Seeing as everything is getting more advanced with computers and
PoV-Ray now, is it possible that the IRTC stills competition can be
every three months instead of two months?

    Four comps a year instead of five? More time, better images? From
more people?

    Seriously - just a thought/suggestion. Please debate with your
views.

    I don't mind two months, but it sure gets tricky towards the
end...  ;)

    ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"St." wrote:
> 
>  Seeing as everything is getting more advanced with computers and
> PoV-Ray now, is it possible that the IRTC stills competition can be
> every three months instead of two months?

I'm quite happy with the two month contests, but maybe announcing the
next topic further in advance (ie. before the current contest finishes)
would be better for people who want to spend more time on a smaller
number of entries per year ?

Bernard

Post a reply to this message

"Bernard Hatt" <bmh### [at] arkadydemoncouk> wrote in message
news:402A7BD0.64362D4A@arkady.demon.co.uk...

> I'm quite happy with the two month contests, but maybe announcing
the
> next topic further in advance (ie. before the current contest
finishes)
> would be better for people who want to spend more time on a smaller
> number of entries per year ?

     Now, that's a great and better idea. I'm all for that suggestion.
I find that I'm usually thinking about 'what' to do for around one to
two weeks before even attempting something. Or sometimes I'll just
jump straight in with a quick idea, and then do a lot of work and end
up scrapping the image - simply because I don't think it's worth
carrying on with it for the comp,  - or that I know I'm not going to
finish it in time. This has happened many times over the last year for
me.

   Thanks for your comments.

     ~Steve~

>
> Bernard

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>  Seeing as everything is getting more advanced with computers and
> PoV-Ray now, is it possible that the IRTC stills competition can be
> every three months instead of two months?
> 
>     Four comps a year instead of five? More time, better images? From
> more people?
> 
>     Seriously - just a thought/suggestion. Please debate with your
> views.
> 
>     I don't mind two months, but it sure gets tricky towards the
> end...  ;)

My present situation certainly makes want to throw in with you on this 
one.  Again I find that I have already committed a lot of time, blood, 
and guts to an entry, only to find now that to have any chance of 
completing it, I would need to make an almost singular commitment of 
time in the remaining three weeks.  But, similar to last round, it took 
almost a month to settle on an idea and get started.  And "mythology" 
jazzed me from the start.  Furthermore, because I'd started late on the 
  previous round, and failed to complete my entry despite a big effort, 
I made an concerted attempt to motivate myself early this time.  There 
were lots of ideas to choose from, but it still took awhile to isolate 
one that I could stand behind artistically.

I must treat my problems with suspicion however.  In the past, I 
completed one of my most skilled entries ("Sea" round) in a short two 
weeks, while I was on vacation.  I coded it almost entirely on paper 
without access to a computer then transferred it to my machine for 
testing when I returned just a few days before the deadline.  In another 
round ("Warfare" round) I had the idea very early in the entry period. 
While it still took a week or two to commit to and research it, I did 
get an adequate start. It carried a big emotional load for me and 
basically I ran short on technical ability and vision before I ran short 
on time.  So because of these two examples I have always felt that if 
the circumstances all come together for you, two months is in fact 
enough time.  I am suspicious that while now it seems to take me 3 weeks 
to a month to settle on a concept, if the entry period were extended to 
three months I would use up two of them getting started.

Also, extending the period might lead to a vicious cycle, entries would 
become even more ambitious so that competitive entries would still 
require a huge time commitment.  However, as you point out, with the 
increased capacity of POV-Ray alone, perhaps greater ambition should be 
accommodated.  Early release of the topic was experimented with in the 
"Horror" round.  As I recall the results were mixed, and the experiment 
was never repeated.  Personally I thought that was a shame.  I thought 
the idea had potential and didn't really understand why it was so easily 
dismissed. I think it was because it didn't seem to make much 
difference. It really didn't result in the better images everyone was 
hoping for. I didn't participate in the debate much I'll admit.  At that 
time my skill level was so low that the issue was largely irrelevant to me.

But not only has POV-Ray and other tools become more powerful and offer 
more potential for expression, it is often at the cost of time.  Chris 
Hormann's isosurface landscapes are an example. Sophisticated use of 
media is often laborious in a short entry period.  Mesh modelling is 
also now possible in the freeware space and opens up further expressive 
possibilities.  It may also be true that some participants have reached 
a skill level where greater ambition may be required to engage their 
interest.  While time management strategies are a significant aspect and 
measure of skill level, it is not the only one.

