Hey, I *LOVE* PoVRay. Let's get that straight, first and foremost. I think 
most of you know that.

  BUT... but...

 After reviewing the judges comments on the winners excellent image, I know 
I won't ever have a chance. Ever. It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!

   Here are some of the comments if you haven't seen them yet:

   "Highly commendable that it did not rely on any imports but that the 
author made use of POV-ray facitities exclusively"

  "A big plus for using extensively the primitives and features of POV-Ray 
(instead of resorting to cheap meshes created by third-party tools)"

"Cheap meshes"??!! Try it some time buddy. You'll find it hard to get what 
you want after 10+ days...! (This comment, I have great exception to).

  No disrespect to some of those commentors, but after five years+ using 
POV-Ray, I DO feel insulted. Especially when the PoVComp rules state that: 
"To be accepted in the competition an entry has to be rendered with 
POV-Ray", - being the number ONE (1) rule in 4. IMAGES -  For all PoV-Ray 
users... That's me, and 'some' of 'you' too.

  I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of winning 
even if my image was better than anyone elses because I solely use Wings for 
my models now, (who wouldn't if they don't have the time to work out ALL the 
maths that's NEEDED to produce a 'PoV only' image!!)

  I can accept that, just, BUT, don't *tempt* me to use up my time when it's 
just not going to happen with <whatever> image I might try to submit.

 My dismal, failed, attempts, (two), at an image for the POVCOMP cost 'me' 
money and time for your (not very good, inconsiderate, and naive) gain.

  Say what you like, I know I'm right.

  Later, sometime.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:50:37 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!

Let me just quote invitation message for POVCOMP: "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 is
to show the full potential of POV-Ray."

ABX

"ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message 
news:r4gs1193fnk4fpvkoi3vfa4gjpjcij4485@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:50:37 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!
>
> Let me just quote invitation message for POVCOMP: "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 
> is
> to show the full potential of POV-Ray."

  Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers maybe? 
Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour 
grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn it, 
and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.

 ~Steve~


>
> ABX

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers maybe?
> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour
> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn it,
> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.

POVComp's existence doesn't prevent you from using POV-Ray however you
wish, it was a voluntary contest. How you were "tempted" and "enticed"
to use it I'm not sure I want to know :-), but you certainly weren't
forced and the rules and guidelines were there for all to read.

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message 
news:web.421e49cfcbe05ebab8a63dd50@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers 
>> maybe?
>> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour
>> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn 
>> it,
>> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.
>
> POVComp's existence doesn't prevent you from using POV-Ray however you
> wish, it was a voluntary contest. How you were "tempted" and "enticed"
> to use it I'm not sure I want to know :-), but you certainly weren't
> forced and the rules and guidelines were there for all to read.
>


Perhaps I'll comment more on Steve's post later, but I believe that 
POVCOMP's prizes were simply too large for such a relatively small 
community.  That led to a lot of anxiety among the entrants.  Additionally, 
if there is another POVCOMP with comparable prizes, I don't think the people 
at the top will change very much.  Sure, some people may break in and out, 
but it's unlikely that I'm going to suddenly be able to create a scene as 
well as the winners.  It's not that I'm not smart enough (I hope), it's 
simply that I'm not experienced enough.  There is a big quality gap going 
from the first few images to the other images in the top 25.  While 
exceptions occur, it's generally unlikely that most of us will be closing 
that gap in the next few months.

So...  If you want to compete, it becomes like running the New York 
Marathon.  Do all 30,000 people really think they might win?  Certainly not. 
They do it because it's there, they enjoy finding out what they are capable 
of.  They enjoy seeing someone else win.

As I stated in off-topic recently, I think most of us here would be happiest 
if we simply got a free poster from Zazzle for a top finish.  That creates 
much less pressure, and in the end, I think there would be more POV-Ray 
art/renders/stuff to show.  Perhaps POVCOMP "overachieved" in regards to 
prizes.  It certainly squeezed out some good stuff, though, so my point is 
debatable.

I hope this comment is well-received.  As I've already said, I can guess how 
difficult it was to get sponsors, and I appreciate the work that was done to 
bring POVCOMP to us.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:421e4414@news.povray.org...
>
> "ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message
> news:r4gs1193fnk4fpvkoi3vfa4gjpjcij4485@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:50:37 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> >> It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!
> >
> > Let me just quote invitation message for POVCOMP: "The aim of POVCOMP
2004
> > is
> > to show the full potential of POV-Ray."
>
>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers
maybe?
> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour
> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn
it,
> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.
>
>  ~Steve~
>
>
> >
> > ABX
>

I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the contest guidelines, ah found it...

[quote]
Modeling
Negative: low detail meshes in foreground, figures floating above ground or
penetrating it, sharp edges where rounded ones are expected in nature,
obvious use of bump mapping, etc.
Positive: detailed selfmade models, realistic algorithmically generated
stuff like trees, plants, cloth, etc.
Special focus on how much is self made and what scene elements are based on
3rd party models.
[end quote]

3rd party models, and 3rd party modellers are entirely different. You hit
the "special focus on how much is self made", but you missed the
"algorithmically generated", judging by your description in this thread.
Which image is yours though? I was searching the pages for "Steve" and
didn't find anything.

"full potential of povray." doing something entirely in CSG doesn't explore
the full potential one bit (i agree with you here). Neither does using all
mesh models, however the ability to use 3rd party models is a capability of
POV.
While i think you have a right to be upset at the judges bias towards
non-mesh models, i think it's a bit overly dramatic. Still, I was sort of
surprised by their bluntness in this area.

I was going to say, "Look at 'Victoria's World'. It uses non-pov things
pretty extensively and got 3rd place", then i noticed this comment basically
saying, "It would never win because it used so many things not directly made
in POV." So i guess, the more I talk, the more i'm siding with you.

[quote]
The detail level is extremely high and there is good use made of POV-Ray's
features, but the predominant use of external models (e.g. Victoria, the
Dosch houses, Chris Colefax's Lens Effects include, Gilles Tran's MakeGrass)
prevented it from making it further in my mind.
[quote]

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message 
news:421e54f5$1@news.povray.org...
<snip>
> While i think you have a right to be upset at the judges bias towards
> non-mesh models, i think it's a bit overly dramatic. Still, I was sort of
> surprised by their bluntness in this area.
>
> I was going to say, "Look at 'Victoria's World'. It uses non-pov things
> pretty extensively and got 3rd place", then i noticed this comment 
> basically
> saying, "It would never win because it used so many things not directly 
> made
> in POV." So i guess, the more I talk, the more i'm siding with you.
>
> [quote]
> The detail level is extremely high and there is good use made of POV-Ray's
> features, but the predominant use of external models (e.g. Victoria, the
> Dosch houses, Chris Colefax's Lens Effects include, Gilles Tran's 
> MakeGrass)
> prevented it from making it further in my mind.
> [quote]
>

Yeah, I noticed that too.  That made me uncomfortable mostly because I felt 
like it was saying, "Had you re-invented the wheel, you would have gone 
farther."  I understand the point being made, but I felt that it was worded 
poorly.
Also, despite the judge's comments, "Victoria's World" did get a 
well-deserved 3rd place.

From one of Gilles' posts:
"Most judges won't be familiar with POV-Ray but the judges who know it will
able to add some balance to the discussions so that POV-Ray specific
features can be properly judged. However, the goal is still to make great
pictures, which means that quality remains central. As a judge, I would not
give extra points to a bad model because it's done in SDL. I would only
reward good models, whatever the tool used."

I really don't think that there was a lot of "SDL" bias, though.  Jaime's 
picture used several Wings models.  Much of Chris Holtorff's scene was done 
in Rhino.  I could list many others.  But making a 3rd party model the main 
focus of an image is not as impressive as what Rene Bui did with Wings.  Had 
that been a Poser model, the image would certainly have scored lower. 
Nevertheless, had it been a badly made model (which it wasn't!), it would 
have placed lower.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message 
news:421e54f5$1@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:421e4414@news.povray.org...
>>
>> "ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message
>> news:r4gs1193fnk4fpvkoi3vfa4gjpjcij4485@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:50:37 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> >> It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!
>> >
>> > Let me just quote invitation message for POVCOMP: "The aim of POVCOMP
> 2004
>> > is
>> > to show the full potential of POV-Ray."
>>
>>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers
> maybe?
>> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour
>> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn
> it,
>> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.
>>
>>  ~Steve~
>>
>>
>> >
>> > ABX
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the contest guidelines, ah found it...
>
> [quote]
> Positive: detailed selfmade models, realistic algorithmically generated
> stuff like trees, plants, cloth, etc.
> Special focus on how much is self made and what scene elements are based 
> on
> 3rd party models.
> [end quote]

    Ross, no third party models were used in my image. They were all mine. 
Around 150+ made in Wings.


