 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks to everyone for their patience. The Rebirth round is now open
for voting. If you have any problems at all, please e-mail
irt### [at] irtc org and we'll address it as quickly as we can.
Enjoy
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Btw, when voting, could we please avoid the same problem as in the past,
in other words, cross-contamination of categories?
Just because an image is stunningly superb, a marvel of technical and
artistic prowess, doesn't necessarily mean that the image is very original
or represents the topic very well. Likewise an image can be of very crappy
quality, but still have a wonderful idea related to the topic, so even if
it's technically poor doesn't mean you should vote it down in all categories.
Any other combination of categories applies too, of course.
(Naturally I'm not talking here about any image in particular, or this
round in particular, just in general.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4aa8c223@news.povray.org...
> Btw, when voting, could we please avoid the same problem as in the past,
> in other words, cross-contamination of categories?
I agree entirely, I always try to focus on each aspect seperately when
marking an image.
However, on that subject, I sometimes have some difficulty distinguishing
between technical and artistic areas. e.g. is bad lighting a technical or
artistic failure?
Obviously good lighting is a success in both fields, but a lack of either
ability can lead to poor lighting and it's often not obvious (to me anyway)
whether it's artistic skill or technical knowledge that's lacking.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In irtc.general Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> However, on that subject, I sometimes have some difficulty distinguishing
> between technical and artistic areas. e.g. is bad lighting a technical or
> artistic failure?
When I vote for the technical quality, I look mainly at the modeling,
texturing and lighting, and possibly to scene generation techniques, if
the author has described them in the description text. If the scene
contains a model created in a third-party software, I try to estimate
from this description and the image itself how much work the author put
into modeling it, and how well it works in the scene.
For artistic merit I look at the composition and visual aesthetics of
the image (regardless of what its technical quality might be). While I'm
not an expert in artistic composition, I have some idea about what it's
all about, and I try to fairly make an estimation of how well it has been
done. (Composition is a rather complicated subject, but it entails things
like how the image is divided into parts, where the main subject or
subjects are located, and so on. On the aesthetic part I look at the
choice of colors and, more generally, the choice of the entire theme of
the image, and other similar things.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Btw, when voting, could we please avoid the same problem as in the past,
> in other words, cross-contamination of categories?
>
> Just because an image is stunningly superb, a marvel of technical and
> artistic prowess, doesn't necessarily mean that the image is very original
> or represents the topic very well. Likewise an image can be of very crappy
> quality, but still have a wonderful idea related to the topic, so even if
> it's technically poor doesn't mean you should vote it down in all categories.
> Any other combination of categories applies too, of course.
>
> (Naturally I'm not talking here about any image in particular, or this
> round in particular, just in general.)
>
This makes particular sense, because, if I presume correctly, the
'overall' score is independent of the categorized scores. The
categorized votes act only to decide category winners in lieu of the
former nominations system.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> However, on that subject, I sometimes have some difficulty
distinguishing between technical and artistic areas. e.g. is bad
lighting a technical or artistic failure?
>
Here's how I see the categories right now:
====> Artistic Merit:
Does the artist effectively use tools beyond bare pictoral exposition to
communicate and/or editorialize his subject matter?
Composition is among these tools, but no knowledge of composition is
needed to judge the competition. Effective composition is always "good"
composition, though the (many) pedants among the IRTC voters will be
looking for that golden ratio or "tonal balance."
Some non-aesthetic tools which come to mind are humor, complexity, and
disorientation.
====> Technical Merit:
Several years ago, the Chex cereal people figured out that their cereal
tastes pretty good mixed with pretzels and nuts. It does, but the fact
that anyone can make it in ten minutes is why Chex Mix isn't often
served at weddings. Find a recipe that takes ten /hours/ and you can bet
your guests will remember it.
Cobbling together borrowed models is Chex Mix. Restricting your scene to
what can easily be done with CSG is Chex Mix.
