 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
>
> LOL. That would mean inflation. :-)
Gold medals for everyone!
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> It's a "Hall of Fame" after all, right? So I think it shouldn't matter
> *what* they're famous for: Technical "strength", artistic beauty, or
> whatever.
>
> I'm definitely somewhat biased towards the technical side (because it's
> just the kind of stuff I love), but with that in mind, I'd actually
> advocate to put more emphasis on beauty and concept than I usually do
> myself :)
Well, I'd say the less the author had to rely on *other tools* the more
appropriate for POV-Ray HOF...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlink net> schreef in bericht
> news:web.497a253fc722a95af50167bc0@news.povray.org...
> > Here's something to contemplate: Should the HOF showcase images that only
> > show
> > off POV-Ray's impressive 'strengths'? Or should it also include POV images
> > that
> > have pictorial beauty, regardless of what techniques were used? (Of
> > course,
> > having both at the same time is the ideal; but they are different
> > philosophical
> > concepts.) I kind of sense that the general attitude is for including,
> > first and
> > foremost, the 'strengths' side of things. I don't disagree; but that may
> > be
> > slighting some of the more intrinsically beautiful or complex images in
> > p.b.i,
> > those that have great subject matter, composition or what-not, but which
> > may
> > not have gobs of radiosity, depth-of-field, SSS, etc.
> >
> > Either type of image would be most welcome, IMO.
> >
>
> It would be *technique* at the service of *beauty*, or the *beauty* of
> *technique*...
Very well put, Thomas!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:497b5b23@news.povray.org...
> clipka wrote:
>> It's a "Hall of Fame" after all, right? So I think it shouldn't matter
>> *what* they're famous for: Technical "strength", artistic beauty, or
>> whatever.
>>
>> I'm definitely somewhat biased towards the technical side (because it's
>> just the kind of stuff I love), but with that in mind, I'd actually
>> advocate to put more emphasis on beauty and concept than I usually do
>> myself :)
>
> Well, I'd say the less the author had to rely on *other tools* the more
> appropriate for POV-Ray HOF...
Yes, but times have moved on now...
Perhaps the thing to do is split it.
o- PoV only HOF. (Total CSG and render).
o- PoV/other/HOF. (Use of other tool and render).
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>>
> > Also, don't forget "The Tiffany Cheerio"...gorgeous.
> > KW
>
> Ive writes: "...Surely I prefer the b/w version..."
> To meet the tastes of the author. ;-)
>
Oh! Well, what do the mere artists themselves know, anyway? Let the masses
decide!! Mob rule!! Democracy in action!! :-P
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote
>>
>> Well, I'd say the less the author had to rely on *other tools* the more
>> appropriate for POV-Ray HOF...
>
> Yes, but times have moved on now...
>
> Perhaps the thing to do is split it.
>
> o- PoV only HOF. (Total CSG and render).
>
> o- PoV/other/HOF. (Use of other tool and render).
I didn't say other tools shouldn't be used at all. But somebody who created
a texture in a graphic program, a mesh in a 3D modeller, and put the model
with the texture as an image_map in a povray scene, doesn't seem worth
putting in povray HOF, even if with only those two elements the image looks
awesome.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I didn't say other tools shouldn't be used at all. But somebody who created
> a texture in a graphic program, a mesh in a 3D modeller, and put the model
> with the texture as an image_map in a povray scene, doesn't seem worth
> putting in povray HOF, even if with only those two elements the image looks
> awesome.
Why not?
- If the main purpose of the HOF is to show off what can be achieved with POV,
then there's nothing wrong with it: After all, rendering textured 3D meshes
*is* something you can do with POV - and actually quite an important one, given
today's reality of 3D art.
- If the main purpose of the HOF is to show pearls produced by the POV
community, then there's nothing wrong with it either: After all, they *are*
created by the POV community, so if they *are* pearls, then the HOF is the
right place for them.
- What about showing off tools rooted in the POV community, like PoseRay? Even
if a scene might not have a single line of manually-written SDL code (or
*especially* then), it might show off the power of a Poser->PoseRay->POV-Ray
toolchain.
I think the HOF should reflect a cross-section of (impressive) works from the
POV community. If this community also does impressive shots of imported
textured meshes, then this should also reflect in the HOF.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:497bc2e8@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote
>>>
>>> Well, I'd say the less the author had to rely on *other tools* the more
>>> appropriate for POV-Ray HOF...
>>
>> Yes, but times have moved on now...
>>
>> Perhaps the thing to do is split it.
>>
>> o- PoV only HOF. (Total CSG and render).
>>
>> o- PoV/other/HOF. (Use of other tool and render).
>
> I didn't say other tools shouldn't be used at all. But somebody who
> created
> a texture in a graphic program, a mesh in a 3D modeller, and put the model
> with the texture as an image_map in a povray scene, doesn't seem worth
> putting in povray HOF, even if with only those two elements the image
> looks
> awesome.
>
The problem is that a lot of users (like myself) are limited to what
they can do with POV. Sure, I can probably create a neat scene in pure SDL
with the use of primitives and/or others, but I sure couldn't complete a
great landscape scene with all the 'needed' objects that go with it. Some
can do that, and some simply cannot. So I think there has to be some degree
of fairness across the board when it comes to the HOF and should really
focus on the 'end goal' - the final render.
I think the HOF is very important, and if it was me, I would have all of
those proposals added, and more.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:497bc2e8@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote
>>>
>>> Well, I'd say the less the author had to rely on *other tools* the more
>>> appropriate for POV-Ray HOF...
>>
>> Yes, but times have moved on now...
>>
>> Perhaps the thing to do is split it.
>>
>> o- PoV only HOF. (Total CSG and render).
>>
>> o- PoV/other/HOF. (Use of other tool and render).
>
> I didn't say other tools shouldn't be used at all. But somebody who
> created
> a texture in a graphic program, a mesh in a 3D modeller, and put the model
> with the texture as an image_map in a povray scene, doesn't seem worth
> putting in povray HOF, even if with only those two elements the image
> looks
> awesome.
>
Like Steve said: Times have moved on. We do not need anymore to rely solely
on POV-Ray to create great scenes. Meshes, which I consider the greatest
step forward since the creation of CSG, are much better created in other
applications. Maybe some complex things are fun to be made in CSG, but if a
version version renders a hundredfold faster, then the choice is clear.
Consider for example Gilles Tran's MakeTree macro. An excellent piece of
work, still very useful for single trees. But a forest? Just forget it. With
an application like POV-Tree (and others), the macro has become obsolete (As
Gilles says himself). And I could cite many other examples. So where would
the limit be for images to be considered worth their inclusion into HOF?
HOF, is/should be, in my perception, the showcase of what can be achieved -
technically and artistically - with different *tools* centered around
POV-Ray as the principal and sole renderer, the hub as it were of the whole
creative process by the artist. This excludes automatically any rendered
image achieved inside Poser or inside Blender, or inside whatever other
renderer is available in the outside world.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> HOF, is/should be, in my perception, the showcase of what can be achieved -
> technically and artistically - with different *tools* centered around
> POV-Ray as the principal and sole renderer, the hub as it were of the whole
> creative process by the artist. This excludes automatically any rendered
> image achieved inside Poser or inside Blender, or inside whatever other
> renderer is available in the outside world.
Very well put.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
