 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
s.day <s.d### [at] uel acuk> wrote:
> I like the idea of a competition every 2 months (for stills) as I am impatient
> to see the entries for each round. However, I would also like to have more than
> 2 months to create an image. It would be good to have the topics for each round
> announced 3 or 4 months in advance.
Actually I like that idea. Have a compo each 2 months, but announce the
topic of each compo 3 monts before its deadline (or something along the
lines).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> schreef in bericht
news:web.47d32e65db92fe1285a73e9b0@news.povray.org...
> I like the idea of a competition every 2 months (for stills) as I am
> impatient
> to see the entries for each round. However, I would also like to have more
> than
> 2 months to create an image. It would be good to have the topics for each
> round
> announced 3 or 4 months in advance. Whatever the deadline and without a
> prize I
> will enter the first round of the revamped IRTC (partly because I would
> love the
> chance to compete against the other users who have said they plan to
> enter, even
> if I know I could not beat them).
>
I support this idea. Having more than 2 months to think about a round would
be very nice.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
....
> ... Reviving IRTC without prizes is the recipe
> for a new disaster.
....
Respectfully, I must disagree rather strongly.
Prizes, especially very valuable ones, tend to
attract mercenary participants and bring out their
worst behaviors.
("This isn’t fair!"... "THAT isn’t fair!"...
"I’m launching a PROTEST"... "Mommeeeee... I
mean Admiiiiiiin - Billy’s CHEATING!)
Also, large prizes tend to come from corporate sponsors
who never GIVE anything to anybody. One way or another
sponsors will see to it that a contest is skewed to
promote THEIR products. IF there are going to be
any prizes, I would much prefer that they remain
small token prizes to enhance the fun of participating,
say a coffee cup with the winning image.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fa3ien wrote:
> Look at when prizes were dropped. Must explain a lot. Reviving IRTC
> without prizes is the recipe for a new disaster.
Prizes were never an important part of the IRTC. The vast majority of
entrants enter not to win something physical but for the satisfaction of
doing so. They also benefit from the respect of their peers.
If we were to have prizes at all, I would prefer that they be relevant
(e.g. a poster print of, perhaps, the winning image, or some other image of
the entrants choosing).
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
One thing we might want to consider is whether or not, this time around, we
decide that IRTC stands for 'raytracing competition' or 'rendering
competition'. Officially it's always stood for 'raytracing competition',
even though the IRTC permitted scanline rendered images to be submitted.
My personal feeling is that I would like to see the IRTC be a raytracing
competition. I'm sure there are other places that folks who use scanline
renderers can compete; there are fewer opportunities for raytracer users
to compete with others using only raytracing.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason wrote:
> One thing we might want to consider is whether or not, this time around, we
> decide that IRTC stands for 'raytracing competition' or 'rendering
> competition'. Officially it's always stood for 'raytracing competition',
> even though the IRTC permitted scanline rendered images to be submitted.
>
> My personal feeling is that I would like to see the IRTC be a raytracing
> competition. I'm sure there are other places that folks who use scanline
> renderers can compete; there are fewer opportunities for raytracer users
> to compete with others using only raytracing.
But then we get into questions about GI renderers that don't follow the
traditional raytracing paradigm.
Personally, I've always thought of it as a POV-Ray competition anyway,
even if it wasn't the official POV-Comp ;)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason napsal(a):
> Fa3ien wrote:
>> Look at when prizes were dropped. Must explain a lot. Reviving IRTC
>> without prizes is the recipe for a new disaster.
>
> Prizes were never an important part of the IRTC. The vast majority of
> entrants enter not to win something physical but for the satisfaction of
> doing so. They also benefit from the respect of their peers.
>
> If we were to have prizes at all, I would prefer that they be relevant
> (e.g. a poster print of, perhaps, the winning image, or some other image of
> the entrants choosing).
>
> -- Chris
I would like a puzzle (1000+ pieces) of the picture ;-)
This amplifies any mistake :-)
--
the ultimate time-killer:
+a0.0 +am2 +r9
Johnny D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> But then we get into questions about GI renderers that don't follow the
> traditional raytracing paradigm.
If they render by tracing rays, they are raytracers.
I think the more relevant question is whether hybrid renderers are
acceptable. In other words, those which render the "first recursion
level" by scanline-rendering, and deeper recursion levels (reflections,
refractions, shadows...) by raytracing.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:10:35 +1100, Chris Cason
<del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
>One thing we might want to consider is whether or not, this time around, we
>decide that IRTC stands for 'raytracing competition' or 'rendering
>competition'. Officially it's always stood for 'raytracing competition',
>even though the IRTC permitted scanline rendered images to be submitted.
>
>My personal feeling is that I would like to see the IRTC be a raytracing
>competition. I'm sure there are other places that folks who use scanline
>renderers can compete; there are fewer opportunities for raytracer users
>to compete with others using only raytracing.
