Mike Raiford wrote:
> scott wrote:
> 
>> Hmm, I think you are restricted your view to POV too much, where you 
>> have to do everything by entering text.  There are many other programs 
>> (like Wings, Blender, 3D Studio) where you can achieve great, 
>> technically brilliant works by not entering a single line of code or 
>> script.  If someone had modelled a very complex item in *any* program 
>> I would give them high technical merit. It's all about using the right 
>> tool for the job, POV SDL is great for some things (eg repeated 
>> geometric structures) but totally the wrong tool for others (eg a car). 
> 
> 
> I think you missed my point.
> 
> The technical merit winner had *no* information on how it was made. They 
> may have been very nice models, yes... That deserves artistic merit.
> 
> Its hard to me to award technical merit to meshes, unless that mesh was 
> developed using some means other than simply a modeller.
> 
> Did they take exacting measurements of the object and put the models 
> together point-by-point? Did they develop their own textures? materials? 
> effects? Write shaders? (OOH, that's not POVRAY at all!). Do they have 
> their own work flow tools?
> They left no information, and yet somehow 
> managed to pull off a technical merit score. The image was even rendered 
> with POVRay!
> 
> I see nothing in the image, nor the description that stands out. Its a 
> good image artistically, and deserved to place, just not as technical 
> merit. Nothing out of the ordinary was achieved. UV-Mapped textures and 
> modelling that anyone with experience in a modeler does not earn 
> technical merit. The image is not groundbreaking. They used several 
> tools, but none of their own.
> 
This is highly accomplished, beautifully realized picture.  It more than 
deserves to be the technical merit winner.

Post a reply to this message

> Its hard to me to award technical merit to meshes, unless that mesh
> was developed using some means other than simply a modeller.

Oh ok, well I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this point :-D  But 
I do think you are taking the view of a programmer/scripter which a lot of 
people aren't and can't do.

If someone has made a very good mesh using just a modeller (or any other 
method) then I will give them high technical merit.  I use "artistic merit" 
for things like composition, lighting, colours uesd while trying to ignore 
how technically good a mesh or CSG is.

As an example, someone could make a "car" out of 10 objects in POV SDL and I 
would give them a low technical merit score.  But if they had a very nice 
composition, with good lighting and just a good "balance" to the picture 
then I wouldn't hesitate to give it a high artistic merit.

On the other hand, if someone made a professional looking 5M poly mesh of a 
car and just rendered it on a white plane with a spotlight, they would get 
very high technical merit and almost zero artistic from me.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> On the other hand, if someone made a professional looking 5M poly mesh of a 
> car and just rendered it on a white plane with a spotlight, they would get 
> very high technical merit and almost zero artistic from me.

Maybe its just me, but with no explanation of how they created that 
mesh... I dunno, Wings is a subdivision modeler, Its relatively easy to 
make a mesh object in that type of modeler, which is why I kind of 
disagree w/ the technical merit score on that particular image. Nothing 
groundbreaking. I guess thats what bothers me most is that there was no 
explanation. That leaves questions...

Hmm, I guess if one did as much as they could to model an object 100% 
accurate to the original, it would be technical merit.





-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:44b5235e$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, if someone made a professional looking 5M poly mesh of 
>> a car and just rendered it on a white plane with a spotlight, they would 
>> get very high technical merit and almost zero artistic from me.
>
> Maybe its just me, but with no explanation of how they created that 
> mesh... I dunno, Wings is a subdivision modeler, Its relatively easy to 
> make a mesh object in that type of modeler, which is why I kind of 
> disagree w/ the technical merit score on that particular image. Nothing 
> groundbreaking. I guess thats what bothers me most is that there was no 
> explanation. That leaves questions...
>
> Hmm, I guess if one did as much as they could to model an object 100% 
> accurate to the original, it would be technical merit.

   Hi Mike

     No offence, but why would something have to be 100% accurate when using 
a modelling program to gain technical merit?

      It may be the case where that author has discovered a new method in 
modelling and doesn't want to give it up yet (text-wise), or, it may be the 
case where that author has just done a fine job (and I think so in this 
case).

   As for my image, (which I know you weren't talking about, but is in the 
same veign as a couple of other images), do you think that sax would play?

   It looks like it could, but I assure you that it couldn't.  ;)

   I think even our very own GT mentioned a while back that it's useless to 
model what's 'behind' the main image.

   ~Steve~






> -- 
> ~Mike
>
> Things! Billions of them!

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>      No offence, but why would something have to be 100% accurate when using 
> a modelling program to gain technical merit?

No, Just one way of achieving a score

>       It may be the case where that author has discovered a new method in 
> modelling and doesn't want to give it up yet (text-wise), or, it may be the 
> case where that author has just done a fine job (and I think so in this 
> case).

Okay. This could be a possibility, though I still disagree with it 
fitting in technical merit.

>    As for my image, (which I know you weren't talking about, but is in the 
> same veign as a couple of other images), do you think that sax would play?
>    It looks like it could, but I assure you that it couldn't.  ;)
> 

Hmm, one would think, but I'm not familiar with how a sax works. Good 
detail :)

>    I think even our very own GT mentioned a while back that it's useless to 
> model what's 'behind' the main image.
> 

With HDR, yes, without -- it really depends. It doesn't always work out 
well, but I generally get away with not modeling anything behind the 
camera, usually you can't tell.


-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!

Post a reply to this message