>
> 3rd party models, and 3rd party modellers are entirely different. You hit
> the "special focus on how much is self made", but you missed the
> "algorithmically generated", judging by your description in this thread.

  No, self made in six weeks, not five months, (see below this). I'd like to 
see the same (close) resulting image made in pov using 'algorithmically 
generated'  pov code.


> Which image is yours though? I was searching the pages for "Steve" and
> didn't find anything.

   It's this if you didn't find it. Search: Pov, "Immenent"

   Still can't find it? I missed the deadline by minutes in the end, ( I 
tried, literally), but to no avail, ask the comp compilers.


>
> "full potential of povray." doing something entirely in CSG doesn't 
> explore
> the full potential one bit (i agree with you here). Neither does using all
> mesh models, however the ability to use 3rd party models is a capability 
> of
> POV.
> While i think you have a right to be upset at the judges bias towards
> non-mesh models, i think it's a bit overly dramatic. Still, I was sort of
> surprised by their bluntness in this area.

    Then I'm right with what I said.


>
> I was going to say, "Look at 'Victoria's World'. It uses non-pov things
> pretty extensively and got 3rd place", then i noticed this comment 
> basically
> saying, "It would never win because it used so many things not directly 
> made
> in POV." So i guess, the more I talk, the more i'm siding with you.

    Thank you. Don't be afraid to talk, some people here use PoV, (like me), 
for a hobby, but then, something worthwhile comes along, and you, me, 
(unselfishly) feel that you want to give your best with what you've learnt 
with ANYTHING related to POV.


>
> [quote]
> The detail level is extremely high and there is good use made of POV-Ray's
> features, but the predominant use of external models (e.g. Victoria, the
> Dosch houses, Chris Colefax's Lens Effects include, Gilles Tran's 
> MakeGrass)
> prevented it from making it further in my mind.
> [quote]

    Well, obviously, that wasn't my image, but that's what would have been 
said about my image after a lot of hard work. So, back to my point. Why 
entice PoVRay users, (generally), to enter this contest if it was worthless 
to the external modeler?

  Why did so many good CG artists enter this comp knowing that external 
models would fare badly?

   ~Steve~


>
>

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>  After reviewing the judges comments on the winners excellent image, I know 
> I won't ever have a chance. Ever. It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!

>    Here are some of the comments if you haven't seen them yet:

>    "Highly commendable that it did not rely on any imports but that the 
> author made use of POV-ray facitities exclusively"

>   "A big plus for using extensively the primitives and features of POV-Ray 
> (instead of resorting to cheap meshes created by third-party tools)"

> "Cheap meshes"??!! Try it some time buddy. You'll find it hard to get what 
> you want after 10+ days...! (This comment, I have great exception to).

  The goal of the competition was to show what POV-Ray is capable of.

  POV-Ray is more than just a renderer. Modelling your entire scene
in a third-party mesh modeller and your textures in photoshop and then
simply using POV-Ray to get those meshes on the screen in basically
the same way as any other renderer would do is certainly not the best
way to show what POV-Ray is capable of.
  This really was a *POV-Ray* competition, not the IRTC. If you just want
to use POV-Ray for projecting your meshes and textures to the screen, then
you can do it in the IRTC or any other computer graphics competition.
The main goal of povcomp was not that.

  However, regardless of that, and believe or not, that was not the main
reason for choosing The Last Guardian as winner. It was simply, in the
opinion of most judges, the best image. Even most of the judges not
using POV-Ray had this opinion.

  There were other images which came very very close. If The Last
Guardian would have been just a bunch of meshes it would certainly
have been a very difficult choice, but I'm quite sure it would still
have been in the top4 at least. The creative use of POV-Ray features
just hit the spot there.

  The Last Guardian is just a superb image, and it also shows that
superb images are possible to do with POV-Ray without the aid of
expensive third-party graphical modellers, and it also uses creatively
the features available in POV-Ray.
  Shortly, that was about exactly what the povcomp was looking for.

>   I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of winning 
> even if my image was better than anyone elses because I solely use Wings for 
> my models now

  Not true. If you had made a definitely better image than The Last
Guardian, you would have won.
  Granted, the competition would have been very hard against superb
images using more of POV-Ray's features, but the main judging principle
was still how the image looks. The method of production was only secondary.

>  My dismal, failed, attempts, (two), at an image for the POVCOMP cost 'me' 
> money and time for your (not very good, inconsiderate, and naive) gain.

  Nobody forced you to participate.
  It's you who seem quite naive. Were you expecting to win because making
your image "costed you money"?
  Can't you simply accept that some people are able to do better images
than you?

>   Say what you like, I know I'm right.

  Self-righeousness is the way to go, yeah.

-- 
#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 -

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers maybe? 
> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour 
> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn it, 
> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.

  I don't really understand what your POV-Ray learning preferences have
to do with povcomp.
  You are pissed off because the organizators were not looking primarily
for the kind of expertise you have practiced?

-- 
#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 -

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
421e3e20@news.povray.org...
>  I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of winning 
> even if my image was better than anyone elses because I solely use Wings 
> for my models now, (who wouldn't if they don't have the time to work out 
> ALL the maths that's NEEDED to produce a 'PoV only' image!!)

Of the 5 top images, 4 were made using external modelers or use commercial 
meshes. One is mostly a Wings-only image. It's not like using meshes was 
considered a no-no in POVCOMP. Some of the comments are dissing mesh use 
(thus honouring a long-time tradition in POV-Ray circles, even though 
POV-Ray renderings of 3DS models were featured in the previous HOF...), but 
overall the results say otherwise and acknowledge that tools like Wings are 
here to stay.

The comments on Twin Girls and Model Expo praise the modelling done in these 
pictures (and in the latter case it's made with Rhino, which is not a 
hobbyist tool, something that people may frown about). If either of these 
had won, the competition would have been heavily criticised for promoting 
mesh use and a lot would have been said about POVCOMP being the final nail 
in CSG's coffin. The mesh vs CSG is an old, heated debate in this community 
and this is not going to change anytime soon. However, an image *** had *** 
to win, OK?

The winner is a POV-only picture AND it also happens to be a fantastic 
picture. As I've said already in this group, what counts is whether or not 
the author uses the right tools to reach his/her artistic and technical 
goals. The winning image used CSG very wisely with superior results, that's 
all.

About the comments: they reflect the opinions of the judges who felt like 
commenting on this or that image, but they are not representatives of all 
the judges. These are personal opinions, not official statements.

G.


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

Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
> Perhaps I'll comment more on Steve's post later, but I believe that 
> POVCOMP's prizes were simply too large for such a relatively small 
> community.

  Yes, we have seen several times already (the ones seen in here are
not the only ones) that when there's money involved, some people will
cause quite a lot of fuss.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> "full potential of povray." doing something entirely in CSG doesn't explore
> the full potential one bit (i agree with you here). Neither does using all
> mesh models, however the ability to use 3rd party models is a capability of
> POV.

  A capability. One.

  Imported models were not judged negatively in any way. Basing the
entire image on imported models was because that is using just one
single POV-Ray feature. The goal of the competition was to get more
than that.

> I was going to say, "Look at 'Victoria's World'. It uses non-pov things
> pretty extensively and got 3rd place", then i noticed this comment basically
> saying, "It would never win because it used so many things not directly made
> in POV." So i guess, the more I talk, the more i'm siding with you.

  Victoria's World did not win because it was not considered by the
judges to be better than the other three images. While the extensive
usage of imported models might have had some effect on whether it got
third or fourth place, it would have not won the first prize even if
it had been done 100% in pov. I'm pretty certain of this.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

St. wrote:

Steve you echo a lot of my own anger.

I was trying to find a way to rise above this dispute.  But I guess not.