>
My own personal opinion is similar to yours. The IRTC is hosted on the PovRay
server so it seems natural that it should be for PovRay rendered images. But the
IRTC has historically permitted scanline rendered images to be submitted and it
reaches a wide audience. So we have two contests now. The TINA CHeP which was
born on these newsgroups is really only known here. So I propose that the IRTC
should be open to all computer art and with St's agreement and permission TINA
CHeP is a PovRay only challenge.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Do you believe in fate, Chris Cason?
[...]
> If we were to have prizes at all, I would prefer that they be relevant
> (e.g. a poster print of, perhaps, the winning image, or some other image of
> the entrants choosing).
>
IRTC CD would be nice price... :)
> -- Chris
Slawek
--
________ Da�em sygna� klaksonem, ale nie dzia�a�,
_/ __/ __/ poniewa� zosta� skradziony. (zg�oszenie PZU)
\__ \__ \_______________________________________________________________
/___/___/ S�awomir Szczyrba steev/AT/hot\dot\pl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> schreef in bericht
news:bjv9t3tperl2t9c6219mn8mbo0hmi7tfvh@4ax.com...
> My own personal opinion is similar to yours. The IRTC is hosted on the
> PovRay
> server so it seems natural that it should be for PovRay rendered images.
> But the
> IRTC has historically permitted scanline rendered images to be submitted
> and it
> reaches a wide audience. So we have two contests now. The TINA CHeP which
> was
> born on these newsgroups is really only known here. So I propose that the
> IRTC
> should be open to all computer art and with St's agreement and permission
> TINA
> CHeP is a PovRay only challenge.
>
That seems to be an interesting idea... I might be inclined to second that
proposal :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> I do realize that while the IRTC was down, the TC-RTC started up. There
> has been some discussion here that there's no need for two competitions.
> Still, it's the IRTC that has the most visibility and the new site
> should attract a lot more. We will import all of the previous years
> competition results into the system and have them available for viewing
> once the site is up.
Stupid question I could google later: is blender a ray tracer?
RE: TOPICS
One of the things I liked the least about the IRTC was that its Topic Suggestion
System was constantly spammed ;-) by folks seemingly biased towards wooden
demonstration of exhaustive photorealism rather than fun storytelling. The
coolest thing about the TC-RTC is its topic system, which is based on a
collection of some of the cooler 800 book titles that are out of print.
http://news.povray.org/povray.text.scene-files/thread/%3Cweb.45ff13a5e7f00d1334d207310%40news.povray.org%3E/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot napsal(a):
> "Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> schreef in bericht
> news:bjv9t3tperl2t9c6219mn8mbo0hmi7tfvh@4ax.com...
>
>> My own personal opinion is similar to yours. The IRTC is hosted on the
>> PovRay
>> server so it seems natural that it should be for PovRay rendered images.
>> But the
>> IRTC has historically permitted scanline rendered images to be submitted
>> and it
>> reaches a wide audience. So we have two contests now. The TINA CHeP which
>> was
>> born on these newsgroups is really only known here. So I propose that the
>> IRTC
>> should be open to all computer art and with St's agreement and permission
>> TINA
>> CHeP is a PovRay only challenge.
>>
>
> That seems to be an interesting idea... I might be inclined to second that
> proposal :-)
>
> Thomas
>
>
I second that, too
--
You know you've been raytracing too long when...
you ever saw a beautiful scenerey and regretted not to take your 6"
reflective ball and a digital camera, thinking "this would have been a
perfect light probe"
-Johnny D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:05:43 EST, "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>Stupid question I could google later: is blender a ray tracer?
Blender's internal render engine does have ray-tracing capabilities, however, I don't
think I'd categorize Blender as a ray tracer. Ray tracing is just one part of its
toolset.
A little O.T. from your question... YafRay, an external raytracer, can be
incorporated with Blender as well. I personally prefer to use Blender's internal
render engine while working on a scene,
then Blender -> PoseRay -> POV-Ray for final renders.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:35:28 +0100, "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet>
wrote:
>
>"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> schreef in bericht
>news:bjv9t3tperl2t9c6219mn8mbo0hmi7tfvh@4ax.com...
>
>> My own personal opinion is similar to yours. The IRTC is hosted on the
>> PovRay
>> server so it seems natural that it should be for PovRay rendered images.
>> But the
>> IRTC has historically permitted scanline rendered images to be submitted
>> and it
>> reaches a wide audience. So we have two contests now. The TINA CHeP which
>> was
>> born on these newsgroups is really only known here. So I propose that the
>> IRTC
>> should be open to all computer art and with St's agreement and permission
>> TINA
>> CHeP is a PovRay only challenge.
