"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message 
news:cvnq3t$3jc$1@chho.imagico.de...
> 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).

    Sure, I understand this, but please, don't think I was unappreciative. I 
just think it was a waste of time for anyone not using pov only.



>
> - 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.

    I agree with you, it's a *great* competition! BUT, I think totally 
'neutral' judges should have been used.

   ~Steve~


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

"ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message 
news:fftt11tt3t7t1g6iaegu6tc28tnip4gmqq@4ax.com...
> 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.

   'Flexibility' being the operative word here.

>
>> 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.

    The first part of the sentence, (before the 'dash'), was addressed to 
you, and the rest was aimed at everyone. 'Sour grapes' means that I did not 
like the end result of the contest, I wasn't happy with it. I felt 
'let-down'. Bemused, etc. For the record, I agree with the judges, and yes, 
Johnny's image was fantastic! Fair play to him, he deserved it.


>
>> 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.

  Nice try ABX. ;)  But, if you haven't noticed yet, I'm here to stay, so 
get used to it? :)


> 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 :-)

  I'm not about contests. I'm about PoV-Ray. Heck, I even put PoV-Comp on 
our website to get more people interested. I don't know if that worked, but 
I hope it got a few more people knowing POV. :)

    ~Steve~


>
> ABX

"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
Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...

Marc

"Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
news:421f83a4$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "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
> Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...

  I thought better of you.

   ~Steve~




>
> Marc
>
>

St. wrote:
> 
> "Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
> news:421f83a4$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>
>> "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
>> Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...
> 
> 
>  I thought better of you.
> 
>   ~Steve~
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
> 
Steve, he's just giving you a "read".  Stop taking swings at people. 
You gotta calm down.

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421e6be2@news.povray.org...
> 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?

    Don't be silly.


>
>>    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...

     This has nothing to do with my image. It is to do with principle.


>
>>     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.

   Blah blah blah... (and so it goes on). Yawn.

   ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> #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 -

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:57:44 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> I did not like the end result of the contest, I wasn't happy with it.
> (...) I agree with the judges, and yes,
> Johnny's image was fantastic! Fair play to him, he deserved it.

IMO judges and award to Johny == end result of the contest.
I can't help you I'm affraid, sorry :-(

> I'm not about contests. I'm about PoV-Ray.

This is wrong group then.

ABX

"ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message 
news:a22v11tv1rm1ucjljqd0ceg7k2erlo1m31@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:57:44 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

>> I'm not about contests. I'm about PoV-Ray.
>
> This is wrong group then.

    Maybe.  :(

   ~Steve~


>
> ABX

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:421f856f@news.povray.org...
>
> > Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...

Sorry I should have wrote "Maybe" instead of "Nope"

>   I thought better of you.

So did I.
I am not a native English speaker and it's not easy for me to express what I
mean but I made this conpetition mostly for the fun, so I cant share your
point of view.

Marc

"Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
news:421f9133@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de
> news:421f856f@news.povray.org...
>>
>> > Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...
>
> Sorry I should have wrote "Maybe" instead of "Nope"
>
>>   I thought better of you.
>
> So did I.
> I am not a native English speaker and it's not easy for me to express what 
> I
> mean but I made this conpetition mostly for the fun, so I cant share your
> point of view.

  That's not a problem for me Marc. You are entitled to your opinion as is 
anyone in here.

    ~Steve~

>
> Marc
>
>

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:421f874f$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>
>> "Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
>> news:421f83a4$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>>
>>> "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
>>> Nope but you had one of whining! and you took it indeed...
>>
>>
>>  I thought better of you.
>>
>>   ~Steve~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>
> Steve, he's just giving you a "read".  Stop taking swings at people. You 
> gotta calm down.

   Yes, I know that Jim. And I appreciate your guidance - I'll listen to 
anyone that's worth listening to, whether they be my senior, or are of a 
higher intellect than me, (not that I have any intellect it seems).

   But yes, you're right. I can only apologise, fellow povers, for my 
behaviour. I will bow-down to all and say sorry. When I saw those comments 
though, they did indeed infuriate me, and let's just say that I lost my grip 
a little which is unusual for me.

    Sorry all.

   ~Steve~

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>       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?

  And where exactly have I or anyone else said that third-party models
are not ok in the competition?

  And why would I have sighed with relief? I don't understand that.
Do you think the images were first classified and then the descriptions
were read? Of course we were fully aware of their descriptions.

>   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

  Now you are starting to directly insult the judges?

  I am a liar full of bullshit and all judges except one were incompetent
and not qualified to be judges. What next? Will you start defining
our parentage in full detail?

-- 
#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:
> >  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.

>    Blah blah blah... (and so it goes on). Yawn.

  So I was right: No amount of explaining will convince you, but you
will not even try to understand anything and keep with this holy war of
yours.

-- 
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:421f944a@news.povray.org...
<snip>
>
>  I am a liar full of bullshit and all judges except one were incompetent
> and not qualified to be judges. What next? Will you start defining
> our parentage in full detail?
>


Yes, and you raped our families, too.

C'mon Warp.  You're not helping yourself at this point.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f94ab@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> >  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.
>
>>    Blah blah blah... (and so it goes on). Yawn.
>
>  So I was right: No amount of explaining will convince you, but you
> will not even try to understand anything and keep with this holy war of
> yours.

  I've apologised to you and all in here. Leave it at that.

    ~Steve~

>
> -- 
> 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. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> >  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?

  Since no amount of repetition will make you understand, then why
should I bother repeating it once again?

  You really, really don't understand what is the difference between
using third-party models and composing your entire image with them?

>    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.

  You started insulting me, and I'm a person who can't take much of that
without getting angry, so you get a response according to that.

> >  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.

  "Ground-breaking" and using modellers seem to have some relation, at
least from your point of view. Sorry if I'm too dumb to understand it.

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

>      I'm not calling *anyone* a liar.

  It's rather clear that you are calling me a liar above. I know how
the images were judged because I was part of the process and I know
that an image much better than the current winner would have won
regardless of how it had been made. You are saying that this claim
of mine is BS. Thus I'm lying to you.

> Heck, Warp, can't you see what my real problem with this whole thing is?

  Yes, but can you?

  Your real problem is that there was a lot of $$$money$$$ involved,
you missed the deadline by a quite short margin and did not get into
the competition and you are now pissed off because of that, and you
are now seeking some kind of revenge on the whole competition.
  You will of course deny that, but I am quite sure.

