> Let us, on behalf of the POV and Raytracing community, officially declare
> the birth of the (gorgeous I hope) TINA CheP! May all the Raytracing good
> fairies give her the best gifts. Perhaps modeling Tina will be the subject
> of another and parallel competition, or the result of a collaborative 
> work!
>
> Welcome among us, Tina ...
>
>

She is a bit shy, you know...  :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "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~



I was the first to see Her, he, he... )




I mean I know the old joke... But somehow I have missed this abbreviation
completely. I feel embarrassed, have to hide my red face for a while....

Hildur

Post a reply to this message

Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> 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?
> 
Free.  If you restrict the technical means, you can leave the theme 
open, if you set the theme, you must leave the technical means open.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> > I'd like the following question to be answered: POV-SDL only or shall we
> > leave it free?
> >
> Free.  If you restrict the technical means, you can leave the theme
> open, if you set the theme, you must leave the technical means open.

OK. That's a good point of view. So we have 2 options:

    - Theme is defined, no technical restriction.
      The theme is still under discussion.
      Until now, were mentionned and sometimes commented/voted
      earlier in the thread (not ranked/sorted):
          . TINA CheP (appears to be the favorite)
          . The other side
          . Sleep
          . Confusion
          . Rebirth
          . Beauty
          . Your favourite tools
          . Degradation
          . Something 2D in 3D
          . timeless
          . optimism
          . optical illusion
          . the universe
          . Floccinaucinihilipilification
          . alien flower
          . splash!
          . The Holly Grail
          . loss of control (maybe too general for our concern)
          . message in the bottle
          . IRTC in Hibernation
          . Sleep of the IRTC
          . Death of the IRTC?
          . IRTC’s end?
          . just "New IRTC"

    - Means restricted, theme open.
      We had:
      . Only primitives (spheres, cylinders, cones, toruses, planes, boxes,
....)
      . Only ONE primitive of your choice
      . Black & White

An overall rule would be that the scene holds in a single POV-sdl file or a
single 3D model. Shall we retrict the renderer to be POV only?

    Bruno.

Post a reply to this message

"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:
> An overall rule would be that the scene holds in a single POV-sdl file or a
> single 3D model. Shall we retrict the renderer to be POV only?
>
>     Bruno.


that another renderer will be used. But on the other hand and in the spirit
of the IRTC why not open it to any rendering engine? If there were entries
not using Pov-Ray the Pov-Ray community could only gain by the comparison.
As for the rule you propose that only a single POV-SDL file be accepted. You
may not be aware that Moray exports its materials in a separate inc file.
Also I believe that quite a few people use include files for macros and
functions. While it is possible to combine these into one file that would
involve additional work.


Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>
> An overall rule would be that the scene holds in a single POV-sdl file or a
> single 3D model. Shall we retrict the renderer to be POV only?
>
>     Bruno.


are assuming that only hard core Povers want to participate.

In case someone using a different software, would we want to exclude that
person??? What harm is there in somebody using another software package????

Let people use what they got, has always been the spirit of the IRTC

counts, not how it was created. So I suggest we stick to the good old IRTC
rules regarding how an image should and should not be generated.

This could also safe us a lengthy discussion about what is allowed and what
is not.


not one of those hard core Povray coders.

I, for the most part, use a modeler, just add a bit of code here and there.


probably find out how to write it all into a single file, but I honestly

out from a scratch, just to fulfill a superficial technicality.

Do you want to risk excluding the more artistically oriented people and just
include the more technically inclined???

I know, I know, these seem to be two different species, many exceptions
though :-)
But there IS a reason why some people never submit to the short code
competition.


has it???

Hildur

Post a reply to this message

"Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote:

> This could also safe us a lengthy discussion about what is allowed and what
> is not.

That is the best argument there could be :-)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>"Hildur K." <hildurka [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote:
>
>> This could also safe us a lengthy discussion about what is allowed and what
>> is not.
>
>That is the best argument there could be :-)
>
>Stephen

I was just asking a question about the evoked 'technical restrictions' which
can be considered as part of the 'challenge' (re-read the discussion). Like
you, I basically don't see why we should exclude non Hard-core POVers. But
I had to get the opinion of people.

Second, I suggested only one sdl file for POVers and one "MODEL" for
modelers to match the fact that people don't have time to work until
end-Feb, and thus, the scenes are likely to be rather simple (but
experienced people can make an image that involves thousands of lines of
sdl code or huge model with a lot of reuse). Also, as the idea of this
pseudo ITRC round arose from a POV-related newsgroup, I had in mind that it
would rather be sdl, and a better occasion to share code and experience than
the IRTC itself. We are a little bit "between us". And we all want to have
fun and learn, nothing more. It is no presidential campaign ...

As Hildur said the most simple now is to apply the traditional IRTC rules
for what is acceptable or not, and forget about restrictions. Therefore,
the topic must be defined.

We will start a new thread dedicated to entries. I propose there will be no
ranking, just comments and exchange.

// ---------------------------------------
// The topic is still open to suggestions.
// ---------------------------------------

    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

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

>
> ...I suggested only one sdl file for POVers and one "MODEL" for
> modelers...........


you mean by a one "model". What is the alternative?

I understand a minimalistic approach is being discussed, one kind of
primitive or primitives only etc. and I support this idea so far.

I just need a little bit more clarification on how to implement this "one

allowed to make the floor too? Or is this a one scene only approach? Not
allowed to import element from other files?

Does somebody have a clear idea about this?

Hildur

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:32:20 EST, "Bruno Cabasson"
<bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:

>
>I was just asking a question about the evoked 'technical restrictions' which
>can be considered as part of the 'challenge' (re-read the discussion). Like
>you, I basically don't see why we should exclude non Hard-core POVers. But
>I had to get the opinion of people.

Sorry if I offended, I'm often too familiar. I appreciate all the trouble that
you are taking over this.

>Second, I suggested only one sdl file for POVers and one "MODEL" for
>modelers to match the fact that people don't have time to work until
>end-Feb, and thus, the scenes are likely to be rather simple (but
>experienced people can make an image that involves thousands of lines of
>sdl code or huge model with a lot of reuse). Also, as the idea of this
>pseudo ITRC round arose from a POV-related newsgroup, I had in mind that it
>would rather be sdl, and a better occasion to share code and experience than
>the IRTC itself. We are a little bit "between us". And we all want to have
>fun and learn, nothing more. It is no presidential campaign ...

Ah you're French and you have a president. I'm a Brit and only a subject, so
don't rub it in :-)
I was only pointing out that those of us that use modellers are restricted to
the output of the modeller and any rule that enters the scope has to be
followed. I hate sounding as if I'm nitpicking but I've been burned too often in
RL.

>As Hildur said the most simple now is to apply the traditional IRTC rules
>for what is acceptable or not, and forget about restrictions. Therefore,
>the topic must be defined.
>
>We will start a new thread dedicated to entries. I propose there will be no
>ranking, just comments and exchange.

I agree and suggest that we take up Steve's kind offer of web space.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message