The suggestion came up for us impatient IRTC submitters to agree on our own
topic with a deadline on the end of February. Just to keep us busy while we
wait for an official explanation what´s going on on the IRTC.

If you want to know more about the current situation regarding the IRTC see
previous thread.

The idea is to upload our unofficial entries on these newsgroups, no voting,
just for viewing and exchange of comments etc.

So if you have a suggestion for a simple "pseudo" topic, please post here.

Hildur

Post a reply to this message

"Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote:
> The suggestion came up for us impatient IRTC submitters to agree on our own
> topic with a deadline on the end of February. Just to keep us busy while we
> wait for an official explanation what´s going on on the IRTC.
>
> If you want to know more about the current situation regarding the IRTC see
> previous thread.
>
> The idea is to upload our unofficial entries on these newsgroups, no voting,
> just for viewing and exchange of comments etc.
>
> So if you have a suggestion for a simple "pseudo" topic, please post here.
>
> Hildur

Glad my idea got an immeadiate agreement.

Thomas de Groot already suggested :"This is NOT a checkered plane"

    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

Hildur K. wrote:
> The suggestion came up for us impatient IRTC submitters to agree on our own
> topic with a deadline on the end of February. Just to keep us busy while we
> wait for an official explanation what´s going on on the IRTC.

I like this plan - it's not giving up on IRTC nor just waiting.

> So if you have a suggestion for a simple "pseudo" topic, please post here.

Sleep.
Confusion?
Rebirth?


Primitive - what can you do with just one type of primitive?

Post a reply to this message

"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:


> Glad my idea got an immeadiate agreement.

I was actually thinking the exact same thought.

Post a reply to this message

Verm <pov### [at] thirteeendynucom> wrote:
> Hildur K. wrote:
> > The suggestion came up for us impatient IRTC submitters to agree on our own
> > topic with a deadline on the end of February. Just to keep us busy while we
> > wait for an official explanation what´s going on on the IRTC.
>
> I like this plan - it's not giving up on IRTC nor just waiting.
>
> > So if you have a suggestion for a simple "pseudo" topic, please post here.
>
> Sleep.
> Confusion?
> Rebirth?
>
>
> Primitive - what can you do with just one type of primitive?

Jim Carter has been working on Primates for quite a while he’s got a head
start :-)
I like Thomas’s "This is NOT a checkered plane" suggestion.


Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Beauty
Your favourite tools
Degradation
Something 2D in 3D


    ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

One suggestion:

"timeless"  possible interpretations: timeless, classic; running out of
time; theory of relativity, speed of light should make time stand still;
endless, ongoing; not affected by time, doesn´t change; lost his watch, the
clock broke down, does time really exist?

Post a reply to this message

Floccinaucinihilipilification.

     ;)

  ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> Jim Carter has been working on Primates for quite a while he’s got a head
> start :-)

Gah.

> I like Thomas’s "This is NOT a checkered plane" suggestion.

Hmmm I'm trying to work out something that would fit that topic - 
without just being a random image without a checkered plane......

tick tock......

Ok got an on topic idea, yup I could go with TINA CheP.

Post a reply to this message

One more vote for TdeG's TINA CheP

John

-- 
"Please refrain from fondling the nymphs and sprites
- it makes them giggly and skittish.
Thank you for your co-operation.
The Management"

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:08:18 EST, "Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote:

>So if you have a suggestion for a simple "pseudo" topic, please post here.


In the "New Topic?" thread in irtc.stills, I suggested that maybe the new IRTC topic
would be "optimism", in response to Steve's rather optimistic post on 1/14.  I think
it would be a good pseudo
topic, given the current situation.  Any votes for "optimism"?


Kyle

Post a reply to this message

Seconding Verm's "primitive", I suggest to use only basic shapes such as
spheres, cylinders, cones, toruses .. no isosurface, no mesh, no blob
....Just to see what is possible and encouraging more imagination than pure
technique.

Another from myself: "The other side".

    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

In order to decide quickly for the topic, so we can start asap working on
it, I propose to make the dead line for suggestion/decision within the next
6 hours.

Though some of you were on the same idea, I can say I am a little bit like
the 'initiator' on the thread, so, if no one minds, I also propose myself
to pronounce the final decision according to suggestions.

