting categories make it plain to me that this competition
> is about the artistic as well as constructive nature of 3D images.

I think that dismissing this picture on the ground of being just a few
rand() and loops doesn't do it justice.
What impresses me is in fact the artistic merit, i.e., the composition, the
choice of colours etc (and I'm not even too much into this sort of
math/abstract sort of 3D these days). I find some of the details just
delightful, like the little round half transparent screens or the elevated
borders of the holes, or the way the author used overexposition or the whole
tone range. True, the basics are simple (just primitives and some rand())
but it's all the more impressive. Having done my share of "let's use random,
perhaps it will turn out pretty" sort of images, I also tend to appreciate
this when it succeeds. For me, it's a good (and necessary) reminder that one
can do great things with little means but with a sure taste and a strong
imagination.

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Renderdog wrote:
I'm thinking the judging will improve next round (not
>just because I plan to vote! :-) as many others may have had the
>same feeling.

That was my main point in my previous posts (before I let irritation hijack
my keyboard :-/).  This round is not the norm.  Chalk it up as an anomaly,
get over it, and then get back to friendly, competitive, constructive
feedback and great images.


>
>By the way, I toyed with entering the Surrealism round with a
>warped/stretched lama. Title to be...The Dali Lama

Heh heh, I had the same idea. Would have been funny had there been 7-8 of
those! (And according to my Webster's, the animal is a Llama. A Lama is a
Tibetan monk. Warping & stretching a Lama could get a distinctly different
reaction...)

RG - This whole thing makes me wonder if the reason surrealism was declared
offically dead in 1941 was because by then the definition had been
stretched so thin in every direction that no one could even identify the
body ;-0

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran escribió en el mensaje de noticias 3f748490$1@news.povray.org...
> > If I enter my image and get a 35th position and
> > someone sends one image with ladybugs and
> > stairs and get the 16th position, my conclusion
> > is that something is going wrong for me.
>
> Well, one third of the votes is between 10 and 12... and this includes
your
> image and the ladybugs one. It's a very narrow range after all. I'd say
that
> the voters just expressed the feeling that all these images were not very
> distinguishable from a quality point of view.

Thank you very much for your explanation, now it's clear.

> Actually there was never any doubt for me that the winning image was the
> best one. It's a great image, possibly one of the best I've seen on the
> IRTC, and well above the competition. And yes, it's completely off-topic
and
> (possibly) done last year so that's 2 violations and on these grounds
alone
> it shouldn't have been allowed to run.

I do totally agree with you.

> Still, if I had voted in this round,
> I probably would have voted it best picture since there's no
"on-topicness"
> note (the concept for this image is very good too so there's no reason to
> vote it down there).

¿?

> The IRTC is an open competition. This is what makes it interesting: not
only
> anyone can run but the voting is quite fair IMHO (little bias, little
fraud,
> voters are by people who care). It's simpler to administrate too, I guess.
> But of course, this also allows situations like this one (off-topic image
> winning) or even a situation like the Architecture round, where the winner
> image was a highly professional-looking image, but also off-topic due to
its
> lack of content.

That's what I was talking about when I said dangerous movement.
The latest tendences seem to point to good images, but that have nothing to
do
with the topic or in the last case even with the rules.
Not so long ago, the IRTC was a different thing.
Now it seems like " The topic is '#####' or whatever you want"
What kind of contest is one in which their latest winning images are
completely off-topic?
Understand me, I also love the IRTC and that's why I'm writting
right now. The topic is the basement of a contest like the IRTC,
and I love to see the different interpretations of the topic in a
hundred (more or less) brains-hearts-with-computer around the world.
Even if we take it with a little of humor we can say that now your
image has to be off-topic to win.
But it's not funny at all. Not for me at least.

>This also leads to an awful lot of bad entries, which not
> only makes viewing and voting somehow tedious but also makes the IRTC a
hard
> to take seriously as far as 3D competition go (hence no sponsors, for
> instance).

Yes, but many of us, me 1st, have entered in the IRTC with images
that have ended in the bottom of the ranking. Usually we all have
worked hard to enter better images in the next round. There are a lot
of examples.
Talking about the lack of prizes, it's always a disadvantage for a contest
not offer any prize apart from "being the winner".
I have never win the IRTC, but I have my prize everyday when pressing
render.