>>
>
>That seems to be an interesting idea... I might be inclined to second that
>proposal :-)
>
I suppose a lot depends on St it is his site
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kyle" <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote in message
news:qv3bt3dm4mp0givgeddv7n7sdr35mlsj2f@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:05:43 EST, "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> A little O.T. from your question... YafRay, an external raytracer, can be
> incorporated with Blender as well. I personally prefer to use Blender's
> internal render engine while working on a scene,
> then Blender -> PoseRay -> POV-Ray for final renders.
That's me too, but Wings>PoseRay>PoV-Ray.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:51:12 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> That's me too, but Wings>PoseRay>PoV-Ray.
That was me too, but I like challenges. I took on the challenge of learning the
Blender user
interface. :-p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kyle" <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote in message
news:gdnbt3ddf9f6cjl7o08okp21gvrp8va2kl@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:51:12 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>> That's me too, but Wings>PoseRay>PoV-Ray.
>
> That was me too, but I like challenges. I took on the challenge of
> learning the Blender user
> interface. :-p
>
Heh, well I like a challenge too! :)
I use Blender when I can, but yes, learning where everything is hidden
in blender is the trick! :oO
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Charles C <"nospam a nospam.com"> wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
> > Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >> "Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> schreef in
> >> bericht news:47d16636@news.povray.org...
> >>> Note that such a database already exists:
> >>> http://exether.free.fr/irtc/index.php?sub=site&lang=en
> >>>
> >>
> >> What immediately strikes the eye is the gradual decline of
> >> participants over the years...
> >> Is this loss of interest, or does it reflect the increasing complexity
> >> of POV-Ray over the years, I wonder?
> >
> > I think that the growing prominence of GUI-enabled CGI packages,
> > including freeware, caused many POV-Ray users to drift away from POV-Ray.
> >
> > Regards,
> > John
>
> I suspect you're right. To me part of what makes POV-Ray fun is
> precisely the idea of modeling with code rather than with a mouse. It's
> hard to explain to people why that's fun though. I normally try to draw
> an analogy by asking something about why are hand-thrown ceramic bowls
> or cups better than much more efficiently made slip-cast or even
> mass-produced bowls/cups? My metaphor doesn't normally get me anywhere.
> Charles
First of all, I'd like to thank everybody involved in the new completion for not
letting the idea down.
Concerning the decrease in the number of participants, we simply got older, so
naturally other things took the place of IRTC. Nowadays young people are more
lazy then we used to be, so the number of participants have decreased with
change of generation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
NB wrote:
> Nowadays young people are more lazy then we used to be
Hmm ... I failed to see the accompanying emoticon so I'm not
sure if that might have been intended as a serious remark ;)
Of course, anyone who is under 20 (even 25?) today grew up
with computers not as scientic instruments or hacker tools,
but as a GUI-driven part of their everyday life style.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47d2faa6@news.povray.org>, Charles C <"nospam a nospam.com">
says...
>
>
> John VanSickle wrote:
> > Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >> "Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> schreef in
> >> bericht news:47d16636@news.povray.org...
> >>> Note that such a database already exists:
> >>> http://exether.free.fr/irtc/index.php?sub=site&lang=en
> >>>
> >>
> >> What immediately strikes the eye is the gradual decline of
> >> participants over the years...
> >> Is this loss of interest, or does it reflect the increasing complexity
> >> of POV-Ray over the years, I wonder?
> >
> > I think that the growing prominence of GUI-enabled CGI packages,
> > including freeware, caused many POV-Ray users to drift away from POV-Ra
y.
> >
> > Regards,
> > John
>
> I suspect you're right. To me part of what makes POV-Ray fun is
> precisely the idea of modeling with code rather than with a mouse. It's
> hard to explain to people why that's fun though. I normally try to draw
> an analogy by asking something about why are hand-thrown ceramic bowls
> or cups better than much more efficiently made slip-cast or even
> mass-produced bowls/cups? My metaphor doesn't normally get me anywhere.
>
At least part of it has also got to be the fact that even the best GUI
for POVRay is only a pale shadow of what the engine can manage. Basic
stuff, like being able to *see* they changes to textures without a
render, having identical precision levels with respect to locations, the
ability to treat objects "in" the modeler as they would really appear in
code, instead of having to create them all as unit size, with a specific
facing, then translate/rotate them all to place. 90% of the
functionality in the SDL is missing from the GUIs. Those *designed* to
be GUIs in the first place don't have that problem.
The other problem is, even if you do code it, unless you are real good
at it, or know some clever tricks, its not always trivial to get what
you want out of the system, without either a lot of trial and error, or
a math degree. Simple stuff great. But in general, what the GUI does
well, the SDL does badly, due to lack of the one thing the GUI does
have, consistency in how it treats all objects. But, what the SDL can
do, the GUI can't, **precisely** because it can't do absurdly trivial
things, like letting you tell it where the end points are on an object
that *has* end points.