Lighting is IMO an artistic issue. At least one of the most famous IRTC
images was rendered using rad settings pulled right out of the
newsgroups. And anyone can paste his model into an hdri scene. Using
these elements effectively is a challenge, but not a technical one.
====> Topic:
Was Frank Lloyd Wright creative? Damn straight. And what was his subject
matter? ...House.
Some of the most creative painters I can name painted landscapes and
bridges. Not all creative artists are humorists or surrealists. I like
to see surprising (big C) Concepts as much as anyone else, but this is a
competition for CG artists, not authors. To determine whether an image
is creative, I believe the voter must simply ask himself whether the
image is boring.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's an excellent summary, Shay.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay schrieb:
> ====> Technical Merit:
> Several years ago, the Chex cereal people figured out that their cereal
> tastes pretty good mixed with pretzels and nuts. It does, but the fact
> that anyone can make it in ten minutes is why Chex Mix isn't often
> served at weddings. Find a recipe that takes ten /hours/ and you can bet
> your guests will remember it.
This is a pretty poor example: Wedding guests don't remember a dinner
based on how much /effort/ it took - they remember it based on how
/extraordinary/ it was (which I'd file as "concept").
Furthermore, it sounds to me like in your eyes technical merit should be
ranked in /man-hours/. I disagree on this one. For a certain task at
hand, someone may need two laborious weeks to complete - while someone
else might spend no more than two days to find a clever way of
automating it. Now which of the two deserves more technical merit?
So in a sense, technical merit shouldn't be awarded to IRTC images at
all, but rather to the postings in these newsgroups that came up with
the technical ideas. But since this is not an option, I prefer to award
technical merit to images that make good /use/ of clever techniques. I
see this category as something along the lines, "is the author keeping
up-to-date with the technical state of the art?"
If HDRI-based lighting is as easy as you say, and produces so
extraordinarily good result, then a shot /should/ use it - or at least
achieve the same quality in some other way. Refusing to do so is just
nostalgia, and has nothing to do with technical merit. Rather to the
contrary: It gives rise to the assumption that the author is not
familiar with this technical innovation.
So to me, one (though not the only) guiding question for technical merit
is, "does the scene look as /convincing/ as it is possible these days?"
It doesn't matter to the wedding guests how long it took the catering
team to produce the dinner: It matters to them how it /looks/ and how it
/tastes/.
> Cobbling together borrowed models is Chex Mix. Restricting your scene to
> what can easily be done with CSG is Chex Mix.
Note that a number of people will cobble together borrowed models, but
then customize them (improving on textures for instance). Would that be
Chex Mix as well?
Would you consider use of Poser characters as cobbling together borrowed
models (after all they models as such are there already), or would you
respect the work often required to actually pose them?
> ====> Topic:
We don't have a category "topic" - the third category is "concept".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Shay schrieb:
>
>> ====> Technical Merit:
>> Several years ago, the Chex cereal people figured out that their
>> cereal tastes pretty good mixed with pretzels and nuts. It does, but
>> the fact that anyone can make it in ten minutes is why Chex Mix isn't
>> often served at weddings. Find a recipe that takes ten /hours/ and you
>> can bet your guests will remember it.
>
> This is a pretty poor example: Wedding guests don't remember a dinner
> based on how much /effort/ it took - they remember it based on how
> /extraordinary/ it was (which I'd file as "concept").
Yes, a thing can be extraordinary because it is creative, and there is a
voting category for that. If an artist can find some extraordinarily
creative way to make a scene out of nothing more than a grass macro and
the Stanford bunny, then more power to him. In fact, this is IMO the
most difficult and laudable way to achieve "extraordinaryness."
Concept alone, however, is so easily reproduced that it quickly becomes
banal. Even Chex mix was extraordinary for a minute.
> So to me, one (though not the only) guiding question for technical merit
> is, "does the scene look as /convincing/ as it is possible these days?"
Escher made only a few "convincing" works.
> It doesn't matter to the wedding guests how long it took the catering
> team to produce the dinner: It matters to them how it /looks/ and how it
> /tastes/.