    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> Seconding Verm's "primitive", I suggest to use only basic shapes such as
> spheres, cylinders, cones, toruses .. no isosurface, no mesh, no blob
> ....Just to see what is possible and encouraging more imagination than pure
> technique.
To give credit it was sort of derived from Christoph Hormann's post on 
p.competition on 12/11/2005 :-).

Post a reply to this message

Hi Everyone,

How about turning Thomas de Groot's suggestion on its head, with a topic of
"Checkered Plane" ?

(i.e. Challenge people to come up with a new angle on an old cliche)

Cheers,
Alun.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:28:16 EST, "Alun" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>
>Hi Everyone,
>
>How about turning Thomas de Groot's suggestion on its head, with a topic of
>"Checkered Plane" ?
>
>(i.e. Challenge people to come up with a new angle on an old cliche)
>
>Cheers,
>Alun.


A good idea but not fair to new posters, I think. It is hard enough to think of
something original without all the experienced folk using up all the ideas :-)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:51:31 EST, "Bruno Cabasson"
<bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:

>In order to decide quickly for the topic, so we can start asap working on
>it, I propose to make the dead line for suggestion/decision within the next
>6 hours.
>

I think you should give it a couple of days as not everyone lives online.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Bruno Cabasson wrote:

> 
> Thomas de Groot already suggested :"This is NOT a checkered plane"

Not bad.  Not sure I really understand it, but not bad.  My mind goes to 
optical illusions.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:28:16 EST, "Alun" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi Everyone,
>>
>>How about turning Thomas de Groot's suggestion on its head, with a topic of
>>"Checkered Plane" ?
>>
>>(i.e. Challenge people to come up with a new angle on an old cliche)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Alun.
> 
> 
> 
> A good idea but not fair to new posters, I think. It is hard enough to think of
> something original without all the experienced folk using up all the ideas :-)
> 
Probably true.  It's a good idea but maybe let the reflective sphere / 
checker plane thing stay pristine

Post a reply to this message

Verm wrote:

> 
> Sleep.
> Confusion?
> Rebirth?
>

Timely suggestions, and totally in the tradition of IRTC topics. But 
maybe too ambitious for the shortened time space.









> 
> Primitive - what can you do with just one type of primitive?

Better for the shortened time perhaps.  From the Short Code contests we 
know that people respond well to "attenuated means" type challenges.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Verm <pov### [at] thirteeendynucom> wrote:
  >>
>>Primitive - what can you do with just one type of primitive?
> 
> 
> Jim Carter has been working on Primates for quite a while he’s got a head
> start :-)


He lost it, both his head and the start.


> I like Thomas’s "This is NOT a checkered plane" suggestion.
> 

I need more elaboration, I'm thinking either "optical illusion", or "the 
"universe

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> Beauty

Sure.


> Your favourite tools

Have always liked this one.


> Degradation


Too close to home!

> Something 2D in 3D


Sounds hard

Post a reply to this message

Hildur K. wrote:
> One suggestion:
> 
> "timeless"  possible interpretations: timeless, classic; running out of
> time; theory of relativity, speed of light should make time stand still;
> endless, ongoing; not affected by time, doesn´t change; lost his watch, the
> clock broke down, does time really exist?
> 
> 
> 
Not bad, not bad at all.

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>  Floccinaucinihilipilification.
> 


Timely, but too hard.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> One more vote for TdeG's TINA CheP
> 

Still not catching the spirit of this one.  Is this a plane tiling reuion?

Post a reply to this message

Kyle wrote:

> In the "New Topic?" thread in irtc.stills, I suggested that maybe the new IRTC topic
would be "optimism", in response to Steve's rather optimistic post on 1/14.  I think
it would be a good pseudo
> topic, given the current situation.  Any votes for "optimism"?
> 
Timely, but I wonder if the portrayal of such inner states is so good 
for a shortened time frame.  For me it would work better as the next 
topic.  Or maybe announce it now as an April deadline.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:51:40 -0500, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:

>Bruno Cabasson wrote:
>
>> 
>> Thomas de Groot already suggested :"This is NOT a checkered plane"
>
>Not bad.  Not sure I really understand it, but not bad.  My mind goes to 
>optical illusions.

