Thanks Chris

"Skip Talbot" <ski### [at] aolcom> wrote in message 
news:42142f3d$1@news.povray.org...
> Congratulations to all the winners!
>

Indeed!  Most of the names near the top are those that I would have 
expected.  I feel honored to have placed where I did.  I will have to wait 
until morning (meaning after I sleep) to view the entries, which are not yet 
available.

Thanks again to all who organized this event, and congratulations to all of 
the winners!

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

The images are breathtaking! Congratulations Johnny (does he visit this
newsgroup?) and the other winners!

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message news:4214307e$1@news.povray.org...
> The images are breathtaking! Congratulations Johnny (does he visit this
> newsgroup?) and the other winners!

I haven't seen Johnny Yip on the news servers before, but I bet he will be a
very happy person when he finds out he's won!

Considering he currently has a PIII 450 Mhz, his prize from Appro will be
mindblowing!  (as it would be for any of us, of course! *jealous*)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

Congratulations to all the winners - those images are AWESOME.

Jim

"Chris Cason" <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> a écrit dans le
message de news:42142e0f$1@news.povray.org...

Splendid images!
I'm a bit surprised mine is ranked so high but I won't complain :)
Cheers to all entrants

Marc

Chris Cason wrote:
> The primary results for POVCOMP 2004 are ready. 

   Thanks for all the effort, Chris and all the rest of the team, judges 
and sponsors.

   Now to figure some excuse to not go to work this morning, so I can 
enjoy viewing all those superb images, and then browsing the entire 
zazzle site... :)

--
Jaime

What a surprise ! I'm proud now.. ;-)
So many beautiful images. Thanks to all entrants, judges, organizers and
sponsors.
And Congrats to all the winners !

Rene
----

I too am pleasantly surprised, and very honored, by my ranking. Very
inspiring images, all. Congratulations to all the winners, and to the POV
team. Thank you for making this competition, and even the images in the
competition, possible for us.

 - dan B hentschel

Chris Cason wrote:
> The primary results for POVCOMP 2004 are ready. 

> 
> We would like to thank our sponsors Appro (www.appro.com), AMD (www.amd.com),
> zazzle (www.zazzle.com), and Planet Mirror (www.planetmirror.com) for making
> this competition possible, plus our judges Dennis Miller, Evan Hallein, David
> Hook, Gilles Tran, Lance Birch, and Juha ('Warp') Nieminen for taking time
> out of their busy schedules over the past two weeks to rank the entries

Thankyou all for doing this, and congratulations on a remarkable 
outcome.  Povers, given the chance, (and with a little coaxing,) have 
done themselves proud! I sense that this is going to spur even more 
innovation with POV-Ray's capabilities.

Congratulations to Johnny.  His image really embodies the expressiveness 
of this new art form of raytracing, and much of the flavour and spirit 
that POV-Ray and the POV-Ray community brings to it.

Thanks everyone for some fantastic, original images. The variety
and creativity is wonderful.

I'm thoroughly enjoying reading all the Making of's, they really add
to my appreciation of these works.

>   equal 4th: "Victoria"s World" by Douglas Eichenberg

wow that's cool. mostly because one sketch i did (i only ever get as far as
sketching on paper most the time) was very similar, except not as lush, and
without the birds. Instead of a woman looking at another little planet, it
was a cartoony astronomer looking through a curvey telescope towards the
planet. but at the top of the telescope was an ant. so the astronomer
thought a giant ant was taking over the distant planet.

Anyway, Douglas, you're image rocks and is about a million times better than
anything I could have come up with. Simply beautiful. Top 2 in my list for
sure.

Ross wrote:
>>  equal 4th: "Victoria"s World" by Douglas Eichenberg
> 
> 
> wow that's cool. mostly because one sketch i did (i only ever get as far as
> sketching on paper most the time) was very similar, except not as lush, and
> without the birds. Instead of a woman looking at another little planet, it
> was a cartoony astronomer looking through a curvey telescope towards the
> planet. but at the top of the telescope was an ant. so the astronomer
> thought a giant ant was taking over the distant planet.
> 
> Anyway, Douglas, you're image rocks and is about a million times better than
> anything I could have come up with. Simply beautiful. Top 2 in my list for
> sure.
> 
> 

That is also one of my favorites. Surprising how similar it is with the 
3th place entry 'Dissolution'. Practically the same composition, both 
unrealistic worlds, both perfectly executed, only the first has a 
technical theme and the second a magical one.