So I'll say this. I thought that fact that one of the judges would 
repeatedly use the comments section as a soapbox for this ridiculous 
bias of his was in extremely poor form.  I was more than a little 
shocked that such bias was represented on the judging panel at all, and 
even more so that these petty-minded opinions were allowed to see the 
light of day.  For me it is extremely disheartening, not in the least 
because I enjoy "pure" csg extremely, and now actually find it hard to 
use because this "issue" has been so stupidly politicized.  These 
comments are, in my opinion, low-minded, retrograd, and do not reflect 
the spirit of POV-Ray.

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>     Ross, no third party models were used in my image. They were all mine. 
> Around 150+ made in Wings.

  So, is it your opinion that since you made 150+ objects in Wings you
should have won the competition?

>    Still can't find it? I missed the deadline by minutes in the end, ( I 
> tried, literally), but to no avail, ask the comp compilers.

  And still you dare to argument that you would have not won because
you were using too many imported models?
  Pretty big assumptions you make...

>     Well, obviously, that wasn't my image, but that's what would have been 
> said about my image after a lot of hard work. So, back to my point. Why 
> entice PoVRay users, (generally), to enter this contest if it was worthless 
> to the external modeler?

>   Why did so many good CG artists enter this comp knowing that external 
> models would fare badly?

  There's a big difference between using external models and composing
your entire scene solely of external models.
  The objective of the competition was not to show how POV-Ray can be
used to project meshes onto the screen.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message 
news:web.421e49cfcbe05ebab8a63dd50@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers 
>> maybe?
>> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour
>> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn 
>> it,
>> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.
>
> POVComp's existence doesn't prevent you from using POV-Ray however you
> wish, it was a voluntary contest.

  I know that, but wouldn't ever have won *anyway* with the way I WANTED TO 
USE IT.


   POVCOMP won't happen again, (I haven't had answers to my question about 
if POVCOMP will happen again). But many images, made 'their' day.


 How you were "tempted" and "enticed"
> to use it I'm not sure I want to know :-),

I hope you're not taking the #### with that statement. Seriously. ;)


but you certainly weren't
> forced and the rules and guidelines were there for all to read.

  Oh, please RD. Did I say 'forced' anywhere in my post?! No.

  I wanted to enter to try and get a computer for my daughter for Christmas. 
That was my drive, nothing else, (think how pissed-off I am with messing my 
detail images up!)  I'll find it easy to NOT enter another povcomp now, 
unless of course, I use pure SDL. (Which might happen. Just because I use 
Wings mostly now, it doesn't mean I *can't* do the *pure* thing - although 
people just forget in here. I 'do' have the patience to do it).

 My ART would be extremely limited though. PoV doesn't adjust profusely for 
this, art-wise, generally.

  Go Figure. ;)

   ~Steve~

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> So I'll say this. I thought that fact that one of the judges would 
> repeatedly use the comments section as a soapbox for this ridiculous 
> bias of his was in extremely poor form.  I was more than a little 
> shocked that such bias was represented on the judging panel at all, and 
> even more so that these petty-minded opinions were allowed to see the 
> light of day.  For me it is extremely disheartening, not in the least 
> because I enjoy "pure" csg extremely, and now actually find it hard to 
> use because this "issue" has been so stupidly politicized.  These 
> comments are, in my opinion, low-minded, retrograd, and do not reflect 
> the spirit of POV-Ray.

  The comments only reflected the goal of the competition.

  As I have already said in another article, this was a competition to
show the capabilities of POV-Ray, not a competition to show how POV-Ray
can project meshes onto the screen.

  How does it, in your opinion, show the full potential of POV-Ray if
an entire scene is modelled and created in a third-party tool, textures
are created in photoshop, everything is exported to POV-Ray meshes
and the POV-Ray is just used to project those meshes to screen with
some basic lighting effects?

  The comments basically say "yes, it's a great image, but it's not
better than the winner, and by the way, we were not really looking
for who can use POV-Ray as a mesh renderer, we were looking for who
can use POV-Ray as a raytracer with tons of features".

-- 
#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 -

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>  I'll find it easy to NOT enter another povcomp now, 
> unless of course, I use pure SDL.

  Will you please stop this bigoted ranting?

  No-one has ever said that a scene must be made entirely in SDL to win.
Imported models were just ok.
  What was felt as negative was the excessive use of them.

  Can't you really understand the difference?

-- 
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:421e67b3@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers 
>> maybe?
>> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour
>> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn 
>> it,
>> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.
>
>  I don't really understand what your POV-Ray learning preferences have
> to do with povcomp.
>  You are pissed off because the organizators were not looking primarily
> for the kind of expertise you have practiced?

  Maybe, but I didn't enter. What are you saying here?

   ~Steve~



>
> -- 
> #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 -

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> I know that, but wouldn't ever have won *anyway* with the way I WANTED TO
> USE IT.

Let me get this straight, you're complaining you wouldn't have won,
based on a few judges comments, when you didn't even *enter*?
You just don't know that. As others have pointed out, many of the top
rated images used a lot of meshes.

> POVCOMP won't happen again, (I haven't had answers to my question about
> if POVCOMP will happen again).

Again, you don't know that. However if I'd worked hard to bring this
event about and had to read unappreciative rants like yours I'd seriously
reconsider whether it was worth it.

> I hope you're not taking the #### with that statement. Seriously. ;)

Sorry, I don't understand this.

> I wanted to enter to try and get a computer for my daughter for Christmas.
> That was my drive, nothing else, (think how pissed-off I am with messing my
> detail images up!)  I'll find it easy to NOT enter another povcomp now,
> unless of course, I use pure SDL. (Which might happen. Just because I use
> Wings mostly now, it doesn't mean I *can't* do the *pure* thing - although
> people just forget in here. I 'do' have the patience to do it).
>
>  My ART would be extremely limited though. PoV doesn't adjust profusely for
> this, art-wise, generally.
>
>   Go Figure. ;)

You're posts read very emotional and you aren't responding to some
very good points Warp and Gilles have made.

Warp wrote:


>   As I have already said in another article, this was a competition to
> show the capabilities of POV-Ray, 

Which you associate exclusively with CSG

not a competition to show how POV-Ray
> can project meshes onto the screen.

only how it can project primitives onto the screen


> 
>   How does it, in your opinion, show the full potential of POV-Ray if
> an entire scene is modelled and created in a third-party tool, textures
> are created in photoshop, everything is exported to POV-Ray meshes
> and the POV-Ray is just used to project those meshes to screen with
> some basic lighting effects?

It doesn't, but that is not what I take issue with.

How is it, in your opinion, that a mesh, hand-modeled to express 
sublties of organic form, say the complexities of the flesh around a 
human eye, is in anyway "cheap"

> 
>   The comments basically say "yes, it's a great image, but it's not
> better than the winner, and by the way, we were not really looking
> for who can use POV-Ray as a mesh renderer, we were looking for who
> can use POV-Ray as a raytracer with tons of features".
> 

The artist used the particular features of POV-Ray that facilitated his 
particular vision.  He made the best image he possibly could with 
POV-Ray and entered it, in good faith, into a contest. But the judge 
chooses to reprimand him for using a technique the judge doesn't favor.
At best it is an insensitive use of the comments section.

At worst it is proselytizing, even gloating, in light of a known and 
inflamed controversy.

Gilles Tran wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
> 421e3e20@news.povray.org...
> 
> 
> Of the 5 top images, 4 were made using external modelers or use commercial 
> meshes. One is mostly a Wings-only image. It's not like using meshes was 
> considered a no-no in POVCOMP. Some of the comments are dissing mesh use 
> (thus honouring a long-time tradition in POV-Ray circles, even though 
> POV-Ray renderings of 3DS models were featured in the previous HOF...), but 
> overall the results say otherwise and acknowledge that tools like Wings are 
> here to stay.
> 

For the record, I personally harbor no acrimony over the results.  Nor 
do I think the judging in any way lacked integrity. I was a spendid 
contest with a splendid show of  talent and the winners without 
exception deserved their victory. But certain comments strongly suggest 
an inbuilt bias that I do not share and find deeply disheartening.

> The comments on Twin Girls and Model Expo praise the modelling done in these 
> pictures (and in the latter case it's made with Rhino, which is not a 
> hobbyist tool, something that people may frown about).

It seemed a little grudging once the atmosphere was poisoned.

  If either of these
> had won, the competition would have been heavily criticised for promoting 
> mesh use and a lot would have been said about POVCOMP being the final nail 
> in CSG's coffin. 

Well, that pretty much admits it.