We need a) a gui that supports how the SDL actually works, what is just
easy to do in a gui, and b) macros, or other features, in the SDL, which
can make objects that *don't* work the same, seem to do so. I.e., if I
want to define a box as:
box {<endpoint1>,<endpoint2>,thickness}
provide a way to treat it like a cylinder and do that. It would make
"some" uses of boxes far easier. And, if I want to create a cylinder
like this:
cylinder{<corner1>,<corner2>},direction}
then have some way to do that. The biggest problem I have "personally"
ran into with the SDL has been stuff like the above, where if I could
have been *specific* about the angle, where sides meet, etc., of an
object, it would have taken me 10 seconds to solve a problem, but
instead I spent an hour trying to find math for calculating the needed
length of a side, and one angle of a triangle, so I know how to rotate
and position something, where it *needs* to be. Moray is even worse
imho, since its precision limitations make lining things up impossible
in some cases, and *everything* has to be either calculated to line up
via angles, even when you don't need to in the SDL, and/or, you hope
that everything really "does" line up close enough that you didn't miss
something, or its obvious that the parts don't *actually* fit properly.
Again, this would be easier if you could, for example, tell a box, "Snap
your endpoint to the same location as the center of that circle." You
can't, in *either* SDL or the GUIs we have for it. Well, at least not
unless you are using mesh systems, instead of primitives, but then, your
not using 90% of the SDL anyway, just Mesh.
The problem imho, is simply that its too difficult, as things stand, to
use POVRay, in either method, so only the people that can't afford
systems that make it easier, or who have a thing for precise control,
despite the need for complicated solutions, care to use it. A lot of
people would probably rather scrape the money together, even if they
can't afford something else, than have to spend hours trying to get a
box to line up with a specific angle and length, along with a bunch of
other stuff that, aggravatingly, they can just tell it, "put there!",
etc.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message
news:MPG.22409eb9fcddcd9098a119@news.povray.org...
In article <47d2faa6@news.povray.org>, Charles C <"nospam a nospam.com">
says...
>
>
> John VanSickle wrote:
> > Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >> "Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> schreef in
> >> bericht news:47d16636@news.povray.org...
> >>> Note that such a database already exists:
> >>> http://exether.free.fr/irtc/index.php?sub=site&lang=en
> >>>
> >>
> >> What immediately strikes the eye is the gradual decline of
> >> participants over the years...
> >> Is this loss of interest, or does it reflect the increasing complexity
> >> of POV-Ray over the years, I wonder?
> >
> > I think that the growing prominence of GUI-enabled CGI packages,
> > including freeware, caused many POV-Ray users to drift away from
> > POV-Ray.
> >
> > Regards,
> > John
>
> I suspect you're right. To me part of what makes POV-Ray fun is
> precisely the idea of modeling with code rather than with a mouse.
I have to admit one thing that I really like about Maya, is that you can do
*both*.
And it is always consistent in the GUI.
After having said that, it's not easy, and I'm still learning.
Now, if we could do that in POVRay and modeler, that would be very good.
== John ==
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote in message
news:47d3bdbc$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> schreef in bericht
> news:web.47d32e65db92fe1285a73e9b0@news.povray.org...
>> I like the idea of a competition every 2 months (for stills) as I am
>> impatient
>> to see the entries for each round. However, I would also like to have
>> more than
>> 2 months to create an image. It would be good to have the topics for each
>> round
>> announced 3 or 4 months in advance. Whatever the deadline and without a
>> prize I
>> will enter the first round of the revamped IRTC (partly because I would
>> love the
>> chance to compete against the other users who have said they plan to
>> enter, even
>> if I know I could not beat them).
>>
> I support this idea. Having more than 2 months to think about a round
> would be very nice.
That's a fantastic idea. I can't tell you how many times I got *close* to
having an image but not quite ...
Of course, that's bad planning also :) but still, it would help
== John ==
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David Buck" <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote in message
news:47cca46d$1@news.povray.org...
> As you likely know, the IRTC (Internet Ray Tracing Competition) has been
> down for over a year now. I've been in discussions with Chris Cason for a
> while now on how we can resurrect it and I'm happy to announce that we've
> come up with a proposal.
...
> I'll keep you advised as the development progresses.
This is fantastic. I was a very early dabbler with DKBTrace on CompuServe.
I really would like to see the IRTC continue.
== John ==
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
>..I'm happy to announce that
> we've come up with a proposal.
>
[...]
It's nice to take a look once in a while and to know such good news.
I miss IRTC a lot, so I'll submit once again too.
Best Regards to All
Marjorie Graterol - Emediez
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doh! Didn't even see this announcement until today!
Great news! Massive thanks to your group of developers for doing this!
"I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you"
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"David Buck" <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote in message
news:47cca46d$1@news.povray.org...
> As you likely know, the IRTC (Internet Ray Tracing Competition) has been
> down for over a year now. I've been in discussions with Chris Cason for a
> while now on how we can resurrect it and I'm happy to announce that we've
> come up with a proposal.