Not entirely true. Most would agree that a bowl of grapes looks good and
tastes great, but a bowl of grapes is not extraordinary because there is
no significant difficulty or expense in its execution.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:43:56 +0200, clipka wrote:
> This is a pretty poor example: Wedding guests don't remember a dinner
> based on how much /effort/ it took - they remember it based on how
> /extraordinary/ it was (which I'd file as "concept").
Arguably, if everyone can make something, then it's ordinary, not
extraordinary.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> So to me, one (though not the only) guiding question for technical meri
t
> is, "does the scene look as /convincing/ as it is possible these days?"
>
I disagree. This assumes that the be all, end all of raytracing is
photorealism. It isn't. If I want a photo, I'll just take my camera
and shoot. To me, technical merit is "how well was technique used in
the service of the concept and art?". If the concept calls for a
comics look, then the image will never be "convincing" no matter how
good the technical realisation. For example (okay, it's an
animation, but the principle is the same):
http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=Animations_July
-October2000_earlyfly.mpg
Jerome
--
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> This is a pretty poor example: Wedding guests don't remember a dinner
>> based on how much /effort/ it took - they remember it based on how
>> /extraordinary/ it was (which I'd file as "concept").
>
> Arguably, if everyone can make something, then it's ordinary, not
> extraordinary.
Remember Columbus and his egg?
Sometimes doing things that everyone /can/ do is still extraordinary,
because only few people actually /do/ it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:33:59 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>
>>> This is a pretty poor example: Wedding guests don't remember a dinner
>>> based on how much /effort/ it took - they remember it based on how
>>> /extraordinary/ it was (which I'd file as "concept").
>>
>> Arguably, if everyone can make something, then it's ordinary, not
>> extraordinary.
>
> Remember Columbus and his egg?
>
> Sometimes doing things that everyone /can/ do is still extraordinary,
> because only few people actually /do/ it.
OK, then things that everyone "has done". ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jérôme M. Berger schrieb:
> clipka wrote:
>> So to me, one (though not the only) guiding question for technical
>> merit is, "does the scene look as /convincing/ as it is possible these
>> days?"
>>
> I disagree. This assumes that the be all, end all of raytracing is
> photorealism. It isn't. If I want a photo, I'll just take my camera and
> shoot.
And that's where I do disagree with you. Sure, the argument works for an
AWSOME ROLEX; but try taking your camera for a walk and shooting
something like this, for instance:
http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index240.html
Yes, to me the ultimate goal in 3D rendering /is/ photorealism - to
depict things that /are not/ real, in a way that they look /as if/ they
were real.
(And while wrist watches do not fit this category, as you can indeed go
and photograph one, I still consider even those valid subjects for
raytracing: To learn how to make non-real things look real, you first
need to learn how to make real things look real.)
> To me, technical merit is "how well was technique used in the
> service of the concept and art?". If the concept calls for a comics
> look, then the image will never be "convincing" no matter how good the
> technical realisation. For example (okay, it's an animation, but the
> principle is the same):
>
http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=Animations_July-October2000_earlyfly.mpg
I would actually consider this a totally wrong choice of tools (and thus
a totally wrong concept for the competition).
If I want stuff like that, I probably try for a 2D toon animation
package, not a 3D render software. The clip doesn't really make much use
of any 3D features.
See the difference here?
You can render a non-real thing and make it look like a comic, but in
that case you could just as well pick a 2D software and have a go at it
- or even get out the good old ink and colors. You can render that same
thing to look like an oil painting, but in that case you could just as
well pick some brushes and have a go at it. You can render it in a way
that it looks like an ink sketch, but in that case you can indeed just
draw it with inks.
But make a non-real thing /look/ like a photograph, and you may /not/ be
able to produce that shot any other way.
Therefore, the "native" style for 3D rendering /must/ be photorealism -
not only because that's what it was invented for in the first place, but
also because depicting non-real things in any other style can be
achieved in other ways.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> Arguably, if everyone can make something, then it's ordinary, not
>>> extraordinary.