The mesh vs CSG is an old, heated debate in this community
> and this is not going to change anytime soon. However, an image *** had *** 
> to win, OK?
> 

But this old debate need not have been dragged into the presentation of 
results and rubbed in the faces of partisans of this controversy or 
those whose skills sets may actually limit them to certain techniques.

> The winner is a POV-only picture AND it also happens to be a fantastic 
> picture. 

I truly admire the picture, I am not seeing this issue in terms of any 
of the pictures.


As I've said already in this group, what counts is whether or not
> the author uses the right tools to reach his/her artistic and technical 
> goals. 

That's a little shaky now.


The winning image used CSG very wisely with superior results, that's
> all.

The winning image was a superior image.


> 
> About the comments: they reflect the opinions of the judges who felt like 
> commenting on this or that image, but they are not representatives of all 
> the judges. 

I have no doubt of it.

These are personal opinions, not official statements.
> 

That one is a little harder to swallow. While that may be technically 
true, they case a pall.

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421e665d@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

>  The goal of the competition was to show what POV-Ray is capable of.

   "AS A RENDERER". Get it yet?


>
>  POV-Ray is more than just a renderer. Modelling your entire scene
> in a third-party mesh modeller and your textures in photoshop and then
> simply using POV-Ray to get those meshes on the screen in basically
> the same way as any other renderer would do is certainly not the best
> way to show what POV-Ray is capable of.
>  This really was a *POV-Ray* competition, not the IRTC. If you just want
> to use POV-Ray for projecting your meshes and textures to the screen, then
> you can do it in the IRTC or any other computer graphics competition.
> The main goal of povcomp was not that.

     The main goal of povcomp was promotion in a 'pov only' way.


>
>  However, regardless of that, and believe or not, that was not the main
> reason for choosing The Last Guardian as winner. It was simply, in the
> opinion of most judges, the best image. Even most of the judges not
> using POV-Ray had this opinion.

   And I agree, undoubtedly. However, I will still say that I have seen as 
good in the IRTC. Don't try to talk me down Warp.


>
>  There were other images which came very very close. If The Last
> Guardian would have been just a bunch of meshes it would certainly
> have been a very difficult choice, but I'm quite sure it would still
> have been in the top4 at least. The creative use of POV-Ray features
> just hit the spot there.
>
>  The Last Guardian is just a superb image, and it also shows that
> superb images are possible to do with POV-Ray without the aid of
> expensive third-party graphical modellers, and it also uses creatively
> the features available in POV-Ray.
>  Shortly, that was about exactly what the povcomp was looking for.
>
>>   I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of 
>> winning
>> even if my image was better than anyone elses because I solely use Wings 
>> for
>> my models now
>
>  Not true. If you had made a definitely better image than The Last
> Guardian, you would have won.

     BS, and you know it.


>  Granted,

   Thank you.


the competition would have been very hard against superb
> images using more of POV-Ray's features, but the main judging principle
> was still how the image looks. The method of production was only 
> secondary.

  Exactly.


>
>>  My dismal, failed, attempts, (two),

(Three attempts in the end, actually).

> at an image for the POVCOMP cost 'me' money and time for your (not very 
> good, inconsiderate, and naive) gain.

>
>  Nobody forced you to participate.

  No, but you, (povray), asked, (pleaded?). I entered within the rules - but 
there was *no way* I would win using an image made up of Wings models only, 
however good it would be.


>  It's you who seem quite naive. Were you expecting to win because making
> your image "costed you money"?

  I'd never expect to win in any contest, but trust me, it cost me money. I 
'paid' in time to enter this comp. I could have been doing other things at 
£50 an hour.


>  Can't you simply accept that some people are able to do better images
> than you?

 I really can't believe you said that Warp. I'll leave it at that for now. 
We'll see what happens.


>
>>   Say what you like, I know I'm right.
>
>  Self-righeousness is the way to go, yeah.

   Yeah. Self-righteousness in the 'right' way. I have no problem with that. 
And nor did other big artists in their day.

   I'm *still* right.

  ~Steve~


 - Warp -

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message 
news:web.421e7e56cbe05eba4c7dbec50@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> I know that, but wouldn't ever have won *anyway* with the way I WANTED TO
>> USE IT.
>
> Let me get this straight, you're complaining you wouldn't have won,
> based on a few judges comments, when you didn't even *enter*?

    Does it matter if I entered or not? What did I post in my first post? It 
wasn't a "Great image" contest, it was merely a "Great PoV-Ray" contest. 
Full stop.


> You just don't know that. As others have pointed out, many of the top
> rated images used a lot of meshes.

     Yes, and as good as they were, not one of them won. *Pure* PoV won. So 
what was the point of anyone else entering?


>
>> POVCOMP won't happen again, (I haven't had answers to my question about
>> if POVCOMP will happen again).
>
> Again, you don't know that. However if I'd worked hard to bring this
> event about and had to read unappreciative rants like yours I'd seriously
> reconsider whether it was worth it.

   Then you carry on, you fall into the trap too. "unappreciative". Please.


>
>> I hope you're not taking the #### with that statement. Seriously. ;)
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this.

   I'd rather not swear here, but the hashes mean "Piss" so that you know. 
Now read it in the context that you got my answer, (see my next sentence 
below).


>
>> I wanted to enter to try and get a computer for my daughter for 
>> Christmas.
>> That was my drive, nothing else, (think how pissed-off I am with messing 
>> my
>> detail images up!)  I'll find it easy to NOT enter another povcomp now,
>> unless of course, I use pure SDL. (Which might happen. Just because I use
>> Wings mostly now, it doesn't mean I *can't* do the *pure* thing - 
>> although
>> people just forget in here. I 'do' have the patience to do it).
>>
>>  My ART would be extremely limited though. PoV doesn't adjust profusely 
>> for
>> this, art-wise, generally.
>>
>>   Go Figure. ;)
>
> You're posts read very emotional and you aren't responding to some
> very good points Warp and Gilles have made.

    Yes, emotional, but they understand, they 'know' MY points. Listen RD, I 
sent my image to one of the *judges* on a friendly basis, not knowing that 
person was one of the judges, how do you think I feel now?! How do you think 
he feels??

   I'm glad I didn't enter, I respect the person I sent it to, and wouldn't 
want to spoil that. This is why I'm arguing that it should have been set-up 
properly.

    ~Steve~

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:16:07 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> > Let me just quote invitation message for POVCOMP: "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 
> > is
> > to show the full potential of POV-Ray."
>
> Then I was right.

Yes you are right in noticing that POV-Ray maintainers and developers which
spend more than 10 years on hard making it, could organize contest to
encourage people to explore flexibility of this tool in various fields.

> So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX?

To learn tool better.

> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour 
> grapes", you're SO wrong.

I do not understand "sour grapes" in the above sentence, sorry. I do not
understand all the phrases available in english. And I do not understand why
did you addressed it to me. I wasn't maintainer of the contest.

> I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn it, 
> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.

Go in peace and do not destroy the happy time of the awarded povers then.
There is so many contests in the world I want to participate but I don't
because I do not meet their audience, requirements or timelines. I can give
you urls to them if you wish. Find your place youself and allow others to be
happy :-)

ABX

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>     Does it matter if I entered or not? What did I post in my first post? It 
> wasn't a "Great image" contest, it was merely a "Great PoV-Ray" contest. 
> Full stop.

  And your point is?

  Perhaps we should have allowed 3DStudioMax renderings as well to
satisfy your needs?

>      Yes, and as good as they were, not one of them won. *Pure* PoV won.

  Because it happened to be the best image.
  It did not win because it did not use any external models. It won
because it was the best image. The fact that it did not use any
external models at all was commendable, but basically a coincidence.
It could have used some external models and still have won.

>     Yes, emotional, but they understand, they 'know' MY points. Listen RD, I 
> sent my image to one of the *judges* on a friendly basis, not knowing that 
> person was one of the judges, how do you think I feel now?! How do you think 
> he feels??

>    I'm glad I didn't enter, I respect the person I sent it to, and wouldn't 
> want to spoil that. This is why I'm arguing that it should have been set-up 
> properly.

  You are not making any sense here. I don't understand what do you mean.

-- 
#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 -

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
> news:421e67b3@news.povray.org...
> > St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> >>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers 
> >> maybe?
> >> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour
> >> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn 
> >> it,
> >> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.
> >
> >  I don't really understand what your POV-Ray learning preferences have
> > to do with povcomp.
> >  You are pissed off because the organizators were not looking primarily
> > for the kind of expertise you have practiced?