If you put them side by side, I think, both images compliment each other 
in that respect, like the alter ego of each another.

Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> was a cartoony astronomer looking through a curvey telescope towards the
> planet. but at the top of the telescope was an ant. so the astronomer
> thought a giant ant was taking over the distant planet.

  It's impossible to focus a telescope to both the ant and the planet.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Jim, fantastic modeling in your image. Especially your chimp! Your close-up 
is superb! Overall, and in MY opinion, your image should have been notched 
up some. For me, it captured the true 'inquisitive' nature of the 'simple' 
beast, which you managed to do with a panache only you can design.

  Be proud, keep it up, nice work.

  ~Steve~

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4214c965@news.povray.org...
> Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> > was a cartoony astronomer looking through a curvey telescope towards the
> > planet. but at the top of the telescope was an ant. so the astronomer
> > thought a giant ant was taking over the distant planet.
>
>   It's impossible to focus a telescope to both the ant and the planet.
>

meh! details, details...

you need to watch more cartoons, impossible things happen.

St. wrote:
> Jim, fantastic modeling in your image. Especially your chimp! Your 
> close-up is superb! Overall, and in MY opinion, your image should have 
> been notched up some. For me, it captured the true 'inquisitive' nature 
> of the 'simple' beast, which you managed to do with a panache only you 
> can design.
> 
>  Be proud, keep it up, nice work.
> 
>  ~Steve~
> 
> 
> 
> 
Thanks Steve. A little support goes a long way.  My entry was a 
calculated risk all along. I came to the concept rather late. 
Never-the-less, even though I expected it, I was feeling a little 
bruised that I couldn't make the top 1/4 in the judging.

Chris Cason made a point of noting that the ranking outside the winner's 
circle was just approximate, an attitude I wholehearted support.  If 
anyone remembers, I have been quite vocal on that subject in the past 
and believe that a detailed ranking makes little sense in the context of 
artmaking and expecially so when you enter the middle ranks.  To me it 
is simply an artifact born of the need to find a winner.

Whatever my need to whine, I must confess that this contest forced me to 
intensify my thinking about the themes I want to pursue.  And that is a 
good thing.

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message
news:4214f230$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4214c965@news.povray.org...
> > Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> > > was a cartoony astronomer looking through a curvey telescope towards
the
> > > planet. but at the top of the telescope was an ant. so the astronomer
> > > thought a giant ant was taking over the distant planet.
> >
> >   It's impossible to focus a telescope to both the ant and the planet.
> >
>
> meh! details, details...
>
> you need to watch more cartoons, impossible things happen.
>
>

oh, maybe you thought the view of the image would be through the telescope.
it wouldn't be. it was almost the same view as in "Victoria"s World".

anyway, it didn't happen, was just a sketch.

Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> oh, maybe you thought the view of the image would be through the telescope.
> it wouldn't be. it was almost the same view as in "Victoria"s World".

  How would you then see the ant and understand the humor?

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4214f26f$1@news.povray.org...
> Thanks Steve. A little support goes a long way.  My entry was a
> calculated risk all along. I came to the concept rather late.
> Never-the-less, even though I expected it, I was feeling a little
> bruised that I couldn't make the top 1/4 in the judging.
>
> Chris Cason made a point of noting that the ranking outside the winner's
> circle was just approximate, an attitude I wholehearted support.  If
> anyone remembers, I have been quite vocal on that subject in the past
> and believe that a detailed ranking makes little sense in the context of
> artmaking and expecially so when you enter the middle ranks.  To me it
> is simply an artifact born of the need to find a winner.
>
> Whatever my need to whine, I must confess that this contest forced me to
> intensify my thinking about the themes I want to pursue.  And that is a
> good thing.
Jim, I have to say I love your image!
The concept, the modeling and texture are great, and the ape's fur, (though
it suffers artifacts which I think made your image downgraded) is
wonderfull.
Maybe the ressources your  image needed and the time you had did not meet
the deadline?

Marc

Marc Jacquier wrote:

> 
> Jim, I have to say I love your image!

Thanks man.