I started out with the believe that I would conclude against your idea 
only to find I have talked myself into it!  Or at least some version of 
it.  Perhaps more experimenting.  Early release of topics, or of 
selected topics during the year, or of topics for additional longer term 
contests? Perhaps a long/short cycle, three months followed by one month 
in any given four month period? It may in fact be time to consider if 
there is a next level we can get to.

Thanks for raising the discussion Steve.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

> I'm quite happy with the two month contests, but maybe announcing the
> next topic further in advance (ie. before the current contest finishes)
> would be better for people who want to spend more time on a smaller
> number of entries per year ?

Excellent idea.

Post a reply to this message

"Bernard Hatt" <bmh### [at] arkadydemoncouk> wrote in message
news:402A7BD0.64362D4A@arkady.demon.co.uk...
> I'm quite happy with the two month contests, but maybe announcing the
> next topic further in advance (ie. before the current contest finishes)
> would be better for people who want to spend more time on a smaller
> number of entries per year ?

But surely that's unfair on people who want to enter consecutive competitions?
i.e. they can't start early 'cause they're still working on the current round.

I suppose it depends how much in advance, certainly a week earlier would be good
because even when I am entering consecutive competitions there's always a period
of time where I'm sat around with nothing to do in between contests.

-- 
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
 
>     I don't mind two months, but it sure gets tricky towards the
> end...  ;)
> 

I know all about your problem, Steve. I think that one thing you and I have
in common is the desire to play architect to every building, engineer to
every vehicle, and god to every bird and bug in a picture. Makes for a
great hobby, but doesn't get anything done quickly.

The one professional artist I know works at a very high level. He has a huge
library of objects which he has learned to draw. He is creative with the
combination of objects rather than with each individual element.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:402edae3@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
> >     I don't mind two months, but it sure gets tricky towards the
> > end...  ;)
> >
>
> I know all about your problem, Steve. I think that one thing you and
I have
> in common is the desire to play architect to every building,
engineer to
> every vehicle, and god to every bird and bug in a picture. Makes for
a
> great hobby, but doesn't get anything done quickly.

    Yes, because strangely enough, we're learning how to use PoV and
associated programs ALL the time - in my experience, a LOT of
experimenting* goes on before I'm even happy with what I've got, and
then of course, you have to think of 'how' you're going to implement
it in your scene.

  *For instance, I've only been using Wings for about a month now, and
my Wings folder is 243Mb's - that's 42 Wings files and other
associated files - and that boils down to 4 images, 2 completed, 2
unfinished.


>
> The one professional artist I know works at a very high level. He
has a huge
> library of objects which he has learned to draw. He is creative with
the
> combination of objects rather than with each individual element.

    You're right of course, and that's also what I've been failing
with. Imagination plays a big part, (and I have a good imagination),
but sometimes you're limited with what you can do in a scene because
of the 'experimenting' that goes on. I have to say though, that I do
like the idea of knowing a topic in advance simply so that you can
'chew' on an idea - if you cock it up - well, that's you're own fault
then.

   ~Steve~


>
>  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:402acfa9$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:

> >     Four comps a year instead of five? More time, better images?
From
> > more people?

   Sorry, I did mean six.

 <Snip>

 > Also, extending the period might lead to a vicious cycle, entries
would
> become even more ambitious so that competitive entries would still
> require a huge time commitment.  However, as you point out, with the
> increased capacity of POV-Ray alone, perhaps greater ambition should
be
> accommodated.  Early release of the topic was experimented with in
the
> "Horror" round.  As I recall the results were mixed, and the
experiment
> was never repeated.  Personally I thought that was a shame.  I
thought
> the idea had potential and didn't really understand why it was so
easily
> dismissed. I think it was because it didn't seem to make much
> difference. It really didn't result in the better images everyone
was
> hoping for. I didn't participate in the debate much I'll admit.  At
that
> time my skill level was so low that the issue was largely irrelevant
to me.

    Ah, I missed that, (got my PC in 2000), but I've just had a look
at the Horror round, and I don't see anything that's majorly different
to any other round, but perhaps in this round, more people actually
*did* submit something rather than not? I guess we'll never know.


