 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.497c5bd6c722a95a3c6235530@news.povray.org...
> "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.
>
Thanks. I think we need at least a framework or a good definition before
going on.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
2, 5, 7, 12, 15
(or all of them.)
Regarding the criteria discussion:
it is simple... "you gotta 'WOW' people."
You want people to say "WOW" when they first see the image.
If the image then remains in the memory, that's the best.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 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?
... I don't know if what I say is hard to understand or I'm being *ignored*
I just said there's nothing wrong with using other tools, definitely nothing
wrong with using meshes in your scene. But I wouldn't "vote" for a scene
that was made *entirely* in other programs and fed to POV-Ray, using it as
just a raytracer; because it's *not* just a raytracer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
> news:web.497c5bd6c722a95a3c6235530@news.povray.org...
>> "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.
>>
>
> Thanks. I think we need at least a framework or a good definition before
> going on.
>
> Thomas
>
>
An barely relevant opinion:
I would say that each image can be assigned figures of merit, for example as was done
in the IRTC:
http://www.irtc.org/stills/2006-10-31/results.txt
1. artistic merit
2. technical merit
3. integration of theme
Here any theme would perhaps be defined only by the artist, so this is less important
than the other two for HOF consideration. For artistic merit, technical aspects don't
really matter. But in the technical aspect, it seems contributions from other tools
(for example, generating a mesh with an external tool counts no more than using a
pre-existing mesh) don't contribute to technical merit, while certain techniques such
as post-render gimping will actively subtract from a technical score.
So sure, given two identical images, one with a POV-coded model and one generated with
blender or wings3d, the POV-coded version is the better choice. But if the use of the
auxillary tools contributes to the artistic merit of the image, then that contribution
should be welcomed.
Dan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> "Thomas de Gro
>> It would be *technique* at the service of *beauty*, or the *beauty* of
>> *technique*...
I managed to say the same thing in around 10x the number of words :).
Thomas nailed it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dan Connelly" <djc### [at] yahoo com> schreef in bericht
news:497d2de6@news.povray.org...
>
> So sure, given two identical images, one with a POV-coded model and one
> generated with blender or wings3d, the POV-coded version is the better
> choice. But if the use of the auxillary tools contributes to the artistic
> merit of the image, then that contribution should be welcomed.
>
In my opinion this is almost irrelevant. A mesh parses/renders much faster
and efficiently than the same object constructed in CSG, and in both you can
use exactly the same (POV-Ray) textures, uv-mapped or not. Other things like
height_fields or isosurfaces are better done in POV-Ray. My point is that
the final scene should be rendered (including the radiosity, the media, the
aa, the photons, etc) in POV-Ray, as we are talking about a HOF for POV-Ray.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:497d2711@news.povray.org...
>
> ... I don't know if what I say is hard to understand or I'm being
> *ignored*
>
> I just said there's nothing wrong with using other tools, definitely
> nothing
> wrong with using meshes in your scene. But I wouldn't "vote" for a scene
> that was made *entirely* in other programs and fed to POV-Ray, using it as
> just a raytracer; because it's *not* just a raytracer.
>
I did understand you and I agree certainly with you saying that POV-Ray is
more than a raytracer alone. The point I want to make is that one cannot
draw a really objective line where one can say "this is acceptable" for HOF,
or "this is not acceptable". I think that in most, if not all scenes that
are shown on these forums, the very specific properties of POV-Ray are used,
to varying degrees certainly, but enough to make them POV-Ray specific.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dan Connelly" <djc### [at] yahoocom> schreef in bericht
news:497d2e1e@news.povray.org...
> nemesis wrote:
>> "Thomas de Gro
>>> It would be *technique* at the service of *beauty*, or the *beauty* of
>>> *technique*...
>
> I managed to say the same thing in around 10x the number of words :).
>
> Thomas nailed it.
<grin> sometimes things fall easily in place :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:59:29 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>
>... I don't know if what I say is hard to understand or I'm being *ignored*
>
>I just said there's nothing wrong with using other tools, definitely nothing
>wrong with using meshes in your scene. But I wouldn't "vote" for a scene
>that was made *entirely* in other programs and fed to POV-Ray, using it as
>just a raytracer; because it's *not* just a raytracer.
What about a scene that is made in Moray or Biship3D? They are modellers that
are specifically made for PovRay and pass SDL to Pov. Do you think that only
hand coded scenes should be considered for the HOF?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:497ca084$1@news.povray.org...
>
> 2, 5, 7, 12, 15
>
> (or all of them.)
>
> Regarding the criteria discussion:
>
> it is simple... "you gotta 'WOW' people."
>
> You want people to say "WOW" when they first see the image.
>
> If the image then remains in the memory, that's the best.
things. Thanks Jim.
Back to the Eye of the Beholder...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
