St. wrote:
>   Wow! *Thanks* for the comments everyone. Now I realise why I like what I'm 
> doing. Your comments will help me to improve.
> 

And I can see that it's not so bad thing I didn't enter (I did got an
idea - a speaker from which floats foggy notes, but I never got the
time/hit to start doing the image). Nice images - lots of them!

No, I have no idea for Light and Fog :o.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> Unless I'm misunderstanding technical merit...

To me, the IRTC FAQ (stills faq, section 3.10) reads as being very vague on
the meaning of the categories; the results then indicate that a majority of
the voters didn't share your interpretation of technical merit, for whatever
reason.

In my opinion only, the technical score represents the quality of the
"implementation" of the concept, however it was done. I feel that technical
skill in the preparation of an IRTC image does not necessarily have to
involve programming, scripts, or self-written utilities. I suppose I'm
saying that (in a poor analogy) technical skill can involve making brushes,
but it can also involve skill in the use of those brushes (however the
result ends up from an artistic point of view).

That's only my interpretation. Fortunately, I think I've only ever voted
once on the IRTC, a long time ago.

Tom

Post a reply to this message

>>      Is there a problem with using a modelling prog for the IRTC instead 
>> of CSG in PoV-Ray, Mike?  After all, the IRTC is not
>> PoV-Ray related. I thought that this was a -general- raytracing
>> comp. where any modelling prog and raytracer would be exceptable
>> regardless of the raytracing program used?
>
> Absolutely not! Some of the best images are done with modelers, and
> sometimes non-pov. The image in question was made with POV, I just
> don't see simply using a modeler as earning a technical merit
> award. Artistic merit? Yes. Top 3? Sure! Technical Merit? No way!
> There's nothing special about it. Unless they've demonstrated-- and
> it doesn't appear they have by looking at the description, which
> was rather terse-- some programming feat in Wings3D, such as some
> sort of customization to create their models, a script, their own
> utilities, an inventive process for creating the image. Anything.

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).

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> 
> Just my opinion, here... but, While the winner for technical merit is an 
> excellent image, There's really not that much "technical merit" to the 
> picture. All was modeled in Wings3D, with exception of the feather, 
> which was using a 3rd party tool. Not bad, but, not what I would call 
> deserving of a technical merit award. 

I have not found ANY modeler in 3D that can do everything well, and 
easily.  Wings3D has a learning curve like any other tool, as does POV-Ray.

POV-Ray does some things quite easily. Does that mean they are more 
technical just because they are hand coded?  There are things Wings does 
quite easily also, but almost any complex model will require a high 
degree of knowledge and familiarity both the object being modelled and 
of Wings toolset.

I would give that a higher technical score than some things done in POV 
SDL, which although they have lots of parts and look very complex, are 
achieved in 12 lines of code by simple nested while() loops.  To me, 
technical merit is the quality of the objects of your scene, your 
texturing and your lighting.  If all are good you get a high technical 
score regardless of the tool you use to achieve it.

And if you use a variety of tools, it shows me that you know your own 
strengths and weaknesses and how to use the tool that best suits you for 
the job. Based on my years as a musician I consider that a skill in its 
own right. There's nothing worse than a musician with masterful 
technical abilities on their instrument, but who doesn't know when to 
back off and overplays everything.

RG

Post a reply to this message

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.






-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!

Post a reply to this message

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