>
> But not only has POV-Ray and other tools become more powerful and
offer
> more potential for expression, it is often at the cost of time.
Chris
> Hormann's isosurface landscapes are an example. Sophisticated use of
> media is often laborious in a short entry period.  Mesh modelling is
> also now possible in the freeware space and opens up further
expressive
> possibilities.  It may also be true that some participants have
reached
> a skill level where greater ambition may be required to engage their
> interest.  While time management strategies are a significant aspect
and
> measure of skill level, it is not the only one.

     Agreed.

>
> I started out with the believe that I would conclude against your
idea
> only to find I have talked myself into it!  Or at least some version
of
> it.  Perhaps more experimenting.  Early release of topics, or of
> selected topics during the year, or of topics for additional longer
term
> contests? Perhaps a long/short cycle, three months followed by one
month
> in any given four month period? It may in fact be time to consider
if
> there is a next level we can get to.
>
> Thanks for raising the discussion Steve.

  Well, I think it's a valid option to consider again, for sure. I
love participating in the IRTC, and when I can't submit something, and
then I look at the images that have been submitted, I always say to
myself; "Why didn't I do something like that?", or "Damn, that's what
I should have done, but in a different way". It frustrates me.

  Anyway, hopefully, I'll have something to submit this time.  ;)

   ~Steve~

>
> -Jim

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

> 
>     Ah, I missed that, (got my PC in 2000), but I've just had a look

What is your actual programming (as separate from computer) experience?

> at the Horror round, and I don't see anything that's majorly different
> to any other round, but perhaps in this round, more people actually
> *did* submit something rather than not? I guess we'll never know.

I think it's a bit regretable that every decision need have a measurable 
outcome.  I still think it was an interesting experiment.  Just to 
create a little variety.  For the record, I think this is an appropriate 
place to sound out interest on the idea.  I am not sure that the people 
who would make that decision actually frequent this group.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:403039ad$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
> >
> >     Ah, I missed that, (got my PC in 2000), but I've just had a
look
>
> What is your actual programming (as separate from computer)
experience?

   My programming experience as seperate from my computer?

   Sorry Jim, none whatsoever. Sad but true. Nearly twenty years ago,
I used to look at the school kids playing 'Pacman', (or whatever) in
the shops as I walked by, and thought they were wasting their time on
computers.

   "Where were they going? Nowhere!"  How wrong I was...  ;)

   BUT, at that time, I also wanted to do/try CG, (influenced by
Starwars, etc.) and understood that CG was a possibility, but it was
always out of my reach. That's how far I ventured into the realms of
computers until 2000. No programming skills, just a PC layman that
loves all things art.

>
> > at the Horror round, and I don't see anything that's majorly
different
> > to any other round, but perhaps in this round, more people
actually
> > *did* submit something rather than not? I guess we'll never know.
>
> I think it's a bit regretable that every decision need have a
measurable
> outcome.  I still think it was an interesting experiment.  Just to
> create a little variety.  For the record, I think this is an
appropriate
> place to sound out interest on the idea.  I am not sure that the
people
> who would make that decision actually frequent this group.

 If it was me in the hot seat? I would implement it for one more try,
or maybe even vote on it. It's the thinking time that counts for a
decent image imo - just like a serious oil painting - don't just slap
it on, think about it first.

 If someone has worked hard on an image, and it doesn't get submitted,
how can they improve/advance their skills when there is no forthcoming
critique? (Yes, there is p.b.i, but who then posts their *complete*,
unfinished, un-submitted irtc image and then tells the world that they
couldn't quite make it happen...? You'll only usually see the main
model or idea involved).


    ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>     none whatsoever. 

Wow! For someone learning how to program, as well as computers, OS's, 
peripherals and so on, as well as the idiosyncracies of POV SDL, as well 
as the sophisticated concepts surrounding CG, you are doing extremely 
well with this.  Just the distinction between numeric and 'string' data 
is a stumbling block for most programming beginners. I came to this as a 
trained programmer somewhere around '98 and am only now gaining some 
confidence.  It took nearly a year before I caught on to why so much 
happens as values between 0 and 1!  It was an epiphanal moment ;)

