Tek wrote:
> Perhaps something generic like: "Images should not be 'photoshopped' to 
> alter the appearance of the rendered scene."

  That would forbid all post-processing. Gamma correction alters the
appearance of the rendered scene. Even resizing can be used to alter the
appearance.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Tek wrote:
> > Perhaps something generic like: "Images should not be 'photoshopped' to
> > alter the appearance of the rendered scene."
>
>   That would forbid all post-processing. Gamma correction alters the
> appearance of the rendered scene. Even resizing can be used to alter the
> appearance.

.... converting to JPG *will* alter the appearence, invariably...

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> "Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Under the "Pure Ray Tracing" rule system that some have advocated, the attached
> > image, entitled 'First Cup of the Morning', would not constitute a "legal"
> > entry.  Each of the two panels was created
> > from scratch using POV-Ray.  All objects were created using only CSG.  The final
> > image would be disallowed, however, because the two panels were stuck
> > together with "post processing" software (Irfanview).
>
> I don't know what constitutes "pure" ray tracing.
>
> However, your two images can be easily joined in POV-Ray by rendering two
> adjacent boxes, each using one of your source images as an image map.

Yes, I *COULD*, but it would be silly.
Insisting that entries place heavy emphasis on ray tracing makes sense.
Demanding that simple things be done in Rube Goldberg-like fashion just so
that one can say "Zero post processing was involved" does not.
In the fairly unlikely event that the absolute purist position should become
the governing principle of the IRTC, I'm certain that all five or six people
who are really interested in making images that way will have just a lovely
time praising the purity of one another's entries.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Yeah you're right, I phrased that really badly :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4a3c39498f017c6b65778f220@news.povray.org...
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Tek wrote:
>> > Perhaps something generic like: "Images should not be 'photoshopped' to
>> > alter the appearance of the rendered scene."
>>
>>   That would forbid all post-processing. Gamma correction alters the
>> appearance of the rendered scene. Even resizing can be used to alter the
>> appearance.
>
> .... converting to JPG *will* alter the appearence, invariably...
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> In the fairly unlikely event that the absolute purist position should become
> the governing principle of the IRTC, I'm certain that all five or six people
> who are really interested in making images that way will have just a lovely
> time praising the purity of one another's entries.

Eww!  That's why I stopped watching EWTN (Catholic TV).  The theologians just
sit around the coffee table agreeing with each other all day.

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Yeah you're right, I phrased that really badly :)

I don't know about others, but the point *I* am trying to make is not that you
phrased it badly - but that it's virtually *impossible* to phrase properly.

I see many people here trying to conjure up a waterproof and airtight precise
ruling, which I think doesn't exist at all - while any attempt to come up with
a common-sense based approach is countered with some nitpicking.


Well, if that's where the IRTC is going to go, then I'll not stop it. But I
won't go for wars about petty rule details where I think common sense paired
with some mutual tolerance should do the job. *Perfect* justice is nowhere to
be had anyway.

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.

Post a reply to this message

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?

Post a reply to this message

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. It's the amount of attention
they get, which indicates that people seem to be heading towards putting more
emphasis on those principles than on common sense. I honestly don't give a pair
of dingo's kidneys about what the rules will ultimately be - all I care about is
whether the atmosphere will be dominated by common sense or by nitpicking.

In a common sense atmosphere, even the weirdest rules will be ok because common
sense allows them to be ignored for good. While in a nitpicking atmosphere, the
best rules will be misused, tweaked and... well, nitpicked about.

Nor do I have any plans of "boycotting" the IRTC: That would imply staying away
with the intention to exert pressure. While instead all I'd do would be opting
for the "leave it" part of "take it or leave it".

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:12:50 EDT, "clipka" <nomail@nomail> 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? :-)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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".

(* In this context, I do acknowledge that a proposal was made for a "purist"
sub-competition; however, even this does not seem to go against the presumed
common consensus.)

(** It is not clear to me whether the common consensus covers 3D rendering in
general, or just raytracing, or whether there is actually disagreement; this
issue - but I think only this one - needs to be sorted out, and if there is
indeed disagreement that cannot be settled, someone will need to make a
decision.)

Post a reply to this message