>   Maybe, but I didn't enter. What are you saying here?

  First you make a big fuss about "I want to learn POV the way I want
to learn it" in the context of the povcomp wanting images which use
povray features, from which can be deduced that you are not happy that
the povcomp did not want the type of images where you are strong, ie.
most or all models made in third-party programs.
  Now you say "maybe, but I didn't enter". You are not making any sense.

-- 
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 -

St. a écrit :

> Hey, I *LOVE* PoVRay. Let's get that straight, first and foremost. I 
> think most of you know that.

Which was your image, BTW ?

Fabien.

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> >  The goal of the competition was to show what POV-Ray is capable of.

>    "AS A RENDERER". Get it yet?

  Yes, as a renderer which supports things like isosurfaces, spheresweeps,
CSG of any solid primitives, procedural textures, algorithmical
programming etc.
  Projecting a bunch of meshes to the screen is not showing what POV-Ray
is really capable of.

>      The main goal of povcomp was promotion in a 'pov only' way.

  You clearly have an obsession with this "pov only" thing. No matter
how many times you are told that imported models are ok (as long as
the entire scene does not consist of them) and how an image with
some imported models could have won, you still repeat this "pov only"
thing over and over like a parrot.
  The winner image just happened not to have any imported models at
all. So what? If for example a fish would have been modelled in Wings,
do you think that would have dropped the image from first place? If
you think "yes", then you are delusional.

> >  However, regardless of that, and believe or not, that was not the main
> > reason for choosing The Last Guardian as winner. It was simply, in the
> > opinion of most judges, the best image. Even most of the judges not
> > using POV-Ray had this opinion.

>    And I agree, undoubtedly. However, I will still say that I have seen as 
> good in the IRTC. Don't try to talk me down Warp.

  You are not making any sense here. I don't understand what you mean.

  What do you mean by "I will still say that I have sen as good in the
IRTC"? Firstly you haven't even mentioned IRTC before this, and secondly
I don't understand what you mean by that. As good as what? And what does
that have to do with anything?

> >  Not true. If you had made a definitely better image than The Last
> > Guardian, you would have won.

>      BS, and you know it.

  Ah, I didn't realize you were part of the judging team and that you
know what were the principles by which the images were judged. In fact,
you know them better than me. Perhaps I was part of a different judging
team?

  You are calling me a liar. Is that really what you want?

> the competition would have been very hard against superb
> > images using more of POV-Ray's features, but the main judging principle
> > was still how the image looks. The method of production was only 
> > secondary.

>   Exactly.

  So you agree with me now? Now you do agree that your image could have
won if it was clearly superior to the other images, regardless of the
method of production?
  You are not making any sense.

>   No, but you, (povray), asked, (pleaded?). I entered within the rules - but 
> there was *no way* I would win using an image made up of Wings models only, 
> however good it would be.

  Yeah, you know this thing better because you were a judge and I was not.
Or I am just a liar. And you know I'm lying because... because... well,
just because.

> >  It's you who seem quite naive. Were you expecting to win because making
> > your image "costed you money"?

>   I'd never expect to win in any contest, but trust me, it cost me money. I 
> 'paid' in time to enter this comp. I could have been doing other things at 
> £50 an hour.

  Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps we should give you a refund?

> >>   Say what you like, I know I'm right.
> >
> >  Self-righeousness is the way to go, yeah.

>    Yeah. Self-righteousness in the 'right' way. I have no problem with that. 
> And nor did other big artists in their day.

>    I'm *still* right.

  You are still an idiot, it seems.
  You are not making any sense, you are unable to give rational arguments
about your claims, you have an idiotic principle of not listening to any
arguments against your claims and you are calling people liars just because.

-- 
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 Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> But certain comments strongly suggest 
> an inbuilt bias that I do not share and find deeply disheartening.

  You are seeing in the comments something which is not there.

  We appreciated creative and skillful usage of POV-Ray features and the
comments just reflected that. You are saying this is bad?

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> >   As I have already said in another article, this was a competition to
> > show the capabilities of POV-Ray, 

> Which you associate exclusively with CSG

  You seem to have the same obsession as St. has.

  Since composing the entire scene with third-party models was considered
negative (because it basically uses just one single POV-Ray feature:
mesh rendering), you now are completely convinced that meshes were
completely forbidden and that if an entry used even one single mesh
it would have not won.

  You also seem to know better what I mean by "to show the capabilities
of POV-Ray" than I do, and seemingly no amount of explaining will
convince you otherwise.

  Are you calling me a liar too?

> not a competition to show how POV-Ray
> > can project meshes onto the screen.

> only how it can project primitives onto the screen

  Uh? You call algorithmic programming, isosurface tracing, sphere sweep
generation, procedural texturing and other features "projecting primitives
onto the screen"?
  If so, you have a pretty limited view of what POV-Ray can do.

> How is it, in your opinion, that a mesh, hand-modeled to express 
> sublties of organic form, say the complexities of the flesh around a 
> human eye, is in anyway "cheap"

  Because it shows the power of a third-party modeller program, not the
power of POV-Ray. It's just a cheap way of getting pretty images generated
by POV-Ray, using less than 1% of its features. You could as well use
any other renderer to get the image from the models.
  The animal shown in the winner image can probably be made in 10 minutes
with a graphical nurbs modeller by someone experienced. As such it would
have not shown any talent nor dedication at all. However, using POV-Ray's
own means to create the figure showed creativeness and talent.
  And that was just the simplest part of the image. Using isosurfaces
for the ship was simply awesome. If the entire ship had been a mesh
created in another program, there wouldn't have been anything impressive
about it (at least without knowing how exactly it was done; if it was
done just by moving vertices around with the mouse then there's nothing
impressive in that; it would have been a "cheap" way of doing it, regardless
of how long it took to move all the vertices with a mouse).

> At worst it is proselytizing, even gloating, in light of a known and 
> inflamed controversy.

  You are seeing more than there is in the comments.

-- 
#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 -

"fa3ien" <fab### [at] meschaussuresskynetbe> a écrit dans le message de
news:421f13d1$1@news.povray.org...

> Which was your image, BTW ?

He worked on an image but didn't submit it.

G.

-- 

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

Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>But certain comments strongly suggest 
>>an inbuilt bias that I do not share and find deeply disheartening.
> 
> 
>   You are seeing in the comments something which is not there.

Glad to hear it.


> 
>   We appreciated creative and skillful usage of POV-Ray features and the
> comments just reflected that. You are saying this is bad?
> 

Some comments strongly suggested a selective appreciation for a limited 
set of POV-Ray features, and by extension, a flawed appreciation for the 
whole of what it takes to make a good picture with POV-Ray, and by 
further extension, a predelection for subjects and creative approaches 
that are best supported by these limited set of features.  Is that 
wrong?  No.  Is it bad? Depends. But probably. Because it is reductive 
and views POV-Ray mostly as an end in itself discouraging those who are 
attracted to an open and creative enterprise. But it does provide safe 
harbour for certain people with a narrow set of tastes. If that is good, 
then it's good. Is it disheartening, enervating, angering, and 
discouraging?  For some of us, Yes.  For others, I suppose not, though I 
find that sad.

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de
news:421f19b4@news.povray.org...

>   The animal shown in the winner image can probably be made in 10 minutes
> with a graphical nurbs modeller by someone experienced. As such it would
> have not shown any talent nor dedication at all.

Hmm, don't fan the flames here. Using a modeller is difficult, and it
requires a nice amount of talent and dedication to be (finally) able to
churn out a model like this in 10 minutes.

>If the entire ship had been a mesh created in another program, there
wouldn't
>have been anything impressive about it (at least without knowing how
exactly it
>was done; if it was done just by moving vertices around with the mouse then
>there's nothing impressive in that; it would have been a "cheap" way of
doing
>it, regardless of how long it took to move all the vertices with a mouse).

Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a "cheap" way of modelling complex
objects by just moving vertices around. The concept of modellers being
somehow miracle tools is just an oft-repeated legend somehow popular in
POV-Ray circles (along with the
"miracle-plug-in-that-does-everything-in-the-blink-of-an-eye" one). I guess
every 3D artist out there wishes that the legends were true, but the reality
is that (mesh/Nurbs/SSS) modelling is *** very *** hard work. I'm very much
a beginner after a year of modelling stuff in C4D and it's a very
user-friendly app.

If Johnny Yip had done the ship with a modeller it would still be a superb
modelling effort.