> It 
> was judged by *some* people that in my opinion shouldn't have been judges. 

  So now that your "csg-only" argument is not really holding water,
you start attacking the competence of the judges?
  What next? Will you start attacking the sponsors perhaps? The pov-team?
The contestants? Something else?

> >> > The method of production was only secondary.
> >
> >>   Exactly.

>     I meant 'exactly', as in, it wasn't secondary.

  Oh, sorry. I must have some reading comprehension problem. Perhaps your
English is a bit different than mine?

> 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?

  I judged mainly on how the image looked like and secondarily on how
it was done. I had picked my favorites before I even looked how they
were done exactly (my initial top 6 was approximately the same as the final
result).
  But of course because I'm full of BS you don't have to believe me.

> >> 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.

>     Now you're not making sense.

  I think it's pretty clear. What are you not understanding?
  (Btw, it's sarcarsm, if you know what that means.)

> >  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.

  I knew you would quote that line alone, separated from its context,
and that's exactly why I wrote it in its own line, so I could say this.

  Your paranoia is reaching ridiculous extents.
  Firstly, I succumbed to the temptation of calling you an idiot only
because of your attitude in this thread. I do not have any memory of
any previous texts you have written to me or anyone else and I do not
have any concept of your personality. Even if you have fooled around
in the past, I don't have any memory of that (it's very rare that I
remember people by name/nickname because of their texts).
  Secondly, judges did not know the authors of the images. Even if you
had entered and even if I had negative feelings about you personally
(which I did not), I would have had no way of knowing which image was
yours.

-- 
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:
> 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.

  So basically you are saying that the judging principles were
(probably) ok, but the judges' comments published along the entries
could have been more mature and careful at some points (because as
they are they can give the wrong impression to some people)?

  If that is your point, then I suppose I can't argue.
  I just got the impression from your post that you were also attacking
the judging process itself and that you got the impression this was
an "sdl-only" competition.

-- 
#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 -

Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
> C'mon Warp.  You're not helping yourself at this point.

  I know, but when someone goes on and on with insults, I find it
hard to just stop.

-- 
#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 -

Steve do you still remember the rant I had a few months ago? I was
complaining that pov models are going to be rated the same as models made
with 3rd party tools.  And yes I was pretty upset and frustrated at that
point and made the decision not to enter the competition because it's going
to be a waste of time. And oh yes I strongly believe that I was right at
that point and everyone else are wrong. But I do want you to know what
happened after I made that decision.

To be honest, my initial goal to enter the competition is for the prize, but
then after knowing that I won't have the advantage of using models made in
povray, as well as hearing how your modeling skill is close to Mr.
Rosenman, how the hell do I stand a chance? So I stopped working on my
image, stopped for two weeks, and during those two weeks I reflected on the
kind of things I said, and realized that I am not completely correct.
Gilles was right that modelers are not necessarily easier than povray
models, it's like having oil painting and watercolour, they are different
things and both have their own advantages and disadvantages.  If this
competition involves no prizes would you have entered? Back in September I
would've said no, but starting in November I realized my goal shouldn't
simply be chasing after first place. You can say I am just bullshiting
right now because the contest is over, but my expectation dropped from
"hopefully winning some poster money to print the poster for my Design
Project Presentation" to "using this as a chance to show the rest of the
people that yes, povray is capable of doing things that normally people
won't do".  That is my principle, and to be precise, my principle is that
it is not the tool you choose to use, but rather, how you use that tool to
make your image.  And it's NOT simply using that tool, but using it in an
innovative and interesting way. At least that's my believe. If I give you
three colours, red yellow and blue, what are you going to do with it? Some
people may draw really creative patterns with only those three colours, or
some people may mix the colours and get millions of other colours. The
point is, the art is in you, not what's given. If you perceive this contest
as a way to explore what haven't been done before, then you, and I, will be
a lot more happy.

I don't use povray "very often", in fact, the only time I get to play around
with it is during summer break, and now with work + school I can't really
afford to spend a lot of time of this competition. So for someone like me
(and probably a lot of other people) who can't dedicate sufficient chunks
of time in this matter, my hope is that someday, people will recognize my
work and say, yes, it is something unique, it is something that is
POSSIBLE. I was wrong in the first place for looking at things from one
direction, I was looking at povcomp in the sense that it has large first
prize. After two weeks of self reflection, it was clear to me that there is
another way to look at the competition, it's a way to promote mutual
learning. You too should try to see things with a different perspective,
perhaps you will get more insight to the true meaning of your values.

> This has nothing to do with my image. It is to do with principle.

If this is your principle then it's a good thing that you sticked with it. I
did, at one point, was tempted to use a modeller to make one of the
objects, because the povray model lacks detail and it is very crappy. But
no, in the end, i didn't use a modeler because it was the goal of my entry
to exploit povray as a modeler.

> Sure, I understand this, but please, don't think I was unappreciative. I
> just think it was a waste of time for anyone not using pov only.

My thought WAS the same.


Just a thought.
J

"j" <phazxero[at]hotmail[dot]com> wrote in message 
news:web.421f9eeecbe05ebac282406a0@news.povray.org...


> Steve do you still remember the rant I had a few months ago?

  Yes, I do. :)

 I was
> complaining that pov models are going to be rated the same as models made
> with 3rd party tools.  And yes I was pretty upset and frustrated at that
> point and made the decision not to enter the competition because it's 
> going
> to be a waste of time. And oh yes I strongly believe that I was right at
> that point and everyone else are wrong. But I do want you to know what
> happened after I made that decision.
>
> To be honest, my initial goal to enter the competition is for the prize, 
> but
> then after knowing that I won't have the advantage of using models made in
> povray, as well as hearing how your modeling skill is close to Mr.
> Rosenman, how the hell do I stand a chance? So I stopped working on my
> image, stopped for two weeks, and during those two weeks I reflected on 
> the
> kind of things I said, and realized that I am not completely correct.
> Gilles was right that modelers are not necessarily easier than povray
> models, it's like having oil painting and watercolour, they are different
> things and both have their own advantages and disadvantages.  If this
> competition involves no prizes would you have entered? Back in September I
> would've said no, but starting in November I realized my goal shouldn't
> simply be chasing after first place. You can say I am just bullshiting
> right now because the contest is over, but my expectation dropped from
> "hopefully winning some poster money to print the poster for my Design
> Project Presentation" to "using this as a chance to show the rest of the
> people that yes, povray is capable of doing things that normally people
> won't do".  That is my principle, and to be precise, my principle is that
> it is not the tool you choose to use, but rather, how you use that tool to
> make your image.  And it's NOT simply using that tool, but using it in an
> innovative and interesting way. At least that's my believe.