It could be a scene that just does not have a chequered plane in it. It could be
a scene that looks like it has a chequered plane but doesn't. 
Just my tupence worth.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:01:14 -0500, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Verm <pov### [at] thirteeendynucom> wrote:
>  >>
>>>Primitive - what can you do with just one type of primitive?
>> 
>> 
>> Jim Carter has been working on Primates for quite a while he’s got a head
>> start :-)
>
>
>He lost it, both his head and the start.
>

Deep!

>> I like Thomas’s "This is NOT a checkered plane" suggestion.
>> 
>
>I need more elaboration, I'm thinking either "optical illusion", or "the 
>"universe

Good idea. The world's your mollusc :-)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> Seconding Verm's "primitive", I suggest to use only basic shapes such as
> spheres, cylinders, cones, toruses .. no isosurface, no mesh, no blob
> ....Just to see what is possible and encouraging more imagination than pure
> technique.
> 

As much as I find this constant "return to the mathematical primitive" 
thing annoying, I see how it could work in this circumstance.  It's 
quick and dirty, there is a sense of return to the IRTC roots, the 
restriction of means almost always results in a kind of inventiveness 
even if not great expression, (but there is not enough time for grand 
scenes right now anyway), and it would throw some emphasis back onto 
texturing and lighting as skills.

Verm's original suggestion struck me as meaning the artist must pick and 
use just one of the primitives.  Perhaps that could be a constraint? 
Pick any primitive you want, but it's the only one you get.  Also there 
should be a definitive list of what's allowed and what is not.


> Another from myself: "The other side".
> 

Not bad.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:51:31 EST, "Bruno Cabasson"
> <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:
>
> >In order to decide quickly for the topic, so we can start asap working on
> >it, I propose to make the dead line for suggestion/decision within the next
> >6 hours.
> >
>
> I think you should give it a couple of days as not everyone lives online.
>
> Regards
>  Stephen

OK. 24 more hours until midnight tomorrow (French time, end of working day
in the US)

    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:40:08 EST, "Bruno Cabasson"
<bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:

>OK. 24 more hours until midnight tomorrow (French time, end of working day
>in the US)

That's good of you.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:

> Also there should be a definitive list of what's allowed and what is not.
>

My point of view: We don't have much time to collect suggestions about that
and decide precise constraints, unless the constraints are suggested by the
topic itself (eg "Black & White") or they are simple and 'overall' (eg
scenes are in a single POV-SDL file, without restrictions for the language
features).

Any idea welcome.

    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

Bruno Cabasson wrote:

> Any idea welcome.
>

A loose *intersection* of "Euclidian" solid objects
from traditional planar geometry and the objects of POV
syntax.
Box, Cone, Cylinder, Sphere, Torus, Plane

Either limit the scene to a subset of these
or
to a choice of ONE of these

Based on the docs:

*Solid Finite Primitives*
There are fourteen different
solid finite primitive shapes:

No  blob
*Yes box*
*Yes cone*
*Yes cylinder*
No height field
No Julia fractal
No lathe
No prism
*Yes sphere*
No spheresweep
No superellipsoid
No surface of revolution
No text object
*Yes torus*

*Finite Patch Primitives*
There are six totally thin, finite
objects which have no well-defined inside.

No bicubic patch
No disc
No smooth triangle
No triangle
No polygon
No mesh / mesh2

*Infinite Solid Primitives*
There are five polynomial primitive shapes
that are possibly infinite and do not
respond to automatic bounding.

*Yes plane*
No cubic
No poly
No quadric
No quartic

*Parametric Object*
Where the isosurface object uses implicit surface functions, F(x,y,z)=0, 
the parametric object is a set of equations for a surface expressed in 
the form of the parameters that locate points on the surface, x(u,v), 
y(u,v), z(u,v). Each pair of values for u and v gives a single point 
<x,y,z> in 3d space

No Parametric Object

*Isosurface Object*
No Isosurface object

Post a reply to this message

"Doctor John" <doc### [at] linuxmailorg> wrote:
> One more vote for TdeG's TINA CheP


 Yep, I think I'll go with TINA CheP too. And although Kyles' 'Optimism'
topic is really good, (there's a lot you can do with this subject), I think
there isn't enough time to do something worthwhile. IF the IRTC gets up and
running again soonish, I'd like to try this topic sometime.

  ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

Ideas:
    - alien flower
    - splash!
    - The Holly Grail
    - loss of control (maybe too general for our concern)
    - message in the bottle


    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

"Once again I am going to be bold… Since this is a spin-off of the IRTC
topic I suggest:

- IRTC in Hibernation
- Sleep of the IRTC
- Death of the IRTC?
- IRTC’s end?

Or just

- New IRTC

Just My 2 cent :)

Post a reply to this message

I'd just like to chime in and lend my support for the idea of a "primitive"
themed competition.  As many people have already mentioned, there isn't
much time left between now and the end of February, so a simple topic
might do nicely.

I am especially drawn to the idea of each artist being forced to choose and
work with just one primitive, and nothing else.

Such primitives being limited to:

* Box
* Sphere
* Cylinder
* Cone (which could be used to produce cylinders, I suppose :)
* Torus

As has also been mentioned, the restrictive nature of this theme could
produce some very interesting results as artists try to overcome this
restrictiveness through their own creativity.


I am curious though, who would we submit our images to in the increasingly
likely event that the IRTC is still not responding by the end of February?

Perhaps we could set up a Wikipedia page to use for the short term?


Cheers,

-Isaac K

Post a reply to this message

A mix of what has been said so far might be:

Topic: "This Is Not A Checkered Plane", using only basic POV-SDL primitives,
in a single scene file.

Discussion still open until tomorrow midnight, french time.

   Bruno

PS: It's over 0:30 now. See you in a few hours.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:45b7bb8d$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> Beauty
>
> Sure.

   Yes, it can be interpreted in many ways.


>
>
>> Your favourite tools
>
> Have always liked this one.

  I chose that because everyone has their favourite tools - and maybe fairly 
easy to do as a subject for the short time that we have.


>
>
>> Degradation
>
>
> Too close to home!

   I was thinking rust and stuff!  Heh...  :)


>
>> Something 2D in 3D
>
>
> Sounds hard

    Which is why I chose it. I've never even attempted it, so it would be a 
challenge for me (even using Wings), but it would have been interesting to 
see what came up.

  ~Steve~


>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:45b7bc8c@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>  Floccinaucinihilipilification.
>>
>
>
> Timely, but too hard.

   LOL!  :o)

   I know that you know that I understood that.

     ~Steve~


>

Post a reply to this message

"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote in message 
news:web.45b799422adc5aebf5fba6ef0@news.povray.org...


> Another from myself: "The other side".

    I'm quite liking this one. If I can do it, I have a nice image in my 
mind for this.

    Nothing dark, just 'different'.

     Nice topic Bruno.

     ~Steve~



>
>    Bruno
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I can't do PoV prims. Or rather, I can, but I can't translate them. It 
does my head in bigtime. I remember 60 - 70 moves just to get a box or 
sphere where I wanted it to be.

    If we go down the pure-pov route, then I will still enter using Wings. 
It'll be just for the fun of it though, so disregard my attempt in any final 
submission that I may make.

      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
> news:45b7bc8c@news.povray.org...
> > St. wrote:
> >>  Floccinaucinihilipilification.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Timely, but too hard.
>
>    LOL!  :o)
>
>    I know that you know that I understood that.
>
>      ~Steve~
>
>
> >

Floccinaucinihilipilification?

As a not natively engish speaking person I got about nowhere.... Anyone give
me a hand?

Post a reply to this message

Verm <pov### [at] thirteeendynucom> wrote:

> Ok got an on topic idea, yup I could go with TINA CheP.

Yeah me neither an English speaking person, what/who is TINA CheP????

please explain

Hildur

Post a reply to this message

"Napivo" <Nap### [at] yahoofr> wrote in message 
news:web.45b7f67b2adc5aeb3cd9c0860@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
>> news:45b7bc8c@news.povray.org...
>> > St. wrote:
>> >>  Floccinaucinihilipilification.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Timely, but too hard.
>>
>>    LOL!  :o)
>>
>>    I know that you know that I understood that.
>>
>>      ~Steve~
>>
>>
>> >
>
> Floccinaucinihilipilification?
>
> As a not natively engish speaking person I got about nowhere.... Anyone 
> give
> me a hand?

     http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-flo2.htm

   "Of little or no value" ~ made up of four words. A good subject for the 
IRTC, yes?