>
> I have assembled a small group of developers including myself and Randal
> Schwartz who will volunteer our time to re-write the software in Smalltalk
> using the Seaside web framework. In the process, we will try to address
> some of the issues that led to the demise of the previous system and add
> some flexibility to do more fun things with the site in the future.
>
> I do realize that while the IRTC was down, the TC-RTC started up. There
> has been some discussion here that there's no need for two competitions.
> Still, it's the IRTC that has the most visibility and the new site should
> attract a lot more. We will import all of the previous years competition
> results into the system and have them available for viewing once the site
> is up.
>
> If you have any questions or suggestions, you can send them to me at
> dav### [at] simberoncom. Please include the text IRTC in the subject line.
>
> I'll keep you advised as the development progresses.
>
> David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
WOW!!! WOW!!! WOW!!!
This is really a good news, two weeks ago that I read for first time,
and now I can say that I'm really plugged into it, I'been installing the POV-Ray
and refreshing my little knowledge about it...
I wasn't a full submitter to the competition, but I promise too, to take part of
it! I revamp my old personal-povray-notebook and began to draw thinking in 3d.
Thanks David and all the people involved here! See you soon!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> Warp escribió:
> > I solemnly promise to submit an entry to the first round of the
> > new IRTC. :)
>
> Me too!
>
> Thanks David, Randal and anyone involved!
>
> --
> Jaime
Oh, I'm in too!
I've been enjoying the TC-RTC (ok, yes, I've won the last three rounds ;) but
this is great news! If Jaime, Tek, and all the other masters enter (Gilles, are
you out there?) then this will REALLY be a spectacular challenge! Game on!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Robert McGregor schrieb:
> Oh, I'm in too!
>
> I've been enjoying the TC-RTC (ok, yes, I've won the last three rounds ;) but
> this is great news! If Jaime, Tek, and all the other masters enter (Gilles, are
> you out there?) then this will REALLY be a spectacular challenge! Game on!
Couldn't we make a IRTC and a Gilles-IRTC? Just give him a price every
month and someone else also has a chance to win once in a while? ;-)
Gilles, i love your work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Arne Kleinophorst <Sir### [at] spamdebitelnet> wrote:
> Couldn't we make a IRTC and a Gilles-IRTC? Just give him a price every
> month and someone else also has a chance to win once in a while? ;-)
Isn't that what the second and third places were created for?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Arne Kleinophorst napsal(a):
> Robert McGregor schrieb:
>> Oh, I'm in too!
>>
>> I've been enjoying the TC-RTC (ok, yes, I've won the last three rounds
>> ;) but
>> this is great news! If Jaime, Tek, and all the other masters enter
>> (Gilles, are
>> you out there?) then this will REALLY be a spectacular challenge! Game
>> on!
>
> Couldn't we make a IRTC and a Gilles-IRTC? Just give him a price every
> month and someone else also has a chance to win once in a while? ;-)
>
> Gilles, i love your work.
something like Formula1 and Schumacher-Formula1?
--
You know you've been raytracing too long when...
you start thinking up your own "You know you've been raytracing too long
when..." sigs (I did).
-Johnny D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Arne Kleinophorst <Sir### [at] spamdebitelnet> wrote:
>> Couldn't we make a IRTC and a Gilles-IRTC? Just give him a price every
>> month and someone else also has a chance to win once in a while? ;-)
>
> Isn't that what the second and third places were created for?
>
I know that your answer was tongue in cheek, but it does bring up a
serious question. Should one submitter be able to submit more than one
image for a round or should we limit it to only one? If we allow every
artist several submissions per round, then the same artist could
conceivably win all the prizes.
Thoughts?
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.general David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> I know that your answer was tongue in cheek, but it does bring up a
> serious question. Should one submitter be able to submit more than one
> image for a round or should we limit it to only one? If we allow every
> artist several submissions per round, then the same artist could
> conceivably win all the prizes.
Another possibility is that people can submit several images but win
only one prize. Even if another image of his gets enough votes to get
a second prize, it's not counted in the top-3. (Instead, it could be
mentioned in a separate list of honorable mentions or whatever.)
Just an idea.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Another possibility is that people can submit several images but win
> only one prize. Even if another image of his gets enough votes to get
> a second prize, it's not counted in the top-3. (Instead, it could be
> mentioned in a separate list of honorable mentions or whatever.)
>
> Just an idea.
>
> --
> - Warp
I agree. Actually, I was going to post the same suggestion when I got
sidetracked by the silly people I work for who expect me to leave my message
boards at a moment's notice and work on their machines just because I'm at work
and on the payroll... The nerve! ;-)
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:00:44 EDT, "Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail>
wrote:
>I agree. Actually, I was going to post the same suggestion when I got
>sidetracked by the silly people I work for who expect me to leave my message
>boards at a moment's notice and work on their machines just because I'm at work
>and on the payroll... The nerve! ;-)
What a cheek!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Arne Kleinophorst <Sir### [at] spamdebitelnet> wrote:
>>
>>> Couldn't we make a IRTC and a Gilles-IRTC? Just give him a price
>>> every month and someone else also has a chance to win once in a
>>> while? ;-)
>>
>>
>> Isn't that what the second and third places were created for?