 And that's what I think too, hence my image "Immenent". Apart from the 
first table, everything else was placed by hand in pov. That was some 
achievement to do that.


If I give you
> three colours, red yellow and blue, what are you going to do with it? Some
> people may draw really creative patterns with only those three colours, or
> some people may mix the colours and get millions of other colours.

  Not me. I would have a blue tiger eating a green antelope in a red field!

   Heh... I'll HAVE to try that sometime! PoV only, of course... Hmm.  ;)



The
> point is, the art is in you, not what's given. If you perceive this 
> contest
> as a way to explore what haven't been done before, then you, and I, will 
> be
> a lot more happy.

     Yes, I understand that.

>
> I don't use povray "very often", in fact, the only time I get to play 
> around
> with it is during summer break, and now with work + school I can't really
> afford to spend a lot of time of this competition. So for someone like me
> (and probably a lot of other people) who can't dedicate sufficient chunks
> of time in this matter, my hope is that someday, people will recognize my
> work and say, yes, it is something unique, it is something that is
> POSSIBLE.

    Then follow your dream J. For you, it will happen. I already know that 
you are a 'serious' person, and that counts for a lot these days. I respect 
that.


 I was wrong in the first place for looking at things from one
> direction, I was looking at povcomp in the sense that it has large first
> prize. After two weeks of self reflection, it was clear to me that there 
> is
> another way to look at the competition, it's a way to promote mutual
> learning. You too should try to see things with a different perspective,
> perhaps you will get more insight to the true meaning of your values.

   Thank you for that. I enjoy learning from young people too. Quite often, 
they are way above my head with their work, but it's always an 'exciting' 
experience for me to see what you younger people are doing. I applaud you, 
keep at it.


>
>> This has nothing to do with my image. It is to do with principle.
>
> If this is your principle then it's a good thing that you sticked with it. 
> I
> did, at one point, was tempted to use a modeller to make one of the
> objects, because the povray model lacks detail and it is very crappy. But
> no, in the end, i didn't use a modeler because it was the goal of my entry
> to exploit povray as a modeler.

  That's fair enough - I have no argument at all with this. In fact, if the 
truth be known, I should *never* have downloaded Wings at all, and stuck 
with learning pure POV. I'm sure I could come up with all sorts of pretty 
and fascinating patterns, but when it comes to adding a bevel in POV, I 
understand that it's a complete pita. Do I want that? No, is the answer.

>
>> Sure, I understand this, but please, don't think I was unappreciative. I
>> just think it was a waste of time for anyone not using pov only.
>
> My thought WAS the same.

   And I thank you for that. You're an intelligent young person, I wish you 
well with what you want from life. Good luck to you.

  ~Steve~


>
>
> Just a thought.
> J
>
>

Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
>   So basically you are saying that the judging principles were
> (probably) ok, but the judges' comments published along the entries
> could have been more mature and careful at some points (because as
> they are they can give the wrong impression to some people)?
> 
>   If that is your point, then I suppose I can't argue.
>   I just got the impression from your post that you were also attacking
> the judging process itself and that you got the impression this was
> an "sdl-only" competition.
> 

That is correct.  I hope that distinction was evident from my first post 
  though I admit that my choice of words there was very strong.  Maybe 
too strong.  I really abhor this particular prejudice as I have 
struggled from the beginning to employ mesh modeling in a continuum with 
other techniques.

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"!
>
>    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.

FWIW I agree with your comments.  In order to produce a "world class" image
with POV, it is better to spend the time on lighting / textures than
modelling.

POV is not suitable for creating most models, the main problem I find with
using CSG is that it is very hard to produce rounded edges on anything but
very simple shapes.  Rounded edges go a long way to make the difference
between photorealistic and "computer generated" IMHO.

Of course POV is great for creating certain types of models, the built in
SDL is very powerful and allows you to create certain objects very quickly
and efficiently.  But you have to look hard to find these types of models,
in real life most objects would be easier, faster and more accurate to model
with a modelling package.

In terms of what images look "world class" from the results, I would have
ordered them differently, as would the two people I've spoken to who have
never used POV.

I think it really needs to be made clear whether any future competitions are
to *render* world class images with POV, or create world class scenes with
POV.  I understood the former was most important, but maybe I was a bit
wrong.

scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> POV is not suitable for creating most models, the main problem I find with
> using CSG is that it is very hard to produce rounded edges on anything but
> very simple shapes.  Rounded edges go a long way to make the difference
> between photorealistic and "computer generated" IMHO.

  Just because St. says that povcomp was a "CSG-only" competition doesn't
make it so.

-- 
#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 -

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> POV is not suitable for creating most models, the main problem I
>> find with using CSG is that it is very hard to produce rounded edges
>> on anything but very simple shapes.  Rounded edges go a long way to
>> make the difference between photorealistic and "computer generated"
>> IMHO.
>
>   Just because St. says that povcomp was a "CSG-only" competition
> doesn't make it so.

Of course, but I understood the competition was about creating a world class
*image* using POV.  If this really was the case, the judges should have
judged the images with no knowledge of how it was created.  Of course
afterwards they can check that is was actually created in a way that
complied with the rules, but *how* it was created shouldn't have affected
the judging or the comments if it was truly an "image" competition, and not
a "scene" competition.

But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I was
under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image
POV can create.

scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> I was
> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image
> POV can create.

  Basically any renderer supporting meshes and simple lighting models
can render impressive images if the models and textures are superb.

  One of the goals of this competition was to show what POV-Ray can
do *more* than other renderers.

-- 
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 -

"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4222fc01$1@news.povray.org...

> But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
> element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I was
> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an
image
> POV can create.

It's a POV-Ray competition called POVCOMP, so it's a given that how well
POV-Ray is used is unavoidably part of the judgement, cf the mission
statement about the "full potential of POV-Ray" (*). It's also a given that
the final image has to be world-class. The top images, and particularly the
5 top ones, fulfill both expectations so that non-POV people can be wowed
because these are good images that stand on their own AND because they're
made with a free raytracer.