> The concept, the modeling and texture are great, and the ape's fur, (though
> it suffers artifacts which I think made your image downgraded) is
> wonderfull.
> Maybe the ressources your  image needed and the time you had did not meet
> the deadline?

It was underbaked in several ways.  The technical things involved were 
developing on a timeline a little out of synch with this contest.  But 
again, the contest forced me to think about, and lead me to thematic 
ideas, that I wouldn't have gotten to otherwise.  A number of the ideas 
I tried, but were eventually discarded, *will* provide rich creative 
fodder going forward.

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4214facd$1@news.povray.org...
> Marc Jacquier wrote:
> > Jim, I have to say I love your image!
>
> Thanks man.
You're welcome but no need to thank an effortless thought :)

> It was underbaked in several ways.  The technical things involved were
> developing on a timeline a little out of synch with this contest.
That's what I guessed

> But again, the contest forced me to think about, and lead me to thematic
> ideas, that I wouldn't have gotten to otherwise.  A number of the ideas
> I tried, but were eventually discarded, *will* provide rich creative
> fodder going forward.

That's a good positive point :)
Do you think improving that image? (just a better quality render...)

Marc

Marc Jacquier wrote:

Marc, when I first opened the entries page and started scrolling, your 
image was the first one that actually stopped me and made me look.  I 
thought your roiling sea and foam was not only very convincing but 
visually rich and narratively dramatic.  It had to make sense in a 
tactile way against the textures of the lighthouse.  And you succeeded 
extremely well.

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:4214facd$1@news.povray.org...
> Marc Jacquier wrote:
>
>>
>> Jim, I have to say I love your image!
>
> Thanks man.
>
>
>> The concept, the modeling and texture are great, and the ape's fur, 
>> (though
>> it suffers artifacts which I think made your image downgraded) is
>> wonderfull.
>> Maybe the ressources your  image needed and the time you had did not meet
>> the deadline?
>
> It was underbaked in several ways.  The technical things involved were 
> developing on a timeline a little out of synch with this contest.  But 
> again, the contest forced me to think about, and lead me to thematic 
> ideas, that I wouldn't have gotten to otherwise.  A number of the ideas I 
> tried, but were eventually discarded, *will* provide rich creative fodder 
> going forward.

I think I agree with the others.  Your scene was great, but the 
unfortunately, the image suffered from some technical problems.  I think you 
imply that you were overly ambitious.  But I get the feeling that this would 
render quite well with a few adjustments, and enough time.

I purposely tried to make my entry rather simple, especially given the 
initially short time frame.  With the extra time, I tried to clean it up, 
and I added a few more objects.   At this point, I'm embarrassed to ever 
display my October entry again.  Radiosity was kicking my behind.  I had no 
idea that the lighting setup would be so difficult, and without doing lots 
of day-long renders, it was difficult to get a handle on.

Incidentally, I adapted your Wings3D women's shoe tutorial for the boots 
near the door.  Unfortunately, the boots aren't the best boots model, but I 
couldn't stand the thought of starting over again, and they're not a major 
focus of the image.

On a lighter note, I sometimes find myself making that same ape face after I 
just finished creating something cool.  I'm such a primate.  ;-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4214f626@news.povray.org...
> Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> > oh, maybe you thought the view of the image would be through the
telescope.
> > it wouldn't be. it was almost the same view as in "Victoria"s World".
>
>   How would you then see the ant and understand the humor?
>

visual cues to bring the eye up to the top of the telescope, where the ant
would be visible from the viewers perspective, and unrealistically large for
an ant anyway.

Marc Jacquier wrote:


> Do you think improving that image? (just a better quality render...)
> 

I don't think it would be a significant enough improvement to make it 
worthwhile.  There is just too much else that falls short. The hair can 
look better but the density and coverage has to be balanced very 
carefully. Out of testing time, and in order to guarantee an entry at 
the last minute, I had to overdo the density, effectively nullifying the 
usefulness of my technique. I may rework that composition just to 
improve the technicals and rerender or I may upgrade the whole concept.

(While the open setting is very pleasing and came off way better than I 
expected, the original idea involved a more oppressive sense of the 
jungle, like described by Ferdinand Celine.)

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:4214f26f$1@news.povray.org...

> Thanks Steve. A little support goes a long way.

  I'm in support of all PoV-Ray users, with *whatever tools they use* to use 
it. It's a powerful renderer, there's no doubt about that.