      Well, maybe... One day.   ;)

      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>   I can't do PoV prims. Or rather, I can, but I can't translate them. It 
> does my head in bigtime. I remember 60 - 70 moves just to get a box or 
> sphere where I wanted it to be.
> 
>     If we go down the pure-pov route, then I will still enter using Wings. 
> It'll be just for the fun of it though, so disregard my attempt in any final 
> submission that I may make.
> 
>       ~Steve~
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
That was my first reaction too, Steve, but then I realized that a 
masterful texturing scene would still make a strong entry.

Also, to get an organic shape, use a mesh modeller then export the 
vertex info to generate splines, or locate spheres, or in some other way.

Also, a scene can be laid out in Wings, and again, the locations 
retrieved manually from the Wings display, you know, mid point of a 
face, whatever.

Also recognize that cylinders and cones need not be transformed.  They 
can be defined with their endpoints hard-coded in space.

Anyway, the !-a-checkered-plane topic would be my second choice.  If 
someone would PulEEZe tell me if it means...

a) the specific negation of "plane" and "checkered" concepts or...

b) a clever way of saying: the topic is completely open, just don't put 
a tiled floor or similar in the scene.

Post a reply to this message

Napivo wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> 
>>"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
>>news:45b7bc8c@news.povray.org...
>>
>>>St. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Floccinaucinihilipilification.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Timely, but too hard.
>>
>>   LOL!  :o)
>>
>>   I know that you know that I understood that.
>>
>>     ~Steve~
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Floccinaucinihilipilification?
> 
> As a not natively engish speaking person I got about nowhere.... Anyone give
> me a hand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
gurgle is your friend

Post a reply to this message

Hildur K. wrote:
> 
> Yeah me neither an English speaking person, what/who is TINA CheP????
>



T - this
I - is
N - not
A - a
Che - checkered
P - plane

"this is not a checkered plane"

relates too the raytracing penchant for using checkered planes
as a setting for display of modelled objects.  It is thought of
as neutral, and possibly a scaling device.  So the topic suggestion 
might be thought of as a plea for artists to get as far away as
possible from this particular crutch?

also to the POV community's tradition of contributors
to p.b.images first posting a
scene of a reflective sphere over a checkered plane as a
kind of rite if passage, mild hazing, or social protocol
before going on to post other scenes.  Over the years
these first posts have shown a lot of inventiveness so the
topic maybe in part the idea of preserving the spirit of inventiveness
without the traditional form, or somehow inversing the
traditional restriction?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> also to the POV community's tradition of contributors
> to p.b.images first posting a
> scene of a reflective sphere over a checkered plane as a
> kind of rite if passage, mild hazing, or social protocol
> before going on to post other scenes.  Over the years
> these first posts have shown a lot of inventiveness so the
> topic maybe in part the idea of preserving the spirit of inventiveness
> without the traditional form, or somehow inversing the
> traditional restriction?

Hello here. Back again (just waking up and see last night's posts).

The TINA CheP seems to produce a general interest and has already a few
votes. I had a vote for 'the other side'. Maybe the whole could be mixed up
in: "reverse world".

I'd like the following question to be answered: POV-SDL only or shall we
leave it free?

I'd say: Let the POVers write a single and stand-alone scene file, and non
POVers do as they want provided it is also a single and standalone model.

I'll try to make a summary of proposals so far (let we wake up completely
....), but contributions are also welcome for this. All suggestions for
theme and rules still open. We have a little time until the dead-line (next
midnight, french time). See you in a few.

   Bruno

Post a reply to this message

"Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote in message 
news:web.45b7f9bc2adc5aeb505d35150@news.povray.org...
> Verm <pov### [at] thirteeendynucom> wrote:
>
>> Ok got an on topic idea, yup I could go with TINA CheP.
>
> Yeah me neither an English speaking person, what/who is TINA CheP????

      I fear you may well soon see via Poser....  (My idea, My idea! *Raises 
hand*)  ;)

      I think this name will stay now. > Nice Lady character.  :o)

       ~Steve~


>
> please explain
>
> Hildur
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message