>>
>
> I know that your answer was tongue in cheek, but it does bring up a
> serious question. Should one submitter be able to submit more than one
> image for a round or should we limit it to only one? If we allow every
> artist several submissions per round, then the same artist could
> conceivably win all the prizes.
>
> Thoughts?
To me it seems artificial to impose limits. You want to get the best
possible submissions each time. I think that the anonymity feature will
help though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4821b325@news.povray.org...
> In povray.general David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
>>Should one submitter be able to submit more than one
>> image for a round or should we limit it to only one?
>
> Another possibility is that people can submit several images but win
> only one prize. Even if another image of his gets enough votes to get
> a second prize, it's not counted in the top-3. (Instead, it could be
> mentioned in a separate list of honorable mentions or whatever.)
>
> Just an idea.
Well, I think if someone was actually so good as to be able to make the 3
best images, maybe they should win all 3. What are the chances?
However, that could lead to a 'lock out' over a long period of time. So I'd
be tempted to say "sure" but then for every winning image, you have to take
that round 'off', minus one. Meaning, if you won with one image, you could
submit the next round. If you won with three images, you'd have to take off
2 months in a row. Someone else needs a chance!
Just brainstorming
== John ==
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.general John D. Gwinner <john punctuation gwinner punc cornell punc edu>
wrote:
> However, that could lead to a 'lock out' over a long period of time. So I'd
> be tempted to say "sure" but then for every winning image, you have to take
> that round 'off', minus one. Meaning, if you won with one image, you could
> submit the next round. If you won with three images, you'd have to take off
> 2 months in a row. Someone else needs a chance!
That doesn't sound very fair to me. It's like you get banned, penalized
for being too good.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> In povray.general John D. Gwinner <john punctuation gwinner punc cornell punc edu>
wrote:
> > However, that could lead to a 'lock out' over a long period of time. So I'd
> > be tempted to say "sure" but then for every winning image, you have to take
> > that round 'off', minus one. Meaning, if you won with one image, you could
> > submit the next round. If you won with three images, you'd have to take off
> > 2 months in a row. Someone else needs a chance!
>
> That doesn't sound very fair to me. It's like you get banned, penalized
> for being too good.
>
> --
> - Warp
I was browsing the IRTC thread to see if anything new had come up and came
across the above discussion that I had read before without any interesting
ideas popping into my head. Upon revisiting it, however, I came up with a
notion that I would like to share for consideration.
Both John and Warp have good points. On one hand, having the same person or
small group of people win again and again can make the event a lot less
compelling for new participants. On the other hand, penalizing excellence
doesn't seem like a good thing either. Sometimes, a problem can be better
addressed by making new opportunities than by making new rules. How about
this: Anyone who wins more than a certain number of times (say three in a one
year period just for an example) receives an INVITATION to participate in a
special "Honor Gallery" for a period of time(specific period negotiable).
Honor Gallery members would have their images for new rounds prominently
displayed with the opportunity for viewers to comment and would have full
voting privileges, but their images would not be voted on. No one would be
compelled to accept an Honor Gallery invitation, so any individual who finds
the competitive aspect of the event an essential part of his or her experience
would be free to participate as a normal entrant.
In this way, the message to highly talented participants would be "You've made
it to the top and have nothing more to prove," rather than "You're too good so
we don't want you."
It's just an idea. Feedback is welcomed.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike the Elder napsal(a):
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> In povray.general John D. Gwinner <john punctuation gwinner punc cornell punc edu>
wrote:
>>> However, that could lead to a 'lock out' over a long period of time. So I'd
>>> be tempted to say "sure" but then for every winning image, you have to take
>>> that round 'off', minus one. Meaning, if you won with one image, you could
>>> submit the next round. If you won with three images, you'd have to take off
>>> 2 months in a row. Someone else needs a chance!
>> That doesn't sound very fair to me. It's like you get banned, penalized
>> for being too good.
>>
>> --
>> - Warp
>
>
> I was browsing the IRTC thread to see if anything new had come up and came
> across the above discussion that I had read before without any interesting
> ideas popping into my head. Upon revisiting it, however, I came up with a
> notion that I would like to share for consideration.
>
> Both John and Warp have good points. On one hand, having the same person or
> small group of people win again and again can make the event a lot less
> compelling for new participants. On the other hand, penalizing excellence
> doesn't seem like a good thing either. Sometimes, a problem can be better
> addressed by making new opportunities than by making new rules. How about
> this: Anyone who wins more than a certain number of times (say three in a one
> year period just for an example) receives an INVITATION to participate in a
> special "Honor Gallery" for a period of time(specific period negotiable).