> The alternative I can see is to have a prior selection of the entries,
with
> a panel entitled to accept and reject images on the ground of content.
This
> would certainly lead to better, always on-topic images and more
> consideration outside the IRTC community. But it would add a lot of
overhead
> on the admins (maintaining the panel, writing rejection emails...). There
> would be some some bitching from the authors of rejected pictures,
> accusations of partiality etc. And, of course, it would be less friendly
in
> general.

I don't know if that's the solution, perhaps we should look in the other
way;
"what has changed?"

Regards

Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com

Post a reply to this message

gonzo wrote:
>Heh heh, I had the same idea. Would have been funny had there been 7-8 of
>those! (And according to my Webster's, the animal is a Llama. A Lama is a
>Tibetan monk. Warping & stretching a Lama could get a distinctly different
>reaction...)
>
>RG - This whole thing makes me wonder if the reason surrealism was declared
>offically dead in 1941 was because by then the definition had been
>stretched so thin in every direction that no one could even identify the
>body ;-0


I would have loved to see someone do the Dali Llama, if only to use
it as a desktop and hear the groans when people "got" it!

As for voting and the winner this round, I judge off-topic images
very low on concept because I consider the topic part of the concept.
And I would have taken some off the technical score because of the
brief text file and lack of source code (I don't consider visiting web
sites a part of the IRTC judging process). It's a fine image, but not
one I would have picked for this round. I guess one vote does make
a difference...

I have to say I'm looking forward the the "Decay" round; should be a
lot of interesting entries there. Also, I hope Txemi decides to try the
IRTC again; his work has definitely been some of the most interesting;
unique and well thought out.

Post a reply to this message

"Txemi Jendrix" <tji### [at] euskalnetnet> wrote in message
news:3f7395a1@news.povray.org...

<big snip>

  Txemi, I know you aren't going away my friend, but this is what
*I'm* going to do for the IRTC in the next round:

   I'm going to do a "Decay" scene.

   I'm going to submit it.

   I'm going to *TRY* to comment on as many images that I see and like
in this next round. (That's if I think I could improve them in some
helpful way that is).    :o/


> Hoping I haven't started a flame war...

  Not with me you haven't.   ;)

    ~Steve~


> Bye.
>
> Txemi Jendrix
> http://www.txemijendrix.com
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
3f75d888$1@news.povray.org...

>   Txemi, I know you aren't going away my friend, but this is what
> *I'm* going to do for the IRTC in the next round:
>
>    I'm going to do a "Decay" scene.
>
>    I'm going to submit it.
>
>    I'm going to *TRY* to comment on as many images that I see and like
> in this next round. (That's if I think I could improve them in some
> helpful way that is).    :o/

Maybe I haven't put it as clear as you, but that's exactly what I'm
doing and what I'm going to do.

> > Hoping I haven't started a flame war...
>
>   Not with me you haven't.   ;)

Glad to hear it. Big THANKS.
See you

Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com

Post a reply to this message

I do exactly the same analysis.
I wouldn't take any definitive judging about the IRTC after this round.
I prefer to turn my attention toward the next topic.

JC

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
>>P.S. Ok, 1 rant addendum...  I do not think any of the top 3 were bad,
> 
> they
> 
>>are all fine images, I just feel that there were better, and that I find
> 
> it
> 
>>odd that so many excellent images received such poor scores.
> 
> 
> After having thought about this whole issue, and after having slept on it.
> I think the biggest problem is that most of us IRTC folks aren't actually
> artists, and have had no formal art training.  "Surrealism" is a very artful
> topic, being voted on by largely non-artists who may know nothing of the
> surrealist movement other than seeing a few of Dali's soft-watches.
> 
> This round is "Decay".  Art is not a major component of the topic itself.  I
> personally expect judging to be more normal.  This round seemed to be the
> exception rather than the rule.
>

Post a reply to this message

Philippe_Gibone <Ph.### [at] wanadoofr> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
3f73b46a$1@news.povray.org...
> > Hoping I haven't started a flame war...
> > Txemi Jendrix
>
> I'll be on your side
> Philippe Gibone

Thanks Philippe. I think we all have found the answer.
Voting and commenting is important, maybe now
more than in the past.
Lets try to recover the IRTC.
It will not work unless we'll do the effort. At last
we are the ones who enter in the competition, the
ones who vote, and the ones who are really responsable
of the IRTC future.
Bye

Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com

Post a reply to this message

"Philippe_Gibone" <Ph.### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
news:3f7322ac@news.povray.org...
|
| I made a mistake when voting : for off-topic images I rated
| Artistic and technical Merit as honestly as I could, but I
| was wrong, I think, now that an off-topic image should be
| rated (1, 1, 1)

No, I think that you were right the way to vote the way you did.
Attempting to correct any other factors by "donking" what you feel to be
off-topic entries will only cause more problems.