>> Remember Columbus and his egg?
>>
>> Sometimes doing things that everyone /can/ do is still extraordinary,
>> because only few people actually /do/ it.
>
> OK, then things that everyone "has done". ;-)
Of course.
As soon as everyone uses HDRI based lighting, I'll consider it nothing
special.
Until then, I stick to considering HDRI based lighting worthy of a high
technical bonus, even if it is darn easy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:15:40 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>
>>>> Arguably, if everyone can make something, then it's ordinary, not
>>>> extraordinary.
>>> Remember Columbus and his egg?
>>>
>>> Sometimes doing things that everyone /can/ do is still extraordinary,
>>> because only few people actually /do/ it.
>>
>> OK, then things that everyone "has done". ;-)
>
> Of course.
>
> As soon as everyone uses HDRI based lighting, I'll consider it nothing
> special.
>
> Until then, I stick to considering HDRI based lighting worthy of a high
> technical bonus, even if it is darn easy.
*sigh*. Apparently I'm not being precise enough, so let me try again.
Anything trivial that most everyone has done.
Better? Are you getting what I'm trying to say here?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message news:4ab997ac$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
>
> > However, on that subject, I sometimes have some difficulty
> distinguishing between technical and artistic areas. e.g. is bad lighting
> a technical or artistic failure?
> >
>
> Lighting is IMO an artistic issue. At least one of the most famous IRTC
> images was rendered using rad settings pulled right out of the newsgroups.
> And anyone can paste his model into an hdri scene. Using these elements
> effectively is a challenge, but not a technical one.
>
An interesting point, though I'm not talking about good lighting, I'm
talking about bad lighting. A technical failure can make a mess of the
lighting in a scene as much as an artistic one. I don't want to point out
specific examples, but there are scenes where the lighting is very washed
out and flat, which could be a case of not knowing what gamma space to
render in (surely a technical issue) or that you should disable ambient
light in a dark scene (kind of half way between technical and artistic).
I've seen people with a lot of artistic talent compensate very effectively
for such technical oversights, but when I'm presented with an image where
the lighting just looks bad, I don't know whether it's a failure to see that
it looks bad (artistic) or a failure to know what to do about it
(technical).
Anyway, thanks for the very interesting reply. In general I agree with you,
though I tend to focus more on aesthetics for artistic score and count
things like humour and story-telling as part of the concept score.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> *sigh*. Apparently I'm not being precise enough, so let me try again.
>
> Anything trivial that most everyone has done.
>
> Better? Are you getting what I'm trying to say here?
No, actually not :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:12:29 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>
>> *sigh*. Apparently I'm not being precise enough, so let me try again.
>>
>> Anything trivial that most everyone has done.
>>
>> Better? Are you getting what I'm trying to say here?
>
> No, actually not :-)
OK, I'll try again.
Take something that anybody can do. And that many/most people have
done. Like making Chex Mix. You take a bunch of pre-fabricated things
and throw them into a bowl. Done. Doesn't take a lot of time, doesn't
take a lot of imagination, and doesn't take a lot of effort.
It doesn't take a lot of brains or "figuring stuff out" to do. It's
easy, almost trivial. But of equal importance, it's not inherently
obvious to the audience, at least not until it's demonstrated.
Now, you refer to the Columbus Egg story - but actually, that's not
related to technical merit, but to creativity. That was a creative
solution to the problem, but that doesn't have anything to do with the
fact that it technically is simple.
Columbus and his egg would rate highly on the creativity scale, but not
on the technical merit scale.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:11:51 +0200, "Jérôme M. Berger" <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
> I disagree. This assumes that the be all, end all of raytracing is
>photorealism. It isn't. If I want a photo, I'll just take my camera
>and shoot. To me, technical merit is "how well was technique used in
>the service of the concept and art?".
I agree with you and after having a discussion on another CG forum I've decided
to consider "technical" as how much "work" is involved making the scene.
