Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:


>   Then the IRTC becomes just another Photoshop contest site. Boring.


knowing the difference between a painted image or a photo or a raytraced image,
or can they easily be fooled?

Here is a quiz where people can test their capabilities to tell the difference?


http://dac.escet.urjc.es/rvmaster/rm/


> > If the above procedure actually has a better ratio of quality
> > per render time than other anti-aliasing methods one might be
> > allowed to ask: Why isn't the method built into the renderer?
>
>   Irrelevant. If the renderer doesn't support it, then it doesn't. The
> reasons are rather irrelevant in this.

The reason for aliasing is usually shortcomings in the software and/or hardware.
It has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the artist. If the

rendering. Then we have an absolute beginner. Some scenes are difficult in this
regard, others are easy. If this can be solved in a quick and effective manner,
then it can save people enormous render times. Not everybody has an extra PC to
use while the other one is occupied doing a three week render. Is that
irrelevant?

Is it illegal to render big and then scale the image down? Because in the past
people did recommend that to me in comments, on a scene with a difficult AA
situation. Is it?
>
> > Also, if I now build my own patched version of the renderer which
> > implements this anti-aliasing method, is it suddenly ok to use it
> > because it is now longer a separate post-processing step?
>
>   Yes. It's the direct output of the rendering software, not the direct
> output of Photoshop or Gimp.

If I do gamma corrections and add my name, is it then still a direct output from
the rendering software?

Is adjusting Levels a acceptable method of gamma correction? Because in PS,
there is no button named "gamma". Or should I stick with Brightness/Contrast?

> > Most global 2D effects could conceivably be implemented in SDL
> > with multipass renders and evaluating pigments of the input image.
> > Does this make it any more or less cheating?
>
>   Yes, because it's the result of a rendering software, not the result of
> an image manipulation software.




> > My recommendation would be to allow any kind of post-processing
> > which is of a "general" nature
>
>   That's the problem: Defining what's allowed and what isn't becomes
> really complicated, and you end up with a rule book thicker than the one
> in Formula 1 racing. Don't you think *that* is going to discourage people?

Not necessary to make it thick. Simply make a short list of allowed effects. The
rule of thumb could be (like it already is) that the process should affect every
pixel in the image. Then you could write down several options, like scaling,
blurring, gamma (how?), color correcting etc. How about glow? That is a post
effect in some raytracers.


>
>   The rule "no post-processing with external software allowed, period"
> is simple and straightforward.

And often a liability  and restriction to people who want to utilize the utmost
capabilities of the renderer, but have to choose between
reflections/isosurfaces/focal blur/radiosity and whatever, simply because you


The bottom line is that people using Povray should be very eager to change the

many of advanced processes almost demand you to have a supercomputer.  Give


Hildur K.

Post a reply to this message