 My entry was a
> calculated risk all along. I came to the concept rather late. 
> Never-the-less, even though I expected it, I was feeling a little bruised 
> that I couldn't make the top 1/4 in the judging.

 I remember and understand. I think I would have been some places behind you 
with 'Flowers' or 'Imminent'. Lol!

>
> Chris Cason made a point of noting that the ranking outside the winner's 
> circle was just approximate, an attitude I wholehearted support.  If 
> anyone remembers, I have been quite vocal on that subject in the past and 
> believe that a detailed ranking makes little sense in the context of 
> artmaking and expecially so when you enter the middle ranks.  To me it is 
> simply an artifact born of the need to find a winner.

   Yes, and correctly so, if so deserved. One image will always stand out 
from the others, (that's the nature of the beast, no pun intended), but 
overall, I didn't see the 'ground-breaking' image I thought I would see in 
this competition.  (Sorry to be blunt all, but it's just my opinion).


>
> Whatever my need to whine, I must confess that this contest forced me to 
> intensify my thinking about the themes I want to pursue.  And that is a 
> good thing.

   You're not wrong in your thoughts. It IS a good thing. I've got some 
images in my head that I MUST do, and I 'think' I can do. I would describe 
them something like, 'imaginative', but with meaning. So, let's say I'm 
thinking further than I've ever thought before 'because' of this comp.

 Which is a good thing. :)

    ~Steve~

St. wrote:

> 'ground-breaking' image I thought I would see 

maybe: "Hoped you might see?"

The image was exceptional in ways that Povers can learn from.  It is 
true that we value technical, even conceptual "ground-breaking", but we 
perceive it across one maybe two dimensions. This image resulted from 
care and craftmanship through a range of dimensions.  It's that 
accomplishment over a range of technical and pictorial concerns that is 
not often equalled here.  Modeling, composition, lighting, scale, 
orchestration of detail, space, atmosphere, pictorial language are all 
used to modulate our experience and maintain our interest.

Chris Cason wrote:

> [This announcement can also be found at
> [http://www.povcomp.com/results.php]

Neat :)

I personaly find 'The Last Guardian' more suitable for 3 or 4 place, and I
love 'Dissolution' by Ziga Petric  and  'The Kitchen' by Jaime Vives
Piqueres. But perhaps this is because of poor compresion of blue-jpg of
Guardian. I ques judges wanted to show also power of Pov-RAY engine, with
dispersion+scaterring media+photons is perfect example of. 

I would love to see a bit improved versions of 2 and 3 place in examply by
using media to show that image was raytraced on greated engine :)


-- 
Rafal Maj Raf256

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

> I think I agree with the others.  Your scene was great, but the 
> unfortunately, the image suffered from some technical problems.  I think you 
> imply that you were overly ambitious.  But I get the feeling that this would 
> render quite well with a few adjustments, and enough time.
> 

> I purposely tried to make my entry rather simple, especially given the 
> initially short time frame.  With the extra time, I tried to clean it up, 
> and I added a few more objects.   At this point, I'm embarrassed to ever 
> display my October entry again.  Radiosity was kicking my behind.  I had no 
> idea that the lighting setup would be so difficult, and without doing lots 
> of day-long renders, it was difficult to get a handle on.
> 
> Incidentally, I adapted your Wings3D women's shoe tutorial for the boots 
> near the door.  Unfortunately, the boots aren't the best boots model, but I 
> couldn't stand the thought of starting over again, and they're not a major 
> focus of the image.
> 
> On a lighter note, I sometimes find myself making that same ape face after I 
> just finished creating something cool.  I'm such a primate.  ;-)
> 

I'll reply in your O-T pub scene thread

Rafal Maj Raf256 <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> But perhaps this is because of poor compresion of blue-jpg of
> Guardian.

  Odd. I don't see any visible jpeg artifacts in the image.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

While working on my submission, I hoped to make the top 25,
kept my fingers crossed that I would make the top 10 and
had a brief fantasy about winning. I feel pretty good about 
making 8th place as there are quite a few great images in
the top 25. 
   Can't wait until the next contest.

Chris Holtorf

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:42151fae$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>> 'ground-breaking' image I thought I would see
>
> maybe: "Hoped you might see?"

