On 21-6-2009 2:01, clipka wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>>> I honestly don't give a pair
>>> of dingo's kidneys about what the rules will ultimately be
>> Don't beat about the bush, Christoph. What do you really think? :-)
> 
> Exactly what I already wrote: That this whole rules-details discussion is
> unsuited to obtain a common-sense driven atmosphere in the IRTC.
> 
> So I see not the slightest sense in me adding even more to that details
> discussion.
> 
> I'm sure there is a common consensus that we don't want the IRTC to be an
> absolute "purist" competition (*), nor do we want it to be a generic digital
> arts competition. We want it to be a 3D rendering competition (**).
> 
> Whatever actual wording is chosen, it will not be able to do this common
> consensus full justice. So just pick *some* wording, and instead of trying to
> make it airtight, allow some room for people to breathe, so they can *live*
> that "common-sense consensus".

Isn't it as simple as every entry having to explain exactly what 
programs and steps were used for creating the image and let the 
community take that into account when rating an entry?

I agree that it is impossible to define exact rules and that not only 
there will be different interpretations now but that in 5 years time 
people will not even agree with their current opinion. So in stead of 
trying to fix the rules now and inviting people to find examples of 
false positives and false negatives, formulate broad and let the 
community decide.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:01:31 EDT, "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>Exactly what I already wrote: That this whole rules-details discussion is
>unsuited to obtain a common-sense driven atmosphere in the IRTC.

Sorry Christoph, that is one of those English phrases that does not mean what it
reads, literally. Just the opposite in fact.

I agree with what you have said. Personally I thing that any rules should be
contained in the name. IRTC not Internet Raytracing or Scanline With the Use of
Image Manipulating Software Limited to Adding a Watermark or Changing the Gamma
Settings Competition. Although IRSWUIMSLAWCGSC does have a ring to it. :-) 

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Isn't it as simple as every entry having to explain exactly what
> programs and steps were used for creating the image and let the
> community take that into account when rating an entry?

Sounds like a reasonable idea. (Again, I'd say apply common sense of what
"exactly" means in this context; maybe "in detail" would be a better word.)

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:43:12 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>Isn't it as simple as every entry having to explain exactly what 
>programs and steps were used for creating the image and let the 
>community take that into account when rating an entry?

That's alright for you whose command of English is very good. Have pity on
others who cannot write very well.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> If the number of rules-related newsgroup postings are indicative of the
>>> atmosphere to be expected at the IRTC, with rules being *that* much important
>>> to the participants, then I guess I'll very much prefer to have some fun at the
>>> TC-RTC.
>>   So you are going to boycott the IRTC because of some weird principles?
> 
> You didn't understand a word of what I was writing.
> 
> It's not the weird principles I'm worried about.

  With "weird principles" I was not referring to the IRTC rules, but to
your principles.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >>> If the number of rules-related newsgroup postings are indicative of the
> >>> atmosphere to be expected at the IRTC, with rules being *that* much important
> >>> to the participants, then I guess I'll very much prefer to have some fun at the
> >>> TC-RTC.
> >>   So you are going to boycott the IRTC because of some weird principles?
> >
> > You didn't understand a word of what I was writing.
> >
> > It's not the weird principles I'm worried about.
>
>   With "weird principles" I was not referring to the IRTC rules, but to
> your principles.

Ah, I see. Which would be then? And what would be weird about them?

Well, there is a principle indeed: In case I don't like it there and don't need
to be there, I won't go there.

Weird? I really don't think so :P

Post a reply to this message

Here is a suggestion to help to filter painted images from truely computed.

What about a post-dead-line mandatory submission of nearly the same image, with a
substitution, addition and/or removal with/of basic shape and texture, along with a
move
of an existing object.

For instance, for your picture:

vertical axis (either clockwise or counter, up to you)
  2. Put a sheet of paper in front-side of fridge. To hold it, use either
red/black/blue/yellow magnet (small cylinders are ok)
    For extra bonus, the sheet of paper is the original picture. (not mandatory)
  3. Put a duplicate of the cup, upside down, near the coffee-machine. Colours can be
changed.

Submitted second picture MUST match the original one, excepted for the requested
features.

It's a bit of work for the IRTC-men, but that way, basic collage/transformation of
format
are still allowable, and painted become a pain to really win something (even respect).



Real suggestion for your image: all the wooden doors are missing a knob...

Post a reply to this message

> Here is a suggestion to help to filter painted images from truely computed.
> 
> What about a post-dead-line mandatory submission of nearly the same image, with a
> substitution, addition and/or removal with/of basic shape and texture, along with a
move
> of an existing object.
> 
> For instance, for your picture:

> vertical axis (either clockwise or counter, up to you)
>   2. Put a sheet of paper in front-side of fridge. To hold it, use either
> red/black/blue/yellow magnet (small cylinders are ok)
>     For extra bonus, the sheet of paper is the original picture. (not mandatory)
>   3. Put a duplicate of the cup, upside down, near the coffee-machine. Colours can
be changed.
> 
> Submitted second picture MUST match the original one, excepted for the requested
features.
> 
> It's a bit of work for the IRTC-men, but that way, basic collage/transformation of
format
> are still allowable, and painted become a pain to really win something (even
respect).
> 
> 
> 
> Real suggestion for your image: all the wooden doors are missing a knob...

Some other possible variations:
Change in the colour of one light source.
Change in the location of one or several light source(s).
Add or remove a light source.
Add a mirror somewhere where it's obviously visible.
If there is already a mirror, change it's location or orientation.
Move the camera around the scene.
If focal blur was used, remove it, if not, add it.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

I don't know why  (of course I do!)  :-)

.... but this whole discussion about rules and such reminds me of how and 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_des_Ind%C3%A9pendants

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> I don't know why  (of course I do!)  :-)
>
> .... but this whole discussion about rules and such reminds me of how and

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_des_Ind%C3%A9pendants
>
> Thomas




....Also:
Many thanks to those who looked at the image carefully and thoughtfully enough
to offer positive criticism. (Since several people have noted that it can be
hard to tell with me, I wish to confirm that this is sincere and not sarcasm.)
The truth about this image is that it was created for the "Before & After"
round of the TC-RTC way back when.  As usual, I started on my actual entry way
too late after spending most of my time tinkering with various ideas that were
too ambitious to be finished on time and stopped work when the time ran out. At
this point, I would probably have to recover the source code from the contest
site* if I wanted to do further work on the image.  Since going back to an old
project would just add to my list of excuses for not concentrating on current
ones properly, that probably wouldn't be the such a great idea.

Best Regards,
Mike C.


* When folks list the various reasons for participating in events like the IRTC,
one positive aspect that is frequently overlooked is "free storage and backup".
I am often able to recover copies of images and their source code from contest
sites long after I have lost, deleted or misplaced every copy in my possession.
  ;-)

Post a reply to this message