G.

-- 

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

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:421e6be0$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
> Steve you echo a lot of my own anger.
>
> I was trying to find a way to rise above this dispute.  But I guess not.
>
> So I'll say this. I thought that fact that one of the judges would 
> repeatedly use the comments section as a soapbox for this ridiculous bias 
> of his was in extremely poor form.  I was more than a little shocked that 
> such bias was represented on the judging panel at all, and even more so 
> that these petty-minded opinions were allowed to see the light of day. 
> For me it is extremely disheartening, not in the least because I enjoy 
> "pure" csg extremely, and now actually find it hard to use because this 
> "issue" has been so stupidly politicized.  These comments are, in my 
> opinion, low-minded, retrograd, and do not reflect the spirit of POV-Ray.
>


When I read some of the comments on the top images, I felt that way too. 
After the deadline extension, I basically added a few mesh objects to my 
image (and replaced some CSG objects with other CSG objects), which I 
thought would improve it.  Those comments made me wonder if I had actually 
done the wrong thing.

But after reading many of the judges comments (I still have not read them 
all), I realized that in many cases, participants were lauded for their 
effective use of 3rd party modellers.  The position that "Twin girls with a 
pearl earring" achieved is directly contradictory to that kind of thinking. 
While some of the comments came across as being negative and sometimes even 
crass, I think that such things were largely limited to the comments area. 
I have showed the winning entries to several people who know nothing about 
POV-Ray, and overall, they agree with the judging.  To me, that means that 
despite any comments to the contrary, it appears that the judges did not 
apply a CSG-centric bias to any appreciable degree.  And again, those 
comments which implied more weight for CSG seemed rare, in my opinion.

Point blank:
In an impossible to achieve hypothetical situation, if there were 3 
identical images where one consisted completely of 3rd party models 
(purchased or free), one consisted of models the author created using a 
modeller, and one consisted only of CSG (nothing external to POV-Ray), 
should the latter not score highest in competition to show the full 
potential of POV-Ray?  In the big picture, perhaps they should all be given 
equal weight, but this competition had a more narrow goal.  The amount of 
weight that CSG was given seems evident by the judging, and it does not 
appear to me that it was very appreciable.

This is just my opinion and as you know, I do have some CSG bias, along with 
a procedural texturing bias.  My point here is simply that such biases do 
not appear to have impacted the judges decisions any more than what seemed 
relevant given the scope of this competition.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
>  To me, that means that 
> despite any comments to the contrary, it appears that the judges did not 
> apply a CSG-centric bias to any appreciable degree.

  What I don't understand is why some people seem to have got a fanatic
obsession about judges requiring CSG-only entries based on comments
which give negative feedback on using third-party models excessively.
No amount of explanation seems to convince them otherwise.

  It looks like they can think only in binary: Either you accept
scenes modelled 100% in a third-party program, or else you only
accept scenes made 100% in POV-Ray. There's no middle ground and
if anyone (specially a judge) denies that he is a liar.

  I don't understand what is so freaking hard to understand in the
concept that it's perfectly ok to use third-party models but not to
model your entire image with them (because that was really not what
this competition was about).
  I have been trying to say this in a multitude of ways, for no avail.
The only response I get is that it's bullshit, thus effectively calling
me a liar.

> In an impossible to achieve hypothetical situation, if there were 3 
> identical images where one consisted completely of 3rd party models 
> (purchased or free), one consisted of models the author created using a 
> modeller, and one consisted only of CSG (nothing external to POV-Ray), 
> should the latter not score highest in competition to show the full 
> potential of POV-Ray?

  A fourth entry using imported models and other POV-Ray primitives in
a creative and skillful way would have probably be the strongest
candidate. Curious that you didn't give this as an option at all.

-- 
#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 -

"fa3ien" <fab### [at] meschaussuresskynetbe> wrote in message
news:421f13d1$1@news.povray.org...
> St. a écrit :
>
> > Hey, I *LOVE* PoVRay. Let's get that straight, first and foremost. I
> > think most of you know that.
>
> Which was your image, BTW ?
>
> Fabien.

It was posted recently in p.b.i, i'm pretty sure it was the Pinball scene.
(correct me if i am wrong)

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> So...  If you want to compete, it becomes like running the New York 
> Marathon.  Do all 30,000 people really think they might win?  Certainly not. 
> They do it because it's there, they enjoy finding out what they are capable 
> of.  They enjoy seeing someone else win.
> 
> As I stated in off-topic recently, I think most of us here would be happiest 
> if we simply got a free poster from Zazzle for a top finish.  That creates 
> much less pressure, and in the end, I think there would be more POV-Ray 
> art/renders/stuff to show.  Perhaps POVCOMP "overachieved" in regards to 
> prizes.  It certainly squeezed out some good stuff, though, so my point is 
> debatable.
> 

Why can't you enjoy the competition with a top prize? I don't know if 
*most of us* would like a competition with simply a free poster for the 
winner. Although it is healthy to set your goal realistically (a place 
in the top 10 or top 20, for example), a big prize gives a good 
incentive to give it your best (top 10 would be ok, but winning is 
better:) ). Winning a competition where judging is involved mostly 
incorporates a bit of luck anyway (although in POVcomp the winner is 
apparent, in most competitions the top five can be very close).

As you say most people enjoy the New York Marathon, while there are 
hefty prizes to win.

http://www.ingnycmarathon.org/entrantinfo/prizemoney.html

So, I repeat, why can't you enjoy POVcomp with a top prize?

-Em

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

I agree with your breakdown of this and it is fairly stated. I also 
thank you for re-emphasizing that the commentary was well intentioned 
and much appreciated.  Again, some comments, which may have been very 
well intentioned too, look like editorializing and betray a bias 
strongly enough that one has to believe they are from the same person. 
That was the threshold for me.  I think it was the wrong place to 
indulge in this and justifyably warrented some criticism. Myself, I was 
ready to let it go. But St. reacted and I believe his original feeling 
of anger, at least, was valid. So I made the decision to not let him 
twist alone since I had experienced the same reaction. Now I have stated 
my criticism. I only wished to raise the level of awareness. Nothing 
about this is so egregious to be worth any more of our time here. Like 
Gilles and yourself I am now only interested in manning the firehose.

I will state only one thing further.  I truly regret that any particular 
picture was drawn into the discussion.  In my mind it was never, ever 
about particular pictures.

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f3f60@news.povray.org...
>
>> In an impossible to achieve hypothetical situation, if there were 3
>> identical images where one consisted completely of 3rd party models
>> (purchased or free), one consisted of models the author created using a
>> modeller, and one consisted only of CSG (nothing external to POV-Ray),
>> should the latter not score highest in competition to show the full
>> potential of POV-Ray?
>
>  A fourth entry using imported models and other POV-Ray primitives in
> a creative and skillful way would have probably be the strongest
> candidate. Curious that you didn't give this as an option at all.
>


Good point.  I guess I just didn't want to make the example overly 
complicated.  POV-Ray does meshes.  A CSG-only entry does not show this 
fact.  So, something with CSG and meshes (all other things being equal) 
would probably show off more features of POV-Ray than a CSG-only entry, or a 
mesh-only entry.  I get it.  I think some of these frustrations go beyond 
POVCOMP, but some of the crass comments reinforced certain fears/anxiety 
that many of us had.

This was really just a small competition.  The big prizes made it seem like 
it was more than it really was.  In essence, the prizes dwarfed many of the 
other aspects.  Minor blunders became huge blunders.  Minor nit-picks became 
huge nit-picks.  The participants were elevated to a level of which they 
were not at all accustomed.  Perhaps the same could be said of the judges. 
We were amateurs competing for professional-level prizes.  Many may have had 
unrealistic expectations, given their inexperience.  It has exacted a 
toll... Or many small tolls, perhaps.  I never saw it coming.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"emkaah" <emkaah@yahoodotcom> wrote in message 
news:421f47f7$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Why can't you enjoy the competition with a top prize? I don't know if 
> *most of us* would like a competition with simply a free poster for the 
> winner. Although it is healthy to set your goal realistically (a place in 
> the top 10 or top 20, for example), a big prize gives a good incentive to 
> give it your best (top 10 would be ok, but winning is better:) ). Winning 
> a competition where judging is involved mostly incorporates a bit of luck 
> anyway (although in POVcomp the winner is apparent, in most competitions 
> the top five can be very close).
>
> As you say most people enjoy the New York Marathon, while there are hefty 
> prizes to win.
>
> http://www.ingnycmarathon.org/entrantinfo/prizemoney.html
>
> So, I repeat, why can't you enjoy POVcomp with a top prize?
>


I did enjoy it.  :-)

Other people apparently didn't. :-(

My point was simply that these large prizes elevated this competition to a 
level that we are not used to seeing around here.  The number of entrants 
was relatively small.