> Honor Gallery members would have their images for new rounds prominently
> displayed with the opportunity for viewers to comment and would have full
> voting privileges, but their images would not be voted on. No one would be
> compelled to accept an Honor Gallery invitation, so any individual who finds
> the competitive aspect of the event an essential part of his or her experience
> would be free to participate as a normal entrant.
>
> In this way, the message to highly talented participants would be "You've made
> it to the top and have nothing more to prove," rather than "You're too good so
> we don't want you."
>
> It's just an idea. Feedback is welcomed.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.
>
>
>
>
great idea.
Something like:
Olivia Oyle:[]
Dan Swan:[]
first place:Wu Ami[]
second place:Thomas Eagle[]
third place:Sly Talker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > In povray.general John D. Gwinner <john punctuation gwinner punc cornell punc edu>
wrote:
> > > However, that could lead to a 'lock out' over a long period of time. So I'd
> > > be tempted to say "sure" but then for every winning image, you have to take
> > > that round 'off', minus one. Meaning, if you won with one image, you could
> > > submit the next round. If you won with three images, you'd have to take off
> > > 2 months in a row. Someone else needs a chance!
> >
> > That doesn't sound very fair to me. It's like you get banned, penalized
> > for being too good.
> >
> > --
> > - Warp
>
>
> I was browsing the IRTC thread to see if anything new had come up and came
> across the above discussion that I had read before without any interesting
> ideas popping into my head. Upon revisiting it, however, I came up with a
> notion that I would like to share for consideration.
>
> Both John and Warp have good points. On one hand, having the same person or
> small group of people win again and again can make the event a lot less
> compelling for new participants. On the other hand, penalizing excellence
> doesn't seem like a good thing either. Sometimes, a problem can be better
> addressed by making new opportunities than by making new rules. How about
> this: Anyone who wins more than a certain number of times (say three in a one
> year period just for an example) receives an INVITATION to participate in a
> special "Honor Gallery" for a period of time(specific period negotiable).
> Honor Gallery members would have their images for new rounds prominently
> displayed with the opportunity for viewers to comment and would have full
> voting privileges, but their images would not be voted on. No one would be
> compelled to accept an Honor Gallery invitation, so any individual who finds
> the competitive aspect of the event an essential part of his or her experience
> would be free to participate as a normal entrant.
>
> In this way, the message to highly talented participants would be "You've made
> it to the top and have nothing more to prove," rather than "You're too good so
> we don't want you."
>
> It's just an idea. Feedback is welcomed.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.
Dunno about others ....
I have fun creating things, and have more fun showing it to others. Back then
when the competition was on, I did enter several time, never win anything.
But I ain't complaining since my aim was to share what I create to others,
that's all. Plus, I never use my real name, and with the use of disposable
email addresses, no one knows who I am. :)
Oh well ....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dunno about others ....
>
> I have fun creating things, and have more fun showing it to others. Back then
> when the competition was on, I did enter several time, never win anything.
>
> But I ain't complaining since my aim was to share what I create to others,
> that's all. Plus, I never use my real name, and with the use of disposable
> email addresses, no one knows who I am. :)
>
> Oh well ....
>
I did IRTC around 10 years ago. It was fun, I agree. However, these days where
every video game is putting up 20 images per second of stunning computer graphics,
while we have to slave for weeks to get something that doesn't look nearly as good.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I was browsing the IRTC thread to see if anything new had come up and came
> across the above discussion that I had read before without any interesting
> ideas popping into my head. Upon revisiting it, however, I came up with a
> notion that I would like to share for consideration.
>
> Both John and Warp have good points. On one hand, having the same person or
> small group of people win again and again can make the event a lot less
> compelling for new participants. On the other hand, penalizing excellence
> doesn't seem like a good thing either. Sometimes, a problem can be better
> addressed by making new opportunities than by making new rules. How about
> this: Anyone who wins more than a certain number of times (say three in a one
> year period just for an example) receives an INVITATION to participate in a
> special "Honor Gallery" for a period of time(specific period negotiable).
when I was looking at the IRTC, "ok great, where's the beef (code)?"
Call it "penalizing excellence":
Honor Gallery members would have the mandatory privilege of revealing their
source. So the audience can see what it takes to make "winning" images …
Otherwise its just meaningless egomania - elitist crap - very similar to what's
killing world economy. A few with exclusionary mentality, spoiling it for
everyone else, not sharing the wealth; which is info/data in the Information
Age, as in examples for improvement and growth of all. Those on a superiority
trip only prove their inferiority. FOR ALL or #^(% *#@$. IMHO
regards,
aQ
> Honor Gallery members would have their images for new rounds prominently
> displayed with the opportunity for viewers to comment and would have full
> voting privileges, but their images would not be voted on. No one would be
> compelled to accept an Honor Gallery invitation, so any individual who finds
> the competitive aspect of the event an essential part of his or her experience
> would be free to participate as a normal entrant.