Though we have some similarities.  I actually first connected to the 
internet six years ago for the express purpose of investigating 
raytracing.  And I hadn't owned a computer for much time prior to that. 
  I was a mainframe programmer, and a painter.  My very, very first 
programming job was working on games on an early personal machine called 
a Commodore 64.  I hated it.  There was no harddrive, no virtual memory, 
data were stored on external 5 1/4 floppy drives.  These drives were 
notoriously unreliable.  It was common to loose a whole day's work 
because of drive malfunction.  I used to have a whole stack of drives on 
my desk and each morning I would go down the stack to see which one felt 
like working that day.  We would steal each other's drives.  I just 
hated it.  Loved mainframes when I finally got there! They are extremely 
reliable and other people are paid to worry about the hardware. I could 
concentrate on programming. Heaven! I loath dealing with hardware and in 
particuar consumer electronics.  I distrusted PC's in the extreme.  So I 
came to the whole home computer thing rather late considering my 
programmer identity.

Funny, I didn't come to raytracing becuase of cg or movies or pop 
culture at all.  As I painter I fancied that the behavior of light was 
my balliwick and when I learned that computers were being used to model 
that behavior I just had to find out about it.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:403253ed$1@news.povray.org...
|
| actually first connected to the
| internet six years ago

About the same here, but I found PoV-Ray by accident while exploring a
freeware site. At the time, I knew nothing about programming and next to
nothing about math, but PoV-Ray has since taught me a tremendous amount
about both. My motivation for getting into Pov was much less interesting
than your's or Steves. I just wanted to have cool custom graphics for
whatever else I was working on. My first post on these newsgroups IIRC
was a website graphic for a college Emergency Care program run by my
step-father. Eventually of course, the means became the end.

| As I painter I fancied that the behavior of light
| was my balliwick and when I learned that computers were being used
| to model that behavior I just had to find out about it.

Have you experimented with Radiance?
http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/HOME.html

I watched a program about Vermeer last night. He had some jaw dropping
light effects. I wasn't familiar with him before, but I'm definitely a
fan now. I felt hugely happy with myself when I saw that he was fond of
a coloring technique with which I have been personally experimenting. I
want to order a print of 'Girl in a Red Hat', but I'm not sure I can
find one which represents the actual size (looked about 9" tall on the
program).

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> Have you experimented with Radiance?
> http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/HOME.html
> 
Haven't tried it, interesting app though.  I am slowly making my way to 
doing a Linux install.  Time and money are the factors mostly.
> I watched a program about Vermeer last night. He had some jaw dropping
> light effects. I wasn't familiar with him before, but I'm definitely a
> fan now. 
He's pretty easy to like.  And the fact that only this small ouvre of 
paintings remains with almost no information about his life.  The 
romantic fantasy of many a painter/artist I suspect.  The beauty of my 
paintings becomes my identity, not the squalor of my actual life.


I felt hugely happy with myself when I saw that he was fond of
> a coloring technique with which I have been personally experimenting. 

He favours thinly applied paint and the primaries, yellow:blue:red. 
Like Mondrian.

I
> want to order a print of 'Girl in a Red Hat', but I'm not sure I can
> find one which represents the actual size (looked about 9" tall on the
> program).

Yes, maybe an overlarge postcard?  Personally I have completely given in 
to the seduction of seeing small, intimate paintings blown up to poster 
size.  There is too much of it around.  It takes too much energy to 
resist.  But it is a bit vulgar. Voyeuristic.

On the other hand it is also de rigor in university art history courses 
where materials are presented through projected slides.  And such 
courses can marry a very sensuous with an intellectually enrichening 
experience.  And, the same with posters, there is the feeling of getting 
inside the artwork in a way.  Maybe the modern appreciation of art is to 
violate it?

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:4034f127$1@news.povray.org...

| the fact that only this small ouvre of paintings remains with
| almost no information about [Vermeer's] life.  The romantic
| fantasy of many a painter/artist I suspect.  The beauty of my
| paintings becomes my identity, not the squalor of my actual
| life.

Interesting. I missed any biographical part of the program, so I did not
know this about him.

| Shay:
|  I felt hugely happy with myself when I saw that he was fond
|  of a coloring technique with which I have been personally
|  experimenting.
| Jim Charter:
|  He favours thinly applied paint and the primaries,
|  yellow:blue:red. Like Mondrian.

The specific technique to which I was referring was his use of bending
hues while shading. I have been experimenting with separate splines to
control the saturation and brightness of shaded objects.

|
| Yes, maybe an overlarge postcard?  Personally I have completely given
| in to the seduction of seeing small, intimate paintings blown up to
| poster size.  There is too much of it around.  It takes too much
| energy to resist.  But it is a bit vulgar. Voyeuristic.