The winners won because they made damn fine pics, and they were able to make
them with POV-Ray because they are skilled artists. Replace "POV-Ray" with
"oil painting" and it would be the same. It's really that simple, and
doesn't warrant further exegesis/speculation/interpretation.

G.

(*) indeed, a competitor entered 2 images that were just a Rhino model
exported to POV-Ray without any change to the default camera, lighting and
texture. These images were not considered to be valid entries.

-- 

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

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> I was
>> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good
>> an image POV can create.
>
>   Basically any renderer supporting meshes and simple lighting models
> can render impressive images if the models and textures are superb.

True, but the real skill lies in being able to decide which way to do
things.  Do you use CSG/mesh? Do you use textures in Photoshop or SDL
pigment? etc etc  In most situations there are many ways of achieving the
same result, there is little point in choosing a method that will take much
more of your time up, it will merely waste your time that could be better
spent on improving your scene further.

Anyway, as with all competitions that are "judged", nobody is ever going to
agree 100% with the results, that's just the way it is.  Everyone had the
same set of rules to work by, it is impossible that it was unfair in any
way.

Gilles Tran wrote:

  Replace "POV-Ray" with
> "oil painting" and it would be the same. 

Nice analoque! But you know you tempt me Gilles, you know you tempt me. ;)

But let me also reinforce, I agree absolutely with the judging and would 
deeply regret it if any imput I have had in this thread has in anyway 
suggested I did not or cast any kind of aspersion on the contest and 
it's outcome.  The top images provide me with a target to aim for in my 
own development for quality and artistry and I truly hope I might get there.

I do not think it was a mistake to raise the issue I raised, but it is 
entirely separate from questioning the premise of the contest, its 
conduct, judging, and outcome.

Hi Scott, sounds like the discussion we had months ago... again.  You
mentioned the term "world class" for quite a number of times, I am just
curious to know what's your meaning of world class. It appears that you'd
consider photorealistic images to be world class, as compared to something
that looks more "computer generated". And you are probably correct, as I
don't think
there is a right/wrong way to interpret something like this. And too I
believe "The Kitchen" is also worthy of the first prize for the superb
lighting, texture and detail, which are things that you consider as
elements to a world class image. (I do, for a fact, respect the way the
images were judged).

My interpretation of a world class image is somewhat different, largely due
to the kind of works I have been seeing around the 3D community for the
past years.  As the graphics software gets better and better, the artists
can often generate photorealist images that resembles closer and closer to
our physical world. They are very pretty indeed, as I am often amazed at
what CG can do nowadays. But photorealism has a limit, how real can you
make your image when? Until a point when you can no longer distinguish
between a photograph and CG?  Centries ago people don't have the luxury to
do floating point or radiosity calculation on their canvas or oil paints,
but why do people spend thosands of dollar to buy these paintings? My point
is, photorealism does not necessarily equal to an world class image (no
offense to any winning entries), it is an
element that the artist can choose to use to express his/her ideas.  I enjoy
watching graphics in fantasy/mystical games as they often depict worlds
that look real (lighting and physics), yet you as an observer, knows that
it is something that cannot exist in our world. Images that show
originality (Victoria's World for example) and creativity in addition to
photorealism are, in my opinion, world class images.  In fact, I will be
pretty interested to see more abstract images made using CG. What makes
your image stands out from all these other images, when every image is
equally photorealist.

You mentioned "*how* it was created shouldn't have affected the judging or
the comments if it was truly an "image" competition" and you were "under
the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image POV
can create", aren't they a bit contradicting?

Anyhow, your points are valid, though, I would consider anything a waste of
my time if it does not have a purpose. As I mentioned before, my goal was
not to ultimately win anything, and my purpose was the .  When one can
accomplish something that is driven by a purpose in the broader scheme of
things, then it very rewarding as well.

Just another piece of thought
J

"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> Of course, but I understood the competition was about creating a world class
> *image* using POV.  If this really was the case, the judges should have
> judged the images with no knowledge of how it was created.  Of course
> afterwards they can check that is was actually created in a way that
> complied with the rules, but *how* it was created shouldn't have affected
> the judging or the comments if it was truly an "image" competition, and not
> a "scene" competition.
>
> But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
> element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I was
> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image
> POV can create.

You know, in these types of debates, I think it occasionally helps to take
examples to ridiculous extremes, in order to make a point. Please don't
misinterpret this post as an implication that anyone has previously made
similarly silly statements during the course of this thread.

I think we can all agree that it actually does matter how the scene was
created. Some hypothetical person could actually generate a very beautiful,
compelling image with photographs, photo editing programs, paint programs,
other rendering programs, etc. This wonderful image could then be mapped
onto a plane, lit, and rendered with POV. The result may look very nice,
but the image is obviously not eligible for any recognition in a POV-Ray
competition. Although POV-Ray was used to render the image, and it may end
up being the "best" image that is submitted, it does not at all make good
use of POV-Ray's capabilities.

If you can agree with me on this, then you must be forced to admit that some
consideration needs to be given to the method of image creation, beyond
simply "rendered with POV-Ray". Again, remember that this is an intentional
exaggeration. Now, you can extrapolate this inane example through a series
of more sane situations that could include some textures created outside of
POV, some models created outside of POV, all the way out to the other
extreme in which the entire image is SDL generated. I think that we can all
agree that any image in which everything that you see in the image was
generated entirely in SDL would likely be eligible for consideration in a
POV-Ray competition.

Now, somewhere along that spectrum, you need to make a cutoff point that
says that anything over here is eligible, whereas anything beyond this
point is unacceptable. We may not all agree as to where that cutoff point
is, but I think we can all agree that such a point absolutely must exist.
Beyond this, I think that it is also obvious that any images that are
“dangerously close” to this cutoff point may be eligible for a prize, but
would probably be upstaged by images that are further down the spectrum
towards the “full POV-Ray” solution, not in terms of actual image
appearance since, remember, we are only talking about very good images
here, but in terms of adhering to the spirit of the competition.