In truth, I think that it's mostly the technical merit scores which
skewed this round. At any time in the IRTC, most of the entrants will
have a low enough experience level (and in some [most?] cases
intelligence level) that they see downloading and using a macro from
Gilles' site or rotating a few boxes around a sphere as a significant
technical achievement. Any who have moved past that level are very
likely not to receive the credit they deserve for their modeling and
technical work. If these experienced entrants want to keep competing,
then they will need to accept this and focus their efforts on making
more *attractive* images. At the same time, any voter who wants to
contribute to the legitimacy of the IRTC results should pay attention to
improving his technical merit judging.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
>"Philippe_Gibone" <Ph.### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
>news:3f7322ac[at]news.povray.org...
>|
>| I made a mistake when voting : for off-topic images I rated
>| Artistic and technical Merit as honestly as I could, but I
>| was wrong, I think, now that an off-topic image should be
>| rated (1, 1, 1)
>
>No, I think that you were right the way to vote the way you did.
>Attempting to correct any other factors by "donking" what you feel to be
>off-topic entries will only cause more problems.

Off-topic is sometimes a very gray area too, there are degrees of
off-topic... did the artist just submit an image with no regard to the
theme, or is it 'sort-of' related and I just don't get it.  If it's clearly
not related, I'll give a low concept score and probably take a point off
the artistic and technical too simply because I don't think a blatantly
off-topic entry should be permitted to take place away from on-topic
entries. If it's a sort-of then I score concept by how sort-of I feel it is
and let artistic and technical stand. I reserve 1,1,1 for rules violations,
and I don't think off-topic is a rules violation.


>In truth, I think that it's mostly the technical merit scores which
>skewed this round. At any time in the IRTC, most of the entrants will
>have a low enough experience level (and in some [most?] cases
>intelligence level) that they see downloading and using a macro from
>Gilles' site or rotating a few boxes around a sphere as a significant
>technical achievement. Any who have moved past that level are very
>likely not to receive the credit they deserve for their modeling and
>technical work. If these experienced entrants want to keep competing,
>then they will need to accept this and focus their efforts on making
>more *attractive* images. At the same time, any voter who wants to
>contribute to the legitimacy of the IRTC results should pay attention to
>improving his technical merit judging.


Well, I can't complain about my own overall score (any time I finish top 10
in a round with that many good entries I'm happy!) But my artistic and
technical scores puzzled me, and don't seem to fit your theory. If I was
judging my own entry I'd have probably reversed those two.  I thought
artistically it was pretty good while technically it was so-so. My score
says the opposite. Go figure.

I have noticed that different topics seem to get more extreme levels of
interest on one category. Some topics are more technical by nature
(architecture) while others get more artistic focus (lanscapes) and some
(surrealism) get more concept scrutiny. And that's probably not a bad
thing, otherwise I think they'd all start to look the same.

RG - well, I think I finally have an idea for 'decay' but it will require
some serious work on lighting... that's technical, isn't it?

Post a reply to this message

"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message
news:web.3f78a3466f3cbf13a0c272b50@news.povray.org...
|
| But my artistic and technical scores puzzled me, and
| don't seem to fit your theory. If I was judging my own
| entry I'd have probably reversed those two.  I thought
| artistically it was pretty good while technically it
| was so-so. My score says the opposite. Go figure.

My theory isn't that all of the technical scores will be necessarily
reversed, just that there is a lot of confusion about what technically
is required to produce an image. The same is true in p.b.i.. I could go
home tonight and in a few hours create something trivial like a Borg
cube, and if I posted that in p.b.i., people would be lining up to tell
me what a genius I am. If I posted something truly difficult, however,
it would fly over many heads.

For this reason, I believe "technical merit" should be removed as a
voting category from the IRTC. When the last competition's highest
technical merit score went to what appeared to be an entry in the
shortest code contest, then it is obvious that the IRTC judging pool is
not nearly sophisticated enough to assign a score to that criteria.
"Technical merit" has apparently become a tilt for images with lots of
tiny (even identical) bits.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

I finally figured it out.

The results from this round were surreal.

Andrew Wilcox

Post a reply to this message