I remember seeing Dali's 'Persistence of Memory' and thinking "WTF? This
little thing is the source of all the giant posters."

I like small portraits like this one, however. They are very humble,
probably lower-priced at the time, and now a voyeuristic if indeed the
subject was a real girl. When the painting is semi-famous like this one,
then additionally there is a subversive quality, like an old family
portrait with a brother or sister who died during childhood and whom
noone has ever mentioned out loud.

| Maybe the modern appreciation of art is to
| violate it?

This special did more than blow the pictures up. Many were displayed as
3D wire-frames and the elements were moved to previous positions or
removed entirely to diplay composition effects. Very cool.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

I've always favored more time.  Three months sounds better to me than two.
I would also suggest increasing the max image size if at all possible, but I
understand there are constraints on that.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:31:31 -0800, Doug Eichenberg wrote:

> I've always favored more time.  Three months sounds better to me than two.
> I would also suggest increasing the max image size if at all possible, but I
> understand there are constraints on that.

How about this...

Announce the new theme one month before the end of the previous contest.

The way I see it, IRTCers basically fall into 2 main categorys:

A: People who are either VERY good, or have lots of free time. For these
people two months is not a problem, as they are getting an entry in pretty
much every round.

B: The other side of the coin, those of us (self included) who don't have
the time to spend more than maybe 5-10 hours a week on an entry, and for
whom a 3 month time period would be more appealing. By foregoing a few
contests per year, "we" would gain an extra month for those times we do
choose to enter.

Even (A) can benefit from this idea, as they can start planning and basic
modeling, say on an older, secondary PC, while the spend the last week or
two of the prior contest rendering their final image on their main system.

Just a thought...

Post a reply to this message

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:40299795@news.povray.org...
> Seeing as everything is getting more advanced with computers and
> PoV-Ray now, is it possible that the IRTC stills competition can be
> every three months instead of two months?
>
>     I don't mind two months, but it sure gets tricky towards the
> end...  ;)


I don't mind the two months as long as the topic is posted right away, but
when the topic isn't posted until a week into the round, by the time I
figure out what I'm going to do I'm down to 5-6 weeks or less.

I think that a longer period would simply raise the bar even further.  The
entries are getting better and better all the time, so two months must work
for at least somebody.

My own entries seem to indicate that less time is better... my best score
was an image that only took a couple of weeks, while my decay & architecture
entries both took every bit of spare time for the whole two months and only
finished 28th.

RG -  its just a matter of finding the right inspiration...

Post a reply to this message

gonzo wrote:

> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:40299795@news.povray.org...
> 
>>Seeing as everything is getting more advanced with computers and
>>PoV-Ray now, is it possible that the IRTC stills competition can be
>>every three months instead of two months?
>>
>>    I don't mind two months, but it sure gets tricky towards the
>>end...  ;)
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind the two months as long as the topic is posted right away, but
> when the topic isn't posted until a week into the round, by the time I
> figure out what I'm going to do I'm down to 5-6 weeks or less.
> 
> I think that a longer period would simply raise the bar even further.  The
> entries are getting better and better all the time, so two months must work
> for at least somebody.
> 
> My own entries seem to indicate that less time is better... my best score
> was an image that only took a couple of weeks, while my decay & architecture
> entries both took every bit of spare time for the whole two months and only
> finished 28th.
> 
> RG -  its just a matter of finding the right inspiration...
> 
> 
> 
> 
Remembering hta last time this came up, it seems the general agreement 
was that 2 months is a very serviceable tradeoff between necessary 
momentum and the fact of having a life.  Most other contests are 
shorter.  But the occasional maverick contest might liven things up.  A 
longer running theme in addition to the regulars, or have one or two 
themes a year traditionally released early.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:

> Remembering hta last time this came up,

Which seems to be around once every two to three months.

> it seems the general agreement
> was that 2 months is a very serviceable tradeoff between necessary
> momentum and the fact of having a life.

Bingo. Even though some people have trouble getting their entries completed
in time many thrive on the fact that there is a deadline and it makes them
work that much harder towards the end to actually complete their work. I have
always has the problem that if there is no time limit my project never gets
finished. This applies to real life as well as to raytracing.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message