  Well, yes. Maybe I should have phrased that differently. I don't know, 
this is hard to do, (explain my thoughts without anyone jumping down my 
throat), but there wasn't imo a lot different from what I've seen before in 
the IRTC, (apart from one image that wasn't entered), which is why I took 
the route I did. Don't get me wrong, PoV is a hard animal to tame, and there 
is no way I could produce "The Last Guardian" like Johnny did. Not yet 
anyway. ;)

   For the record, I hope that if there's another PoVComp, then there will 
be a lot more information on what PoV 'can' achieve, (I certainly HOPE so 
for anyone new to PoV. It will be ten times better now that everyone knows 
what to expect and do), and what not to do in the event that someone might 
'bust a gut' for nothing. I.e., scaling at much larger resolutions. This was 
my downfall. I haven't ever rendered an image at high resolutions until 
recently, so didn't think there would be a difference, (seeing is 
believing!)

  But 'now' I know. That's why I asked if the detail images were important 
or not in a recent thread.

>
> The image was exceptional in ways that Povers can learn from.  It is true 
> that we value technical, even conceptual "ground-breaking", but we 
> perceive it across one maybe two dimensions. This image resulted from care 
> and craftmanship through a range of dimensions.  It's that accomplishment 
> over a range of technical and pictorial concerns that is not often 
> equalled here.  Modeling, composition, lighting, scale, orchestration of 
> detail, space, atmosphere, pictorial language are all used to modulate our 
> experience and maintain our interest.

   Jim, your words, and art, always 'teach' me more, and I thank you for 
that.

    ~Steve~

Jim Charter wrote:
> Chris Cason made a point of noting that the ranking outside the winner's 
> circle was just approximate, an attitude I wholehearted support.  If 
> anyone remembers, I have been quite vocal on that subject in the past 

Indeed, the ranking outside the top 25 is not really a ranking at all (which
is why those images don't have a number placed on them like the others do)
and is in no way to be considered the opinion of the judges as a whole. Only
the top 25 were ranked. When given the choice of placing the remaining images
in alphabetical order or placing them in some sort of preference order we
chose the latter, but the ordering is very informal and certainly not the
opinion of the judges as a whole.

FWIW I loved the concept of your image.

-- Chris

Chris Holtorf wrote:
>    While working on my submission, I hoped to make the top 25,
> kept my fingers crossed that I would make the top 10 and
> had a brief fantasy about winning. I feel pretty good about 
> making 8th place as there are quite a few great images in
> the top 25. 

I'd hazard a guess that some people (and I'm one of them) would be interested
in seeing your image rendered with a HDR environment.

St. wrote:


> this is hard to do, (explain my thoughts without anyone jumping down my 
> throat), but there wasn't imo a lot different from what I've seen before 
> in the IRTC, 

Agreed, collectively the IRTC equals, and, in context, surpasses what we 
have seen here. But I doubt any round, on its own, would quite be equal 
to this in sustained quality.  But I agree that no image here really 
displayed the sort of dramatic, collective step forward that sometimes 
happened in IRTC rounds. I think some images were big steps forward for 
their individual authors though. And sadly a few big names, who would 
have enriched this field very much, failed to show.  Shame, but that is 
the nature of contests, I suppose.  As I have stated in the past, my 
view is that contests simply provide a focus, like McLuhan's famous 
lightbulb.  It's great if the winner gets a computer, or some increased 
attention, or bragging rights, but in a way that is just a sideshow. 
The real meaning resides with the also rans.  The contest gave each of 
them an incentive to make an image that they wouldn't have otherwise. 
And each image is an adventure.


>   For the record, I hope that if there's another PoVComp, 

So do I. In retrospect it was pretty damned exciting.  I also hope that 
this one will give a boost to all Pover's sense of identity, and 
stimulate more of the ground-breaking and enthusiasm we've known from 
the past.  I hope it will showcase the software, attract more talent to 
our ranks, and motivate the developers to keep the program vital.  I 
hope it will reinvigorate the IRTC too.

> 
>  But 'now' I know. 

Exactly

> 
> 
>   Jim, your words, and art, always 'teach' me more, and I thank you for 
> that.
> 

Ah shucks.  Well I know I'll have a hangover in the morning.