We've had a similar turn-out for the IRTC, which doesn't even have prizes 
anymore.  Sure, I would have liked to have won, and I'm sure that's why we 
had many of our top POVers competing.  But almost all of those people have 
also competed in the IRTC, for nothing.  Much less pressure and (when taken 
as a whole) has produced comparable images.  Something bridging the gap 
between the two competitions seems ideal to me.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:421f49a1$1@news.povray.org...
> Like Gilles and yourself I am now only interested in manning the firehose.
>

For what it's worth, I think your post had more of an impact due to your 
previous restraint.

You can have my hose.  I need to get out of here, and actually do some new 
stuff in POV-Ray...  :-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> I did enjoy it.  :-)
> 
> Other people apparently didn't. :-(
> 
> My point was simply that these large prizes elevated this competition to a 
> level that we are not used to seeing around here.  The number of entrants 
> was relatively small.

I think quality is more important than quantity.

> 
> We've had a similar turn-out for the IRTC, which doesn't even have prizes 
> anymore.  Sure, I would have liked to have won, and I'm sure that's why we 
> had many of our top POVers competing.  But almost all of those people have 
> also competed in the IRTC, for nothing.  Much less pressure and (when taken 
> as a whole) has produced comparable images.  Something bridging the gap 
> between the two competitions seems ideal to me.
> 

I think that POVcomp has many more images of high quality then any IRTC 
round.

If you look for example to what the winner Johnny Yip did for the IRTC,

http://exether.free.fr/irtc/stills/author_johnny_yip.html

then I think that he outdid himself in this competition. And I think 
that many competitors upped their level with POV here (except maybe for 
Jaime Vives Piqueres, who has reach the top of depicting kitchens some 
time ago :) ).

It seems that for many extra incentive can be beneficial, while some 
others have more trouble handling the pressure.

-Em

Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>>  As I have already said in another article, this was a competition to
>>>show the capabilities of POV-Ray, 
> 

You are welcome to your interpretation of this of course, but some 
broader interpretations may alos be valid.

> 
>>Which you associate exclusively with CSG
> 
> 
>   You seem to have the same obsession as St. has.

I see myself as standing beside St., yes, though I don't agree with all 
he is saying.



> 
>   Since composing the entire scene with third-party models was considered
> negative (because it basically uses just one single POV-Ray feature:
> mesh rendering), you now are completely convinced that meshes were
> completely forbidden and that if an entry used even one single mesh
> it would have not won.

No I believe one judge in a few comments indulged in proselytizing 
against the viability of mesh modeling.  And that that is dangerous 
because when stated by an official, can induce a generalized set of 
values and preferences.


> 
>   You also seem to know better what I mean by "to show the capabilities
> of POV-Ray" than I do, and seemingly no amount of explaining will
> convince you otherwise.
> 

This more than anything confirms my opinion of the situation.


>   Are you calling me a liar too?
> 
Not sure where that came from but my intentions here are simply to raise 
  awareness I denote as articulately as I possibly can how statements 
can reverbiate.


> 
>>not a competition to show how POV-Ray
>>
>>>can project meshes onto the screen.
> 
> 
>>only how it can project primitives onto the screen
> 
> 
>   Uh? You call algorithmic programming, isosurface tracing, sphere sweep
> generation, procedural texturing and other features "projecting primitives
> onto the screen"?
>   If so, you have a pretty limited view of what POV-Ray can do.
>

let's remember one of the quotes:
Big plus for creative use of POV-Ray primitives and CSG (instead just 
using cheap meshes).

The point is that it is the commentor who drew a comparison that appears 
limited.


> 
>>How is it, in your opinion, that a mesh, hand-modeled to express 
>>sublties of organic form, say the complexities of the flesh around a 
>>human eye, is in anyway "cheap"
> 
> 
>   Because it shows the power of a third-party modeller program, not the
> power of POV-Ray. It's just a cheap way of getting pretty images generated
> by POV-Ray, using less than 1% of its features. You could as well use
> any other renderer to get the image from the models.

This raises some interesting aspects of the whole promotional dilemma 
because in light of what you say, I am equally unsure that SDL, while a 
unique thing, is really the basket where I'd want to put all of my eggs 
so to speak.  But you are the insider and I am not and that does not 
bear directly on what angered me here anyway.  More helpful to say this. 
  If I understand the intention of your words correctly, in light of a 
desire to see the creative possibilities of sdl as a modeler explored as 
much as possible, the substitution of mesh looks easy or "cheap".  Valid 
to a point, but a couple of things:  The syntax of the comment suggests 
mesh by its nature is always "cheap" not just its use in a contest with 
  prestated preferences.  Also, the reader may not be aware that you 
meant the word in context or have any way of understanding that context. 
  Finally, even when prestated, it really is a bias.


>   The animal shown in the winner image can probably be made in 10 minutes
> with a graphical nurbs modeller by someone experienced. As such it would
> have not shown any talent nor dedication at all. However, using POV-Ray's
> own means to create the figure showed creativeness and talent.
>   And that was just the simplest part of the image. Using isosurfaces
> for the ship was simply awesome. If the entire ship had been a mesh
> created in another program, there wouldn't have been anything impressive
> about it (at least without knowing how exactly it was done; if it was
> done just by moving vertices around with the mouse then there's nothing
> impressive in that; it would have been a "cheap" way of doing it, regardless
> of how long it took to move all the vertices with a mouse).
> 
> 
>>At worst it is proselytizing, even gloating, in light of a known and 
>>inflamed controversy.
> 
> 
>   You are seeing more than there is in the comments.
> 
Again, glad to hear it.  But again the point is, when spoken in an 
official capacity or even in an official context, words should be chosen 
carefully because they are always going to be interpreted at the 
convenience of the audience.  Every manager learns this nasty lesson.

As someone who entered an image that was almost all 3rd party meshes,
I feel that I need to make a comment here. First, I do not feel that
"POVRAY only" created images were given a big advantage over using
third party modelers. I used Rhino to speed things up so that I could
put my effort into texturing, lighting, etc. I am terrible at using the
more advanced POVRAY geometry functions and didn't feel that I had the
time to learn how to use them and still create a good scene. My failure
to win first prize is obvious to me, not enough artistic expression
or "flare" (not "SDL only" modeling preference). I did a lot of
experimenting to find the right density of meshing to acheive a good look
in the enlarged views and to find textures that looked good enlarged as
well. I do not feel that the effort was wasted in any way by any so-called
preference for SDL only created images.
   Also, I have to take a very mild exception to Gilles'comment about
Rhino not being a hobbyist tool. Compared to what I use at work, Rhino is
more of a toy than a realistic production tool.
   Anyway, I will probably use the same tools and techniques for the next
contest and spend my time between now and then refining my knowledge of
POVRAY. Its a great tool and fun to work with in conjunction with the other
tools that are available.

Chris Holtorf

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

> You can have my hose.  

You gaddamned cabana boy

"Chris" <lho### [at] nwlinkcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:web.421f5b5acbe05eba999befe70@news.povray.org...

>    Also, I have to take a very mild exception to Gilles'comment about
> Rhino not being a hobbyist tool. Compared to what I use at work, Rhino is
> more of a toy than a realistic production tool.

I should have cited CATIA then ;)
Well, yes, a few POV-Ray hobbyists have invested in Rhino (including me), so
it's also a hobbyist tool. I just meant that it wasn't part of the
traditional toolbox of free and low-cost apps since most hobbyists aren't
willing to shell out $900 for a modeller.

G.

-- 

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

St. wrote:
> Hey, I *LOVE* PoVRay. Let's get that straight, first and foremost. I 
> think most of you know that.
> 
>  BUT... but...
> 
> After reviewing the judges comments on the winners excellent image, I 
> know I won't ever have a chance. Ever. It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!