The bottom line is that it is possible to create some dazzling images
without the use of POV-Ray. You can create some dazzling images that just
happen to use POV-Ray to render them, but nothing about them really
demonstrates the power of POV-Ray as a tool. You can also create some
dazzling images that make great use of POV-Ray and the flexibility that
this wonderful program offers. The blatant purpose of this competition was
to show off the power of POV-Ray as an image creation tool. It should come
as no surprise to people that the images were judged based on how well they
made use of POV-Ray’s features. Yes, creating mesh objects with third party
tools does require a lot of skill, and can produce very pleasing results,
but for the purposes of this specific competition, it is no different than
my Photoshop example above. Photoshop, Illustrator, photography, etc. all
require a lot of skill as well, and when used effectively, can produce some
very nice results. Neither one showcases POV-Ray in the way that the
contest intended.

 - dan B hentschel

dan B hentschel wrote:
 >

Don't want to drag this out into a huge debate, but I just "have" to 
point out that you have made a very good case for *another* argument, 
but not this one. The problem some entrants had is *not* that POV-Ray 
models were (apparently) judged more favorably, but that it was not made 
clear this would happen. In fact, more the opposite.

See this from Gilles Tran:
,--------------------------------------------------------------
| Well, the guidelines say "You are allowed to use any tool
| you want for modeling, texturing etc.". About modeling, they
| say that "self-made models" will be seen in a positive light,
| but it's vs non-self-made models, not 3rd party modelers!
`--------------------------------------------------------------

Note the exclamation point. Now, contrast this with the judges' 
comments, and Warp's comments in this group, which basically say:

(paraphrased)
I (Warp) think modeling things in a modeler is trivial.
I (Warp) think giving more credit to POV models is right.
But don't worry, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Now can you see why some 3rd party modeler users might be upset? This 
has nothing to do with the standards themselves. If you want to write a 
reply, I have set follow-ups to off-topic. No use continuing here. If 
someone still doesn't get it, they're not going to.

  -Shay

dan B hentschel wrote:


>    The blatant purpose of this competition was
> to show off the power of POV-Ray as an image creation tool. 

Hmmmmmm "image creation tool"


It should come
> as no surprise to people that the images were judged based on how well they
> made use of POV-Ray’s features.

I don't think that is what surprised people.

  Yes, creating mesh objects with third party
> tools does require a lot of skill, and can produce very pleasing results,

Some of us use TPT's and are shooting for a good deal more than that


> but for the purposes of this specific competition, it is no different than
> my Photoshop example above. Photoshop, Illustrator, photography, etc. all
> require a lot of skill as well, and when used effectively, can produce some
> very nice results.

"pleasing" AND "very nice"  hey hey

  Neither one showcases POV-Ray in the way that the
> contest intended.
>
That's been pretty much beaten to death.  Had you hoped to add something 
new?

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> That's been pretty much beaten to death.  Had you hoped to add something 
> new?

  Your attitude is certainly not helping.

  He just wrote his thoughts and you are dissing him.

-- 
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 wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>That's been pretty much beaten to death.  Had you hoped to add something 
>>new?
> 
> 
>   Your attitude is certainly not helping.
> 
>   He just wrote his thoughts and you are dissing him.
> 
You are right but he is adding nothing that is helpful or new while 
subtlely reinforcing the prejudice against mesh modeling.  We, on the 
other side of the table, are willing to let it drop. You also have shown 
admirable constraint.  Why can't he?

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> You are right but he is adding nothing that is helpful or new while
> subtlely reinforcing the prejudice against mesh modeling.  We, on the
> other side of the table, are willing to let it drop. You also have shown
> admirable constraint.  Why can't he?

I'm very sorry. It was not my intention to be at all derogatory or divisive.
In fact, I was hoping to create a common frame of reference to promote
consensus. I don’t read these forums every day, and so I didn’t realize
that this was a dead topic, or that I would be re-opening any wounds. I
should have looked at the time stamps before responding. Again, I apologize
if I offended anyone with my post.

For what it’s worth, I have a high respect (and some envy as well) for those
who are skilled at third-party modelers. I, myself, have tried Wings3D and
failed miserably. I am always very impressed (sometimes awestruck) with
what some people are able to do with modeling programs. I wasn’t at all
trying to belittle those who use mesh modelers.

 - dan B hentschel

dan B hentschel wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>You are right but he is adding nothing that is helpful or new while
>>subtlely reinforcing the prejudice against mesh modeling.  We, on the
>>other side of the table, are willing to let it drop. You also have shown
>>admirable constraint.  Why can't he?
> 
> 
> I'm very sorry. It was not my intention to be at all derogatory or divisive.
> In fact, I was hoping to create a common frame of reference to promote
> consensus. I don’t read these forums every day, and so I didn’t realize
> that this was a dead topic, or that I would be re-opening any wounds. I
> should have looked at the time stamps before responding. Again, I apologize
> if I offended anyone with my post.
> 
> For what it’s worth, I have a high respect (and some envy as well) for those
> who are skilled at third-party modelers. I, myself, have tried Wings3D and
> failed miserably. I am always very impressed (sometimes awestruck) with
> what some people are able to do with modeling programs. I wasn’t at all
> trying to belittle those who use mesh modelers.
> 
>  - dan B hentschel
> 
> 
Apology accepted and I apologize in return, doubly so because your 
apology may not have been strictly necessary and I, meanwhile, knowingly 
exploited your good will. But you may not have understood how I see your 
attempt at a reasoned argument as just one more reinforcement of a 
prejudice. In the end, I didn't know any other way to make my point than 
to attack your intention.  Your discussion wasn't so bad imo, it did 
focus on external v internal rather well.  But my point is that the idea 
that certain modeling techniques are internal, and therefore more 
virtuous somehow, is being used to validate what amounts to prejudice 
against other creative paths, which are equally supported by the 
software.  Also, it seems to me you explored the "external" pole of your 
axis with more assurance than you did the "internal" pole.  What would 
it take to make a picture with a very extreme definition of "internal", 
and would it really amount to virtue?  Also a splinter issue here is 
raytracer support for using empirically collected
data.  If a photo is used to produce a texture map, this is univerally 
deplored.  But if satellite data is used to generate a model of the 
earth's surface, maybe it's not so bad?  They look like the same thing 
to me.

