What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd.  It looks like a photograph
to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
a photograph.  The water definitely looks like it could come out of POV-Ray
but together with the flamingo and the reflections, I have my doubts.
Adding to my suspicions is the lack of description in the text file and no
source.  The author claims its POV but he's going to take a hit on scoring
simply because of the lack of explanation.  Any thoughts on this?

Skip

Post a reply to this message

There are too many renderer artifacts for it to be a photograph.  Look 
at the aliasing around the edge of the flamingo and in the waves closer 
to the horizon.  Notice that there are no secondary ripples in the water 
around the legs of the flamingo.  Note that the underside of the 
flamingo doesn't appear to be lit by the reflection of the light from 
the water.

It's certainly is a very nice render, though it could be made better if 
it used better AA settings, a slightly more complicated water normal 
pattern, and photons.

Peter D.

Skip Talbot wrote:
> What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd.  It looks like a photograph
> to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
> a photograph.  The water definitely looks like it could come out of POV-Ray
> but together with the flamingo and the reflections, I have my doubts.
> Adding to my suspicions is the lack of description in the text file and no
> source.  The author claims its POV but he's going to take a hit on scoring
> simply because of the lack of explanation.  Any thoughts on this?
> 
> Skip
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

Yeah I'll buy that.  How about the flamingo though?

Skip

Post a reply to this message

Skip Talbot <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd.  It looks like a photograph
> to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
> a photograph.

It definetely isn't a photograph.
A photograph would have either the sun and sky completely overexposed and white,
or the bird would just be a silhouette. Most likely both.

But I'm sure way.jpg is a photograph.

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

http://www.3dcadbrowser.com/preview.aspx?ModelCode=755

Skip Talbot wrote:
> Yeah I'll buy that.  How about the flamingo though?
> 
> Skip
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, thanks... this is all helping my comments/voting.  Would have been
much easier if he just said so in the first place.

Skip

Post a reply to this message

Lutz-Peter Hooge wrote:
> Skip Talbot <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> 
>>What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd.  It looks like a photograph
>>to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
>>a photograph.
> 
> 
> It definetely isn't a photograph.
> A photograph would have either the sun and sky completely overexposed and white,
> or the bird would just be a silhouette. Most likely both.
> 
> But I'm sure way.jpg is a photograph.
> 
> Lutz-Peter


Yep, Floyd looks ok to me, but Way.jpg is pieces of photos layered in 
Photoshop.  Also theroad1.jpg states in the textfile that its a terragen 
render with a POV tree layered in using GIMP.  I suspect he simply 
didn't read the rules. Too bad, since its actually pretty good.

RG

Post a reply to this message

I caught that one too... how do you think he did the shadow?  Alpha output
from POV, GIMP generated somehow, or drawn?

Skip

Post a reply to this message

"Skip Talbot" <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:4137e40d$1@news.povray.org...
> I caught that one too... how do you think he did the shadow?  Alpha output
> from POV, GIMP generated somehow, or drawn?

I was wondering that. I guess it's drawn but it's pretty convincing.

As for "way.jpg", I'm puzzled by the fact that it's such a boring photo! Surely
if you want to convince people that a photo is actually CG you take a more
interesting photo?

-- 
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

I would have guessed he just didn't understand the rules.  But I see he took
the time to put down that he used 3DSMAX.  Now could the building actually
be rendered?  I know the sky is definitely a photo.

Skip

Post a reply to this message