===== From sonya_roberts@geocities.com: Hmmm....nasty jpghing artifacts as a feature of an image...cool concept. I think overall I'd have rather seen a less pixellated-looking scene though. ===== From agage@mines.edu: Using quality reduction to give a 'cartoonish' appearance is interesting, but the colors wouldn't bleed that badly unless you fed your VCR a grilled-cheese sandwich or two. Overall, I think you achieved what you were going for, which I'll give you credit for, but having flatter colors might have helped. ===== From ddonegan@fix.net: I really like this picture. I think you really captured the mood you were trying for. :-) ===== From kazemir@pde.com: I must admit, when I first saw the image, I thought "Who's the guy who stole a frame from a bad MPEG". But after reading your text file I understand your intention. I will give you points for the idea, and the fact that you did a good job, but the job was done without ray-tracing. it doesn't attract ===== From bill.marrs@pureatria.com: Nasty artifacts, too much compression? ===== From jgoeson@msn.com: Great concept! I disagree with you a little about the low quality JPEG translation not being post-processing, but I agree that it is a large part of the concept, so I'm considering it to be a good thing. Great job! ===== From jaime@ctav.es: Well, I admit : no postprocesing here. But it's too pixelated, and bad videos look more like grainy-diffused, IMHO. Otherwise, liked the "road runner" idea. ===== From gmccarter@hotmail.com: Fascinating technical effect with jpg compression to simulate videotape dropouts. Yes, I read the text file! Perfect colors. Nice use of Julia fractal. ===== From wozzeck@club-internet.fr: Interesting idea (I ALWAYS read explainations ;-) and errr... the result is as you wanted it to be (I think). Another common problem with VCRs is the "flag" effect: the top of the image is twisted, reaching 45° with the remainder of the screen. I think this could have been done placing a glass cylinder at the top of the screen (not tested: no warranty!) BTW this picture is VERY hard to rate ! ===== From MMandl@aol.com: Oh how i wish you had rendered this at the standard size. I would have given it a higher score. I love the road runner! You did a nice job. ===== From dick@buckosoft.com: Great concept. Including this image in your other, and the way you've used jpeg conversion as an "enhancement". I'm very impressed. ===== From bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de: I don't like the idea of misusing JPEG artifacts as parts of the image. Using this deliberately to me is post-processing. Apart from that, Video-drop outs look totally different than the 8x8-JPEG-blocks. ===== From pgrooby@trimble.co.nz: Although according to the letter of the law the low quality j-peg thing is OK. I think it goes against the spirit of producing you effets in a ray-tracer. ===== From Martin.Magnusson.7121@student.uu.se: Very interesting technique! It works very good. At first I actually thought that it was a screen dump from a TV. The only thing I can think of that could be better is the ywlloe ground. ===== From arcana@sinbad.net: Cute image. You're right about the jpeg compression, although I would have given you higher technical points if you'd achieved the effect purely through povray. ===== From no13@ozemail.com.au: This time, when I will read the comments about my image, I will know who has read the text file, and who has not ! ........ I'm convinced. ===== From msfl.bf@fasonet.bf: Good colors, just like the originals. The high JPeg compression doesn't really make it look like an old video, as far as I've seen old videos. Maybe a very high antialiasing could have worked better. See, I read the text-file ;) ===== From ptdawson@voicenet.com: Postprocessing is illegal! ;-) Just kidding, I *read* the text file! Excellent idea! ===== From bobfranke@halcyon.com: I can't agree. You used jpeg compression to achieve a special effect. Therefore, this image was post processed and should lose some technical points. Because most of the images also loose quality with the jpeg compressing I guess the point can be argued. So I guess the image still qualifies for the competition. ===== From peter@table76.demon.co.uk: I don't know; if the JPEG conversion is used as part of the image's effect, you could argue that it _is_ post processing; but the rules say conversion's allowed, so never mind :-) . ===== From web_user@128.194.74.70: Notable for originality ===== From web_user@eglab11.mines.edu: Good idea Notable for originality