Chris Cason wrote:

> 
> FWIW I loved the concept of your image.
> 
> -- Chris

It's worth a lot :)

I feel quite silly that this thread even touched on my entry.   But the 
discourse has to start somewhere I guess.  See where it leads.  I really 
cannot state strongly enough how much I admire your efforts here.

Chris Cason <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
> FWIW I loved the concept of your image.

  By the way, which image is that?

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:4215e640@news.povray.org...
> Chris Cason <nos### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
> > FWIW I loved the concept of your image.
>
>   By the way, which image is that?

African Caprice
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/209.php

I think the biggest way to improve the image (in my opinion) is with the
lighting.  Right now the image appears a little flat and therefore it's not as
dramatic as it could (and deserves to) be.  I'd really love to see this scene
taken further!  There's no reason to stop now since there's already been so much
work put into it; just a few changes to the lighting of the scene could make a
huge difference I think.  If it was my scene I'd probably drop the camera height
a tiny bit as well, or if not, introduce some focal blur to separate the
background from the main subjects (heh, yes, I know... rendertime++)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

Lance Birch wrote:

> I think the biggest way to improve the image (in my opinion) is with the
> lighting.  Right now the image appears a little flat and therefore it's not as
> dramatic as it could (and deserves to) be.  I'd really love to see this scene
> taken further!  There's no reason to stop now since there's already been so much
> work put into it; just a few changes to the lighting of the scene could make a
> huge difference I think.  If it was my scene I'd probably drop the camera height
> a tiny bit as well, or if not, introduce some focal blur to separate the
> background from the main subjects (heh, yes, I know... rendertime++)
> 

Thankyou for the insights, and even more, the spirit of support.  In a 
nutshell, it is hard for me to give up on the backlighting.  The 
original vision was of the scene taking place in a gloom set against a 
backdrop of turgid, oppressive light, screened by a silhouette of jungle 
growth. That is not quite how the scene turned out, but I still cling to 
certain of its original aspects. I will try to swallow my conceptual 
arrogance and, if I ever find that new level of maturity, try the scene 
with some different lighting.  Parenthetically, I believe I have run up 
against this difficulty in contests before.  I think I just have a taste 
for the slightly flattening effect of halflight and backlighting that is 
a little at odds with the raytracing aesthetic. So I also wonder if some 
adjustment of the finishes might bring up the textures and still give me 
that backlight.

As for camera angle, as it stands now it's a calculation depending a lot 
on the barely emerging far eye of the chimp without completely loosing 
the profile of the Songye.  But no doubt I can steepen it a little further.

Focal blur.  Never tried it before.  If I do this I am going to put some 
custom foliage in though!  In fact some of my earlier tests made use of 
more dramatic color in the blossoms for instance, and they weren't 
without a certain appeal.

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
news:421451bc@news.povray.org...
> Chris Cason wrote:
> > The primary results for POVCOMP 2004 are ready.
>
>    Thanks for all the effort, Chris and all the rest of the team, judges
> and sponsors.
>
>    Now to figure some excuse to not go to work this morning, so I can
> enjoy viewing all those superb images, and then browsing the entire
> zazzle site... :)
>
> --
> Jaime

I just have to say that some aspects of your scene are mind boggling
realistic. The water bottle looks totally real. The clock and the spices on
top of the over... real. The drapes over the window, and the tiles are
perfect.

really, the water bottle, even if just a mundane everyday object, stands out
as being utterly real. fantastic work.

-r

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:421600a9$1@news.povray.org...
> Lance Birch wrote:
>
> > I think the biggest way to improve the image (in my opinion) is with the
> > lighting.  Right now the image appears a little flat and therefore it's not
as
> > dramatic as it could (and deserves to) be.  I'd really love to see this
scene
> > taken further!  There's no reason to stop now since there's already been so
much
> > work put into it; just a few changes to the lighting of the scene could make
a
> > huge difference I think.  If it was my scene I'd probably drop the camera
height
> > a tiny bit as well, or if not, introduce some focal blur to separate the
> > background from the main subjects (heh, yes, I know... rendertime++)
> >
>
> Thankyou for the insights, and even more, the spirit of support.  In a
> nutshell, it is hard for me to give up on the backlighting.  The
> original vision was of the scene taking place in a gloom set against a
> backdrop of turgid, oppressive light, screened by a silhouette of jungle
> growth. That is not quite how the scene turned out, but I still cling to
> certain of its original aspects. I will try to swallow my conceptual
> arrogance and, if I ever find that new level of maturity, try the scene
> with some different lighting.  Parenthetically, I believe I have run up
> against this difficulty in contests before.  I think I just have a taste
> for the slightly flattening effect of halflight and backlighting that is
> a little at odds with the raytracing aesthetic. So I also wonder if some
> adjustment of the finishes might bring up the textures and still give me
> that backlight.