dan B hentschel wrote:
> "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> Of course, but I understood the competition was about creating a
>> world class *image* using POV.  If this really was the case, the
>> judges should have judged the images with no knowledge of how it was
>> created.  Of course afterwards they can check that is was actually
>> created in a way that complied with the rules, but *how* it was
>> created shouldn't have affected the judging or the comments if it
>> was truly an "image" competition, and not a "scene" competition.
>>
>> But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
>> element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I
>> was under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how
>> good an image POV can create.
>
> You know, in these types of debates, I think it occasionally helps to
> take examples to ridiculous extremes, in order to make a point.
> Please don't misinterpret this post as an implication that anyone has
> previously made similarly silly statements during the course of this
> thread.
>
> I think we can all agree that it actually does matter how the scene
> was created. Some hypothetical person could actually generate a very
> beautiful, compelling image with photographs, photo editing programs,
> paint programs, other rendering programs, etc. This wonderful image
> could then be mapped onto a plane, lit, and rendered with POV. The
> result may look very nice, but the image is obviously not eligible
> for any recognition in a POV-Ray competition. Although POV-Ray was
> used to render the image, and it may end up being the "best" image
> that is submitted, it does not at all make good use of POV-Ray's
> capabilities.
>
> If you can agree with me on this, then you must be forced to admit
> that some consideration needs to be given to the method of image
> creation, beyond simply "rendered with POV-Ray". Again, remember that
> this is an intentional exaggeration. Now, you can extrapolate this
> inane example through a series of more sane situations that could
> include some textures created outside of POV, some models created
> outside of POV, all the way out to the other extreme in which the
> entire image is SDL generated. I think that we can all agree that any
> image in which everything that you see in the image was generated
> entirely in SDL would likely be eligible for consideration in a
> POV-Ray competition.
>
> Now, somewhere along that spectrum, you need to make a cutoff point
> that says that anything over here is eligible, whereas anything
> beyond this point is unacceptable. We may not all agree as to where
> that cutoff point is, but I think we can all agree that such a point
> absolutely must exist.

Sorry for the late reply but I've been away for a while.

I agree 100% with what you wrote about there being a "point" whereby the
image is acceptable.  That point should be defined in the rules (as best is
possible).

The question is though, should how far away you are from that point
influence how well you image ranks?  If it does, then they should say so.
If it doesn't, the judges should not look at the source at all until after
the judging (only to check it is past that point).

As I understood it, that point was quite far to the pure-SDL end of things
(ie you couldn't just use 10 meshes from modellers, they made it quite clear
it was to show off POV's features).  Also, I understood that the idea was to
generate a world class image, so the judges would be judging the images, not
the code.  Of course they would check the code afterwards to ensure it was't
just a bunch of meshes and texture maps, but this wouldn't influence the
ranking unless an image was disqualified for not being past the point.

I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway, but if the people running the
next competition take even a little bit of feedback from all the discussion
in here when writing the rules, it will have been worthwhile.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
Newsgroups: povray.competition
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Why I won't enter PoVComp again.


<cut>
> As I understood it, that point was quite far to the pure-SDL end of things
> (ie you couldn't just use 10 meshes from modellers, they made it quite 
> clear
> it was to show off POV's features).  Also, I understood that the idea was 
> to
> generate a world class image, so the judges would be judging the images, 
> not
> the code.  Of course they would check the code afterwards to ensure it 
> was't
> just a bunch of meshes and texture maps, but this wouldn't influence the
> ranking unless an image was disqualified for not being past the point.
</cut>

Yes, I understand the point of the competition. Show off the renderer and
the tools that comes along with it. I have no problem with that.

Still..

I do have a hard time understanding the point of the comment
"just a bunch of meshes and texture maps". For several reasons:
1. What is the most important thing: The product or the process?
As I see it, the product is the only thing that matters. How you did it
is irrelevant. Sure, you can spend 200 hours creating #macros for this and
for that and I can understand the fascination in that too. But, if you can 
do
the same job, with a bit of experience, with a modeller in 20 minutes and
come up with atleast the same result, then what's the point?
And if you think a bit about it, this competition said itself that is was
the product that mattered.

2. "a bunch of meshes" is not as simple as it sounds.
I am in the process of learning 3ds MAX 7. I chose between MAX and
Maya but since MAX seemed to have a more forgiving learning curve
I stuck to that. I can tell you if you haven't tried it; it's no magic tool.
First of all there are numerous things you have to adjust and tinker with
to get a god result. Secondly, mesh creation is an art form in itself.
Go to 3dcafe.com f.i. and have a look at some of the tutorials how
things are done. Then come back and say "just a bunch of meshes" again.
That sounded a bit more harsh then I meant it, but I think you understand
what I mean.

3. Texture shading is also a kind of an art. Not throwing a jpeg at a 
sphere..
that's not my point. But to master UV-mapping is definately not as simple
as that. Have a look at newer games where they use low-poly models and
use the texturing to enhance the graphical effect. I mean, most of the games
nowadays produce better graphics in real-time then I do with POV-Ray.

But, yes, I understand the point of the competition. I truly love to see the
work of you guys that master POV. My hat of to you.
And POV-Ray can with experience produce results as good as the
professional rendering packages. But I don't like comments that
look down on how things are done in the professional world because I think
it's ignorant and silly and just sounds envyous.

Just MHO ;)

Regards,
Stefan

I've avoided commenting in this thread because I didn't feel I should have to
justify the reasons for my voting or have to defend my integrity as a judge (and
therefore as a person in this community).  However, there have been many
comments in this thread that have concerned me, so I'm going to respond just
this once (since these are the facts and there's no point restating them over
and over) to try to help clear up these misunderstandings.

The single biggest problem I see is this notion of "process versus product" and
"meshes versus other objects".  The statements by the judges regarding meshes
were primarily aimed at meshes that weren't created by the author of the image,
or which were poorly created.  For example, using meshes excessively from, say,
3D Café, instead of creating your own in a modeller and using those.

To say that *any* mesh use was viewed as a bad thing is simply incorrect.  Take
a look at how "Twin Girls With A Pearl Earring" ranked for proof of that:  the
image is basically 100% mesh with texturing, however the meshes and the textures
were created by the author, and more importantly, the end result was extremely
good.  Had that model been a Poser model then things probably would have been
very different - if the author expended little effort in creating the scene
because they simply took an existing model that someone else created, then it's
hardly fair to rank that higher than someone who went to the effort of creating
the model themselves (regardless of the method used, mesh, CSG, etc), especially
if the end result wasn't as good as an image where the author had created more
highly detailed models themselves.  However, using many mesh models that someone
else created doesn't instantly make an image "bad" either, for example,
"Victoria's World" ranked very well despite it containing many meshes created by
other people.  The reason it ranked so well was probably due to the end
result/overall visual appeal of the image and also due to the clever use of
POV-Ray's features in order to place the objects and create the scene (it also
showcases POV-Ray's ability to handle huge amounts of instanced mesh data).