>
> In this way, the message to highly talented participants would be "You've made
> it to the top and have nothing more to prove," rather than "You're too good so
> we don't want you."
>
> It's just an idea. Feedback is welcomed.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:08:25 EDT, "alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>when I was looking at the IRTC, "ok great, where's the beef (code)?"
>
>Call it "penalizing excellence":
>Honor Gallery members would have the mandatory privilege of revealing their
>source. So the audience can see what it takes to make "winning" images …
>Otherwise its just meaningless egomania - elitist crap - very similar to what's
>killing world economy. A few with exclusionary mentality, spoiling it for
>everyone else, not sharing the wealth; which is info/data in the Information
>Age, as in examples for improvement and growth of all. Those on a superiority
>trip only prove their inferiority. FOR ALL or #^(% *#@$. IMHO
>
>regards,
>aQ
Do you really think the code is what makes a good image? If so, you're quite naive.
Plus, I imagine that most would share with you if you asked politely. Since when is
something that is mandated a
privilege? Yeah right.
Take your off-topic ranting elsewhere. It's really not wanted here. Sorry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> As you likely know, the IRTC (Internet Ray Tracing Competition) has been
> down for over a year now. I've been in discussions with Chris Cason for
> a while now on how we can resurrect it and I'm happy to announce that
> we've come up with a proposal.
>
> I have assembled a small group of developers including myself and Randal
> Schwartz who will volunteer our time to re-write the software in
> Smalltalk using the Seaside web framework. In the process, we will try
> to address some of the issues that led to the demise of the previous
> system and add some flexibility to do more fun things with the site in
> the future.
>
> I do realize that while the IRTC was down, the TC-RTC started up. There
> has been some discussion here that there's no need for two competitions.
> Still, it's the IRTC that has the most visibility and the new site
> should attract a lot more. We will import all of the previous years
> competition results into the system and have them available for viewing
> once the site is up.
>
> If you have any questions or suggestions, you can send them to me at
> dav### [at] simberoncom. Please include the text IRTC in the subject line.
>
> I'll keep you advised as the development progresses.
>
> David Buck
Any updates on this project?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Josh Cryer wrote:
>
> Any updates on this project?
>
We are in the final phases of preparing for a launch. It should be
available soon.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck wrote:
> Josh Cryer wrote:
>>
>> Any updates on this project?
>>
>
> We are in the final phases of preparing for a launch. It should be
> available soon.
Which is IT speak for, "The first ninety percent of the project is
complete. We are now working on the second ninety percent of the project."
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> David Buck wrote:
>> Josh Cryer wrote:
>>>
>>> Any updates on this project?
>>>
>>
>> We are in the final phases of preparing for a launch. It should be
>> available soon.
>
> Which is IT speak for, "The first ninety percent of the project is
> complete. We are now working on the second ninety percent of the project."
>
> Regards,
> John
Exactly. ;-)
We will open the site with the look and feel that we have right now
developed by one graphic artist. It will have all the functionality but
some aspects of the layout don't look as good as they could.
We've had another graphics artist volunteer to help out and he has some
completely different ideas and approaches to the web site. We like his
ideas but need time to change the software to accommodate the new look.
So, we've decided to go with an initial launch of the original look
and feel.
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> We will open the site with the look and feel that we have right now
> developed by one graphic artist. It will have all the functionality but
> some aspects of the layout don't look as good as they could.
>
> We've had another graphics artist volunteer to help out and he has some
> completely different ideas and approaches to the web site. We like his
> ideas but need time to change the software to accommodate the new look.
> So, we've decided to go with an initial launch of the original look
> and feel.
Sounds good - open it up as soon as possible! I'm sure there are plenty of
people in the community that can help with code and graphic/graphic design. I'd
be happy to for one!
> David Buck
Cheers,
Edouard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> As you likely know, the IRTC (Internet Ray Tracing Competition) has been
> down for over a year now. I've been in discussions with Chris Cason for
> a while now on how we can resurrect it and I'm happy to announce that
> we've come up with a proposal.
Hello all,
after that the new site is up for testing, I see that the last round, upon which
no more voting was possible because of the Big Hiatus, I don't find no longer
the images of that last round (except for when we use
http://ftp.irtc.org/index.html). I guess it's because that round was closed
before it really started.
Now, what I think would be great, is when that round would be revived so the
images and the posters can rest in peace.
If that's for some reason not applicable, it would at least be nice to include
that incomplete round in the regular "Past Rounds" schedule.
Sidenote: I was also a contributor in that last round
(http://ftp.irtc.org/stills/2006-12-31/view.html), and posted with an old and
now invalid email address (current address is phresnel\0gmail\1com, replace \0
with @, replace \1 with .). Actually it was my first participation ever, and
since then my soul is wandering in unrest).
Many greets and have a great day everybody
Sebastian Mach (http://phresnel.org , http://picogen.org)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