Well, I don't mean to say "abandon your concept"... just that it needs some
tweaking to get it to work how you want it to :)  A lot of the problems I find
with lighting are due to contrast.  Our eyes detect contrast before anything
else, so it follows that an image that lacks contrast is not as easy to view
(objects don't stand out as much, or the image looks flat).  However, you can
still have a backlit or post-sunset scene and still have contrast.. the key is
not introducing "global contrast", but instead introducing "localised contrast".
That is, contrast between the different objects and the background, not an
increase in contrast of the entire image.

To understand the difference between local and global contrast better, load your
image up in a graphics package like Photoshop or similar that supports a live
Histogram view.

1. apply say +10% Contrast to your image and watch what happens to your
Histogram... the low ends will move lower, and the high ends will move higher.
This changes the look of your image overall (and suddenly it doesn't look like
the kind of lighting you want, but the objects are separated better from the
background).

2. go back to the original image without the Contrast added, and this time apply
an Unsharp Mask to the image with a radius of 20 pixels and an amount of 20%
(with no threshold), and watch how your Histogram... you'll see that it doesn't
change very much at all (thus retaining the overall look of the image), however
the objects are separated better from the background and the image appears
slightly more "alive".  The reason is that localised contrast has been
introduced.

This is basically what our eyes do when we look at something in real life... as
we move our eyes, they adjust to the localised brightness level of what we're
viewing to create more contrast locally.  In other words, everywhere we look
there's contrast created locally, even though if we stood back further and
looked at the scene overall with relaxed eyes, it might not have a lot of
contrast and details would be harder to make out.

So the trick is to try to get the same thing to happen straight out of POV-Ray,
and the easiest way of achieving localised contrast/separation between objects
(the grass is a good example of where this is needed as right now it's difficult
to gauge its depth due to the consistency of luminosity) is to introduce
shadows, or use other tricks like fog to tint objects that are at great
distances (thus separating foreground from background), or use depth of field.
So in other words, we have to cheat a bit :)  You could make the backlighting
even more dramatic, and introduce a fill light to ensure the subjects are still
lit appropriately (in real life our eyes do a good job of simulating fill lights
in such conditions of backlighting, again this is the localised contrast
syndrome).

Another good way of testing where your image could use additional localised
contrast (or different lighting, fog to separate background/foreground, etc) is
to simply blur your eyes while looking at it; are the object depths still
obvious or do they appear to be floating in seas of colour?

I hope this all makes some sense :)

What I'm getting at is:  you can still retain the look of your image, but to do
so and still make the objects stand out you need to either introduce localised
contrast in the lighting of the objects, or use another technique to separate
the different objects from the background (by introducing a fog to tint the
background, or by using depth of field, etc).

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

"Lance Birch" <-> a écrit dans le message de
news:42161482@news.povray.org...

> To understand the difference between local and global contrast better,
load your
> image up in a graphics package like Photoshop or similar that supports a
live
> Histogram view.

Do you think that you could edit this a little bit and add it to the wikipov
site ? The fact is that *** many *** POV-Ray pictures suffer from contrast
issues and that this little tutorial you just wrote could be very handy.
It could go there:
http://www.wikipov.org/ow.asp?ArtTips

G.


-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:42161482@news.povray.org...

<snip>

I don't know about anyone else, but I found your post to be a great 
resource.  It's a very common problem.  What we "see" versus what we 
"perceive" are often completely different.

I noticed some time ago that my image lacked good contrast, but I wasn't 
sure what I could do about it.  Thanks for the information!  I hope I'm not 
the only one that just learned something here.  :-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:421616f4@news.povray.org...
> "Lance Birch" <-> a écrit dans le message de
> news:42161482@news.povray.org...
>
> > To understand the difference between local and global contrast better,
> load your
> > image up in a graphics package like Photoshop or similar that supports a
> live
> > Histogram view.
>
> Do you think that you could edit this a little bit and add it to the wikipov
> site ? The fact is that *** many *** POV-Ray pictures suffer from contrast
> issues and that this little tutorial you just wrote could be very handy.
> It could go there:
> http://www.wikipov.org/ow.asp?ArtTips

I've never posted to a wiki before so if you could explain what I have to do
(and what I shouldn't do) I'll edit something together and put it online :)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

Lance Birch wrote:

...