To contrast this, take a look at "Evie Evolves".  The image, despite being very
good from a visual perspective, didn't rank as well.  There are a number of
reasons for this (these reasons are *my* reasons and don't represent the voting
of the other judges): the image primarily uses a Poser model (but this isn't the
sole reason as I'll explain).  Had the author created the model, rather than
using one from Poser, it probably would have ranked a lot higher.  However,
that's not the only reason - the use of a Poser model or a mesh model doesn't
necessarily make an image bad, there were other issues that made it (in my
opinion) not as good as other images.  For example, the hand of the model cuts
through the sofa.  This is something that would have been very easy to fix
(simply translate the entire model a small amount through the y axis), and
similarly the ring cuts through the finger.  These are details that the average
non-technically-minded person can look at and see, and think "that doesn't look
right, it looks like the hand is in the sofa", so that had a big negative impact
on the image for me.  The faceting of the model also didn't help.  I can also
say that other judges had differing opinions - that's the point of having
several judges, to ensure that there are different views of each image being
considered.  Many of these small image details and the overall ranking were
discussed at length by the judges before a final decision was made - not one
part of the process was taken lightly by anyone involved in the judging; we
wanted to be as fair and unbiased as possible, and I think we achieved that.

So I hope that clears up a few misunderstandings.  A basic summary is that using
mesh models didn't instantly make an image bad (an opinion that was incorrectly
stated as fact by some people), however using a mesh model (or any other type of
model, e.g. CSG) for the primary part of an image, which the *author didn't
create*, would usually have a negative impact, particularly if the *final result
wasn't visually as good* as it should have been because of it.  Ultimately, it
came down to how good the image looked and how well it represented what POV-Ray
was capable of.  This is clearly evident when you look at the top 5-6 entries:
these images are visually superior to the rest of the images (and what do you
know, several of them made extensive use of meshes).

Cheers,

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au

This was my point.
Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever. Simply because
they are to limited, to hard to control or take to long time to
produce.

Now, using third-party models shouldn't limit, in this case,
the judgement of the picture simply because it's a third party
model. Sure, if the model sucks it will affect the outcome
of the picture and therefor lower the ranking. This will be the
case no matter if the model is self-made, free downloadable
or bought.

In this case, the povcomp, there is a limitation in what renderer
to use. And, ofcourse, there is nothing wrong with that.
That was the whole point of the competition. The issue here,
as I see it, is that the requirements weren't clear.
Was the task to produce a world class image with POV-Ray as
a renderer? Was the task to produce a world class image with
POV-Ray as the only tool? Was the judgement based on just
the product or the product and the process?

If you look on how a professional project is done,
they use several tools simply because some modellers are better
on some things than other. The same with renderers or plugins.
And certainly when it comes to models.
Most of the professional modelling software comes with
possibilities of integrating third-party software. Take the
Terragen for instance. It's bleeding good on what it does, and
therefor you use it to produce out-door plates. Just as an example.
And most professional pictures are post-processed in one
way or the other (read: Photoshopped). That is not a secret.
If Poser is good on what it does, well, that is a another thing.
In my oppinion, it's too amateurish to produce human models
on an industry level. And it, Poser, has certainly made sub-human
models available to the general public. Sidenote: Look at the
gallery on Renderosity.. it's scary. People posting plastic looking
pictures and saying "Hey! Look here what I've done! It looks
like a nude girl!". The comments are even more scary: "Wow!
Nice pic, dude!". *schrug*

To connect back to your posting, yes, I agree. Just putting
a human looking model in the scene surely won't make it
a good picture. I'm not saying that Poser sucks. Gilles Tran has made
several  pictures where he uses Poser models in a splendid way.
Though, correct me if I'm wrong, he spends time tweaking them
to make them look good.

It feels like I'm starting to just ramble here.. but I have a point.

If there will be more povcomps perhaps the requirements for
entering should be clearer. How should the final product be produced?
I think it's more honest to state from the beginning that
a image that is the product of totally self-made objects will
score higher then others. Meshes, CSG e t c. Nothing wrong with it.
But if it is the case, say it. Perhaps even write it into the limitations;
"We don't allow third-party meshes". Or something like that. Problem solved.
Simply because you judge both the product and the process.
Perhaps introduce classes in the competion. Have a class
for POV-Ray only (as for creating the scene and objects)
and one open class where everything is allowed (3rd party
meshes and postprocessing). The overall limitation is still the same,
POV-Ray as a renderer.


