POV-Ray : Newsgroups : irtc.stills : Results are in....! Server Time
12 Dec 2024 11:30:10 EST (-0500)
  Results are in....! (Message 1 to 10 of 15)  
Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 5 Messages >>>
From: St 
Subject: Results are in....!
Date: 18 Jun 2006 16:12:56
Message: <4495b3c8@news.povray.org>
http://www.irtc.org/stills/2006-04-30.html

   Thank you irtc admin. It was a long wait this time, but appreciated.

    ~Steve~


Post a reply to this message

From: St 
Subject: Re: Results are in....!
Date: 18 Jun 2006 16:23:10
Message: <4495b62e$1@news.povray.org>
Wow! *Thanks* for the comments everyone. Now I realise why I like what I'm 
doing. Your comments will help me to improve.

     ~Steve~


Post a reply to this message

From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: Results are in....!
Date: 19 Jun 2006 10:42:10
Message: <4496b7c2$1@news.povray.org>
St. wrote:
> http://www.irtc.org/stills/2006-04-30.html
> 
>    Thank you irtc admin. It was a long wait this time, but appreciated.
> 
>     ~Steve~

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. Meh, these are judged by 
participants and a panel, so, that is what it is... hmm.

Perhaps this was swapped accidentally with one of the place awards?

-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!


Post a reply to this message

From: St 
Subject: Re: Results are in....!
Date: 19 Jun 2006 15:40:08
Message: <4496fd98@news.povray.org>
"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4496b7c2$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> http://www.irtc.org/stills/2006-04-30.html
>>
>>    Thank you irtc admin. It was a long wait this time, but appreciated.
>>
>>     ~Steve~
>
> 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,

    As was mine, and I placed 7th, and I am *well chuffed* with that!  :)

     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?


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. Meh, these are judged by 
> participants and a panel, so, that is what it is... hmm.
>
> Perhaps this was swapped accidentally with one of the place awards?


      Well, all top six look correct to me...  <shrug>

       ~Steve~


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


Post a reply to this message

From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: Results are in....!
Date: 20 Jun 2006 09:10:09
Message: <4497f3b1$1@news.povray.org>
St. wrote:

>      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. None of that was there. It was all 
ready made software, and hand made models (that does deserve artistic 
merit, the image *is* good, and does deserve to place.)

Unless I'm misunderstanding technical merit...


-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!


Post a reply to this message

From: Eero Ahonen
Subject: Re: Results are in....!
Date: 20 Jun 2006 14:12:05
Message: <44983a75$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Tom York
Subject: Re: Results are in....!
Date: 20 Jun 2006 15:20:00
Message: <web.449849eb2efc3f5a7d55e4a40@news.povray.org>
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

From: scott
Subject: Re: Results are in....!
Date: 27 Jun 2006 14:23:32
Message: <44a177a4$1@news.povray.org>
>>      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

From: gonzo
Subject: Re: Results are in....!
Date: 28 Jun 2006 03:45:53
Message: <44a233b1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: Results are in....!
Date: 7 Jul 2006 12:23:28
Message: <44ae8a80$1@news.povray.org>
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

Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 5 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.