Thanks for taking the time. A beautiful succinct discussion. I really 
appreciate it. I did understand some things about local vs global 
contrasts though not by those terms.  I would have termed the 
adjustments we make in "real world" perception, that you credit to the 
eyes, "haptic" perception, and viewed it as an extension of our 
"embodied" consciousness.*  So generally I think that the eyes adjust to 
optimise a view of what the mind-body already knows is there.  So when I 
painted I tended to incorporate those adjustments but never thought of 
it as "fill light" but rather as "haptic" knowledge. If fact for years I 
painted very, very dark, close-toned paintings, where I would use tricks 
of paint handling to make objects more or less distinct.** I'm a big 
admirer of Whistler and Rosseau, in addition to Morandi. So your 
discussion helps simplify things tremendously and helps me think in 
terms of digital methods and empirical light gathering. (And I didn't 
know at all about the PS Unsharp Mask.  Really anxious to explore that.)

Thanks again.  You really helped me simplify my thinking about this.  I 
almost mentioned in my previous post, that I think one of my big 
problems with lighting is that I don't have strong sense of what looks 
correct.  I tend to accept what the raytracer gives me like I accept 
what the camera gives me and am reconciled to the idea that neither is 
going to look like what an embodied experience of the same scene would 
be anyway.  There is so damned much to learn!

In general I might have subconsciously understood the issue but I was 
mired in the idea that there might be a somehow "honest" way of 
achieving the result, say, if I just understood Jaime's lighting system 
better.  I've to laugh at this because I have also felt that *I* was one 
of the foremost proponents of raytracing is an medium rooted in artifice.

-Jim


*Merleau-Ponty reigned when I was in college.

** You might appreciate that this took me to truly obsessive lenghts 
when it came to trying to document my paintings photographically for my 
portfolio.

"Lance Birch" <-> a écrit dans le message de
news:42162096$1@news.povray.org...
> I've never posted to a wiki before so if you could explain what I have to
do
> (and what I shouldn't do) I'll edit something together and put it online
:)

It's very easy: go to the main page http://www.wikipov.org/ and then to the
sandbox. Click on "Edit this page" (you'll have to log-in with the password
given on the front page) so that you can familarise quickly with the syntax.
After that go to add/modify what you want. The ArtTips page is probably the
best place to put a link to (and then create) your tutorial page.

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Ross wrote:
> I just have to say that some aspects of your scene are mind boggling
> realistic. The water bottle looks totally real. The clock and the spices on
> top of the over... real. The drapes over the window, and the tiles are
> perfect.

   Thanks!

> really, the water bottle, even if just a mundane everyday object, stands out
> as being utterly real. fantastic work.

   Yes, it come out really good, perhaps because it is a double mesh 
"intruded" with Wings3D (the material is just Glass4, IIRC). But note 
how I carefully placed the orange to hide the ugly bottom part... :)

--
Jaime

Well, I just downloaded HDR Shop and upgraded my version of Poseray.
This HDRI stuff looked very challenging and time consuming when I was 
working on the contest entry. Now I have time to explore what it can do
for the next contest. 
Stay tuned :)

Chris Holtorf

"Chris Holtorf" <lho### [at] nwlinkcom> wrote in message 
news:1103_1108777138@news.povray.org...
> Well, I just downloaded HDR Shop and upgraded my version of Poseray.
> This HDRI stuff looked very challenging and time consuming when I was
> working on the contest entry. Now I have time to explore what it can do
> for the next contest.
> Stay tuned :)
>

The quick and easy method would be to simply download MegaPov 1.1, and then 
get the ready-made kitchen probe, 
http://www.debevec.org/Probes/kitchen_probe.hdr   That's neither challenging 
nor time-consuming; just the way I like things!  :-)

However, getting radiosity to look good in an HDRI scene can be challenging, 
in my experience.  But it's generally necessary in a picture in which you're 
likely to have recessed areas.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com