I don't want to repeat what others have already replied but i would 
seriously suggest you have a considerate look at the following aspects 
(in fact this reply is not exclusively at you but also at others who 
might feel strange about the ratings of their/others images or the 
judges comments):

- the organizers and the judges have put quite some work into offering 
the users of POV-Ray this competition and in addition have been able to 
get some sponsors to offer prizes for the winners.  If you don't like 
the contest for some reasons you are welcome to suggest improvements 
(although that's a bit late for POVCOMP 2004) as well as not to enter 
the contest (a bit late as well) but to be frank, i find it somewhat 
unappreciative to criticise the judges for the comments they have made 
(who are only trying to support the artists improving their images with 
those comments) and the organizers for the design of the contest (who 
are only trying to make the contest most useful for the participants, 
the sponsors and POV-Ray).

- as far as i have seen none of the the judges' comments (which - as 
others have already explained - do not necessarily reflect the judges 
criteria to rate the images) in any way contradicts the judging criteria 
that have been put up in the competition guidelines and that have 
received in general a positive reaction before the competition end.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f14ec@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> >  The goal of the competition was to show what POV-Ray is capable of.
>
>>    "AS A RENDERER". Get it yet?
>
>  Yes, as a renderer which supports things like isosurfaces, spheresweeps,
> CSG of any solid primitives, procedural textures, algorithmical
> programming etc.
>  Projecting a bunch of meshes to the screen is not showing what POV-Ray
> is really capable of.

    Then what was the point of allowing modellers at all if a "bunch of 
meshes" on the screen is NOT going to have a chance of winning? If this 
wasn't about 'art' and rendering with PoV-Ray, then what was it about?


>
>>      The main goal of povcomp was promotion in a 'pov only' way.
>
>  You clearly have an obsession with this "pov only" thing. No matter
> how many times you are told that imported models are ok (as long as
> the entire scene does not consist of them) and how an image with
> some imported models could have won, you still repeat this "pov only"
> thing over and over like a parrot.
>  The winner image just happened not to have any imported models at
> all. So what? If for example a fish would have been modelled in Wings,
> do you think that would have dropped the image from first place? If
> you think "yes", then you are delusional.
>
>> >  However, regardless of that, and believe or not, that was not the main
>> > reason for choosing The Last Guardian as winner. It was simply, in the
>> > opinion of most judges, the best image. Even most of the judges not
>> > using POV-Ray had this opinion.
>
>>    And I agree, undoubtedly. However, I will still say that I have seen 
>> as
>> good in the IRTC. Don't try to talk me down Warp.
>
>  You are not making any sense here. I don't understand what you mean.

   Without risk of getting personal, you are talking down to me as though 
you are some kind of elevated level above me. You are not. You are on the 
same level as me and anyone else here.


>
>  What do you mean by "I will still say that I have sen as good in the
> IRTC"? Firstly you haven't even mentioned IRTC before this, and secondly
> I don't understand what you mean by that. As good as what? And what does
> that have to do with anything?

    Ok, what was "ground-breaking" in this contest? Was there *anything* 
"ground-breaking" at all? No. That was one of the criteria of even entering 
the contest, and yet, it wasn't there in my opinion.



>
>> >  Not true. If you had made a definitely better image than The Last
>> > Guardian, you would have won.
>
>>      BS, and you know it.
>
>  Ah, I didn't realize you were part of the judging team and that you
> know what were the principles by which the images were judged. In fact,
> you know them better than me. Perhaps I was part of a different judging
> team?
>
>  You are calling me a liar. Is that really what you want?

     I'm not calling *anyone* a liar. If you lied to me, and I knew it, THEN 
I'd call you a liar - no problem, so please quit it with the 'lying' facade. 
Heck, Warp, can't you see what my real problem with this whole thing is? It 
was judged by *some* people that in my opinion shouldn't have been judges. 
For instance, what qualified you as a judge? Are you an artist? What media 
do you use for applying your art, and what type of canvas? None? PoV only? 
Or do you use external modellers too? My point is that I am no more a judge 
than you are.

   If it was me, I would have asked some of the *best* CG artists out there, 
(with whatever tools *they* use), very nicely if they would like to be a 
judge, and wouldn't have *anyone* from PoV-Ray itself - someone 'neutral'. 
It's a well known fact that this happens all the time with any competition 
in the public domain.



>
>> the competition would have been very hard against superb
>> > images using more of POV-Ray's features, but the main judging principle
>> > was still how the image looks. The method of production was only
>> > secondary.
>
>>   Exactly.
>
>  So you agree with me now? Now you do agree that your image could have
> won if it was clearly superior to the other images, regardless of the
> method of production?
>  You are not making any sense.

    I meant 'exactly', as in, it wasn't secondary. The method of production 
in 'your' eyes was 'pov only'. Tell the truth Warp, did you judge *solely* 
on what the image looked like? Or did you take into account that an image 
used pov only?



>
>>   No, but you, (povray), asked, (pleaded?). I entered within the rules - 
>> but
>> there was *no way* I would win using an image made up of Wings models 
>> only,
>> however good it would be.
>
>  Yeah, you know this thing better because you were a judge and I was not.
> Or I am just a liar. And you know I'm lying because... because... well,
> just because.

    Now you're not making sense.


>
>> >  It's you who seem quite naive. Were you expecting to win because 
>> > making
>> > your image "costed you money"?
>
>>   I'd never expect to win in any contest, but trust me, it cost me money. 
>> I
>> 'paid' in time to enter this comp. I could have been doing other things 
>> at
>> £50 an hour.
>
>  Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps we should give you a refund?

    Don't be pedantic. I only earn that around Christmas time, and most of 
the other time, I probably earn less than the minimum wage here in the UK. 
My analogy is sound because I compare it with the effort that I put in only 
to see that "(instead of resorting to cheap meshes created by third-party 
tools)" is the *real* cludge here.


>
>> >>   Say what you like, I know I'm right.
>> >
>> >  Self-righeousness is the way to go, yeah.
>
>>    Yeah. Self-righteousness in the 'right' way. I have no problem with 
>> that.
>> And nor did other big artists in their day.
>
>>    I'm *still* right.
>
>  You are still an idiot, it seems.

  <sigh> And there you go. A judge calling someone an idiot. So you 
concluded that I was an idiot before, then? That's the first time you've 
called me an idiot, but it was already in your head. I rest my case with you 
being a judge, and biased towards me. I've met you before. If I'd have 
entered, and everyone else thought my image was the best, I bet you would 
have argued against them. Tell me you wouldn't have.


>  You are not making any sense, you are unable to give rational arguments
> about your claims, you have an idiotic principle of not listening to any
> arguments against your claims and you are calling people liars just 
> because.

  There's that elevated level again. You won't go far Warp.

   ~Steve~

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f0fbd$1@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>     Does it matter if I entered or not? What did I post in my first post? 
>> It
>> wasn't a "Great image" contest, it was merely a "Great PoV-Ray" contest.
>> Full stop.
>
>  And your point is?

      My point is that if it was a 'pure pov only' contest, you wouldn't, 
and couldn't, have had the entries that you did. You 'had' to allow 
modellers. I bet you sighed with relief when you found out that image was 
pov only?

>
>  Perhaps we should have allowed 3DStudioMax renderings as well to
> satisfy your needs?

     No. I understand why this competition came about, and endorse any 
promotional media to do with pov.


>
>>      Yes, and as good as they were, not one of them won. *Pure* PoV won.
>
>  Because it happened to be the best image.
>  It did not win because it did not use any external models. It won
> because it was the best image. The fact that it did not use any
> external models at all was commendable, but basically a coincidence.
> It could have used some external models and still have won.
>
>>     Yes, emotional, but they understand, they 'know' MY points. Listen 
>> RD, I
>> sent my image to one of the *judges* on a friendly basis, not knowing 
>> that
>> person was one of the judges, how do you think I feel now?! How do you 
>> think
>> he feels??
>
>>    I'm glad I didn't enter, I respect the person I sent it to, and 
>> wouldn't
>> want to spoil that. This is why I'm arguing that it should have been 
>> set-up
>> properly.
>
>  You are not making any sense here. I don't understand what do you mean.

  It's simple. The judges *shouldn't* have been disclosed for a start. Of 
the ones I know, I can *only* see one in that list that I would say is 
actually qualified to judge, and whatever you say, if I'd have entered, I 
would most certainly have felt that there was a bias towards myself by one 
of them. Sometimes it's difficult to tell what kind of 'mood' someone is in 
when they post, but you can *always* tell what attitude they have by *what* 
they post.

   ~Steve~




>
> -- 
> #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 -