End of rambling,
Stefan






"Lance Birch" <-> skrev i meddelandet news:4250a9ad$1@news.povray.org...
> I've avoided commenting in this thread because I didn't feel I should have 
> to
> justify the reasons for my voting or have to defend my integrity as a 
> judge (and
> therefore as a person in this community).  However, there have been many
> comments in this thread that have concerned me, so I'm going to respond 
> just
> this once (since these are the facts and there's no point restating them 
> over
> and over) to try to help clear up these misunderstandings.
>
> The single biggest problem I see is this notion of "process versus 
> product" and
> "meshes versus other objects".  The statements by the judges regarding 
> meshes
> were primarily aimed at meshes that weren't created by the author of the 
> image,
> or which were poorly created.  For example, using meshes excessively from, 
> say,
> 3D Café, instead of creating your own in a modeller and using those.
>
> To say that *any* mesh use was viewed as a bad thing is simply incorrect. 
> Take
> a look at how "Twin Girls With A Pearl Earring" ranked for proof of that: 
> the
> image is basically 100% mesh with texturing, however the meshes and the 
> textures
> were created by the author, and more importantly, the end result was 
> extremely
> good.  Had that model been a Poser model then things probably would have 
> been
> very different - if the author expended little effort in creating the 
> scene
> because they simply took an existing model that someone else created, then 
> it's
> hardly fair to rank that higher than someone who went to the effort of 
> creating
> the model themselves (regardless of the method used, mesh, CSG, etc), 
> especially
> if the end result wasn't as good as an image where the author had created 
> more
> highly detailed models themselves.  However, using many mesh models that 
> someone
> else created doesn't instantly make an image "bad" either, for example,
> "Victoria's World" ranked very well despite it containing many meshes 
> created by
> other people.  The reason it ranked so well was probably due to the end
> result/overall visual appeal of the image and also due to the clever use 
> of
> POV-Ray's features in order to place the objects and create the scene (it 
> also
> showcases POV-Ray's ability to handle huge amounts of instanced mesh 
> data).
>
> To contrast this, take a look at "Evie Evolves".  The image, despite being 
> very
> good from a visual perspective, didn't rank as well.  There are a number 
> of
> reasons for this (these reasons are *my* reasons and don't represent the 
> voting
> of the other judges): the image primarily uses a Poser model (but this 
> isn't the
> sole reason as I'll explain).  Had the author created the model, rather 
> than
> using one from Poser, it probably would have ranked a lot higher. 
> However,
> that's not the only reason - the use of a Poser model or a mesh model 
> doesn't
> necessarily make an image bad, there were other issues that made it (in my
> opinion) not as good as other images.  For example, the hand of the model 
> cuts
> through the sofa.  This is something that would have been very easy to fix
> (simply translate the entire model a small amount through the y axis), and
> similarly the ring cuts through the finger.  These are details that the 
> average
> non-technically-minded person can look at and see, and think "that doesn't 
> look
> right, it looks like the hand is in the sofa", so that had a big negative 
> impact
> on the image for me.  The faceting of the model also didn't help.  I can 
> also
> say that other judges had differing opinions - that's the point of having
> several judges, to ensure that there are different views of each image 
> being
> considered.  Many of these small image details and the overall ranking 
> were
> discussed at length by the judges before a final decision was made - not 
> one
> part of the process was taken lightly by anyone involved in the judging; 
> we
> wanted to be as fair and unbiased as possible, and I think we achieved 
> that.
>
> So I hope that clears up a few misunderstandings.  A basic summary is that 
> using
> mesh models didn't instantly make an image bad (an opinion that was 
> incorrectly
> stated as fact by some people), however using a mesh model (or any other 
> type of
> model, e.g. CSG) for the primary part of an image, which the *author 
> didn't
> create*, would usually have a negative impact, particularly if the *final 
> result
> wasn't visually as good* as it should have been because of it. 
> Ultimately, it
> came down to how good the image looked and how well it represented what 
> POV-Ray
> was capable of.  This is clearly evident when you look at the top 5-6 
> entries:
> these images are visually superior to the rest of the images (and what do 
> you
> know, several of them made extensive use of meshes).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lance.
>
> thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
>
>

> If there will be more povcomps perhaps the requirements for
> entering should be clearer. How should the final product be produced?
> I think it's more honest to state from the beginning that
> a image that is the product of totally self-made objects will
> score higher then others. Meshes, CSG e t c. Nothing wrong with it.
> But if it is the case, say it. Perhaps even write it into the limitations;
> "We don't allow third-party meshes". Or something like that. Problem solved.

	There was no problem at all if anyone took the time to read
carefully the guidelines that were published almost as soon as the
povcomp website was up:

http://www.povcomp.com/guidelines/

	Particularly the following paragraph:

"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."

	- NC

Okie, should be settled then :)
As I didn't enter, I didn't read those..

Stefan

"Nicolas Calimet" <pov### [at] freefr> skrev i meddelandet 
news:4252c341$1@news.povray.org...
>> If there will be more povcomps perhaps the requirements for
>> entering should be clearer. How should the final product be produced?
>> I think it's more honest to state from the beginning that
>> a image that is the product of totally self-made objects will
>> score higher then others. Meshes, CSG e t c. Nothing wrong with it.
>> But if it is the case, say it. Perhaps even write it into the 
>> limitations;
>> "We don't allow third-party meshes". Or something like that. Problem 
>> solved.
>
> There was no problem at all if anyone took the time to read
> carefully the guidelines that were published almost as soon as the
> povcomp website was up:
>
> http://www.povcomp.com/guidelines/
>
> Particularly the following paragraph:
>
> "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."
>
> - NC

Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
> just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.

  The winner image proves you wrong.

-- 
#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 -

On 5 Apr 2005 18:08:38 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
> > just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.
>
> The winner image proves you wrong.

+ from "Reach for the stars" making-of: "image using rather old-fashioned but
fast and not resource-consuming techniques" for 8000 x 6000 rendering.

ABX

No, it doesn't..
I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it's to cumbersome
to create detailed models within a reasonable amount of time.
That image is amazing. No question about it. But I didn't
write about the image, did I? I wrote about the creation
of the models, and therefor, the winner doesn't prove me
wrong. You wouldn't mowe your lawn with a pair of scissors
if you have a lawnmower, would you? That's my point.

Regards,
Stefan

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> skrev i meddelandet 
news:42530c66@news.povray.org...
> Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
>> just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.
>
>  The winner image proves you wrong.
>
> -- 
> #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 -

Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it's to cumbersome

  You said it's not possible:

> > Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
> >> just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.

-- 
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 wrote:
> Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it's to cumbersome
>
>   You said it's not possible:
>
>>> Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not
>>>> possible just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.

As had been said many times before, SDL and CSG are perfect for some models,
but most certainly the wrong tool for other models.  It's never impossible
to do it the "wrong" way, just really difficult and a waste of time.

Lance Birch wrote:
> I've avoided commenting in this thread because I didn't feel I should
> have to justify the reasons for my voting or have to defend my integrity
> as a judge (and therefore as a person in this community).

No need to defend yourself here, Lance. Anyone can do a search of the 
p.b.i archives and see FIRST HAND your and Warp's qualifications for 
judging a CG contest at this level.

  -Shay

Allright.. since we are down to semantics level..
I think you know what I meant.

But, please, with the mentioned methods, send me a model
of an Volvo C70. Then I will say that I was wrong.

Stefan

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> skrev i meddelandet 
news:425454dc@news.povray.org...
> Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it's to cumbersome
>
>  You said it's not possible:
>
>> > Stefan Persson <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> >> Let's face it, to create models on a higher level, it is not possible
>> >> just to use CSG, ISO-surfaces or whatever.
>
> -- 
> 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 -