Comparing it to the physical side of painting like mixing the paints, brushwork
and other things with creating the textures, models hard sums etc.
Although photorealism has been considered the goal of PovRay it is not for me.
If I can make an image of something I see in my mind I am very happy.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: "Jérôme M. Berger"
Subject: Re: Rebirth round open for voting
Date: 25 Sep 2009 15:21:13
Message: <4abd1829@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Jérôme M. Berger schrieb:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> So to me, one (though not the only) guiding question for technical
>>> merit is, "does the scene look as /convincing/ as it is possible
>>> these days?"
>>>
>> I disagree. This assumes that the be all, end all of raytracing is
>> photorealism. It isn't. If I want a photo, I'll just take my camera
>> and shoot.
>
> And that's where I do disagree with you. Sure, the argument works for a
n
> AWSOME ROLEX; but try taking your camera for a walk and shooting
> something like this, for instance:
>
> http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index240.html
>
Is is actually possible with a little work to make a photo similar
to what you're showing here. Just take a couple of plastic figurines
and with a little bit of work you can get anything. (Hell, just look
at the special effects of films from before the CG era!)
> >
> http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=Animations_Ju
ly-October2000_earlyfly.mpg
>
>
> I would actually consider this a totally wrong choice of tools (and thu
s
> a totally wrong concept for the competition).
>
> If I want stuff like that, I probably try for a 2D toon animation
> package, not a 3D render software. The clip doesn't really make much us
e
> of any 3D features.
>
Actually, it uses a lot of 3D features but in a very subtle way.
Doing small movements not parallel to the image plane is nearly
impossible in a 2D toon animation package (in practice if not in
theory) because they require completely redrawing *everything* at
each frame. Yet those kind of movements add a lot to the feel of the
animation.
>
> See the difference here?
>
> You can render a non-real thing and make it look like a comic, but in
> that case you could just as well pick a 2D software and have a go at it
> - or even get out the good old ink and colors. You can render that same
> thing to look like an oil painting, but in that case you could just as
> well pick some brushes and have a go at it. You can render it in a way
> that it looks like an ink sketch, but in that case you can indeed just
> draw it with inks.
>
> But make a non-real thing /look/ like a photograph, and you may /not/ b
e
> able to produce that shot any other way.
>
> Therefore, the "native" style for 3D rendering /must/ be photorealism -
> not only because that's what it was invented for in the first place, bu
t
> also because depicting non-real things in any other style can be
> achieved in other ways.
Then look at this image by the same author:
http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=StillImages_Nov
ember-December1998_ac5Fvs5Feb.jpg
It doesn't look like a photograph and it doesn't try to. But how
would you do it without 3D rendering?
Jerome
--
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jérôme M. Berger schrieb:
>> And that's where I do disagree with you. Sure, the argument works for
>> an AWSOME ROLEX; but try taking your camera for a walk and shooting
>> something like this, for instance:
>>
>> http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index240.html
>>
> Is is actually possible with a little work to make a photo similar
> to what you're showing here. Just take a couple of plastic figurines and
> with a little bit of work you can get anything. (Hell, just look at the
> special effects of films from before the CG era!)
That may well be; still, it it will be a /hell/ lot of more effort,
especially if you intend to make it look realistic indeed. And you can
do a lot of faking in movies by giving the viewer no time to look at all
the details.
Here's another one that will give you difficulty to reproduce with your
digicam:
http://www.oyonale.com/image.php?code=319&mode=info§ion=2003&lang=en
> Then look at this image by the same author:
>
http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=StillImages_November-December1998_ac5Fvs5Feb.jpg
>
>
> It doesn't look like a photograph and it doesn't try to. But how
> would you do it without 3D rendering?
That's something I'm much more willing to accept in a 3D rendering contest.
Still, it does not make me go "whoa! this is the high art of 3D
rendering" - except for the volumetric effects. (It actually happens to
be a style invented by CG animation studios to avoid the "uncanny valley".)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
