 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:55:41 EDT, "Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemail every1net>
wrote:
>"Michael Hunter" <int### [at] onenet> wrote:
>
>> Submissions are expected to primarily demonstrate and document the use of 3D
>> software. Scores are awarded based on artistic/conceptual, technical merit and
>> quality of documentation.
>>
>> That puts us back at three scores per image.
>>
>> So there you go! Problem solved. Right? Something missing?
>
>
Nor me!
>based on a brilliant idea.
>
It is the Technical rating that gets to me. Being a Pover, albeit I use a
modeller. I feel that I can score Pov scenes on Technical but how can I rate
something that uses software I don't know about?
Also a technically simple scene can look great so concept is important too.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Hildur K
wash. The artistic score cancels out the rise in the conceptual score. Why or
or are we dictating that all images must be beautiful to win?
From: Stephen
it would be like comparing apples to oranges when you are judging technical
where someone has really done something extraordinary, say created their own
rendered.
would be something like:
must be made in PhotoShop and be mostly red with small black specks. The
In the end we could vote on how well people followed the instructions and the
round would be filled with red apples that all looked more or less the same.
Standardization may make judging easier but at the same time destroy the
diversity we all love in the competition.
I have thought for a while it might be less of a problem if there were only one
score given which would account for all of the positive aspects found in a
side is that you would be less able to know what aspect was liked or disliked
some other aspect no one considered that might show up in a round. For example
add anything else in the way of concept. So maybe in a round like that we might
Sure this is silly the next thing you know we would have dozens of aspects,
things you might say are being accounted for now but lumped under another
clear.
Personally I think I would like to make a spreadsheet with two dozen qualities I
look for. Judge each entry on each topic and give them a total as the score.
It seems now that there is more debate about scoring than what should be in the
competition. Should this be considered and endorsement of my first sentence as
the sole criteria for what constitutes an acceptable submission?
From: Michael Hunter
Then the bit about judging:
Scores are based on a variety criteria which may including but not limited to:
originality, difficulty, beauty or expressiveness and documentation.
I think this is how things have been judged anyway but this puts it in writing
and acknowledges the imprecise nature of voting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:11:57 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> It is the Technical rating that gets to me. Being a Pover, albeit I use
> a modeller. I feel that I can score Pov scenes on Technical but how can
> I rate something that uses software I don't know about?
>
> Also a technically simple scene can look great so concept is important
> too.
I would concur.
Maybe the way to approach it is to use three different scores that are
weighted differently (OK, I'm stealing an idea from the scoring
methodology for Iron Chef America here).
In ICA, they use three scores - taste, plating, and originality. Taste
is weighted 10 points, the other two are 5 points each.
With IRTC, it seems to me that the three categories might be something
like "concept", "technical", and perhaps "realization" - the last one
being how well the concept + technical is realized in the final image.
The first two could be weighted to be of lower importance (but important
to the overall end result) and the last one is the "taste" (if you will)
- how well the concept and technical components come together.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:07:43 -0400, Michael Hunter wrote:
> I think this is how things have been judged anyway but this puts it in
> writing and acknowledges the imprecise nature of voting.
Arguably judging in a situation like this is always going to have a
highly subjective component.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13 Jun 2009 12:22:20 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>I would concur.
>
>Maybe the way to approach it is to use three different scores that are
>weighted differently (OK, I'm stealing an idea from the scoring
>methodology for Iron Chef America here).
>
>In ICA, they use three scores - taste, plating, and originality. Taste
>is weighted 10 points, the other two are 5 points each.
>
>With IRTC, it seems to me that the three categories might be something
>like "concept", "technical", and perhaps "realization" - the last one
>being how well the concept + technical is realized in the final image.
>The first two could be weighted to be of lower importance (but important
>to the overall end result) and the last one is the "taste" (if you will)
>- how well the concept and technical components come together.
>
Or then just give the highest scores to the ones you like the best ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> Or then just give the highest scores to the ones you like the best ;)
one.
technical, because after all most 3D applications have similar functions
(model, texture, lighting, and in some cases mathematical functions). Guess we
outside the box and perhaps invent a brilliant way to solve a problem or
achieve some particular effect.
Another thing, some programs use plug-ins, others use inc files, not much
So the less you know, the more impressed you are likely to be about the
technical ;-)
Right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:42:13 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2009 12:22:20 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>I would concur.
>>
>>Maybe the way to approach it is to use three different scores that are
>>weighted differently (OK, I'm stealing an idea from the scoring
>>methodology for Iron Chef America here).
>>
>>In ICA, they use three scores - taste, plating, and originality. Taste
>>is weighted 10 points, the other two are 5 points each.
>>
>>With IRTC, it seems to me that the three categories might be something
>>like "concept", "technical", and perhaps "realization" - the last one
>>being how well the concept + technical is realized in the final image.
>>The first two could be weighted to be of lower importance (but important
>>to the overall end result) and the last one is the "taste" (if you will)
>>- how well the concept and technical components come together.
>>
>>
> Or then just give the highest scores to the ones you like the best ;)
Well, yeah, ultimately it comes down to that. :-)
The thought regarding using the ICA-style scoring is that you add up each
judge's scores for each category and then get an overall score that's
used for the final result. That gives a chance (not a big one, but a
chance) that someone who isn't artistically competent a shot at winning
based on their concept and technical aspects.
That also makes it less clear who the winner is likely to be just based
on looking at the image.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Michael Hunter wrote:
> How about this:
>
> Submissions are expected to primarily demonstrate and document the use of 3D
> software. Scores are awarded based on artistic/conceptual, technical merit and
> quality of documentation.
>
"Quality of documentation" -- absolutely not. How well or badly a
person can express him/herself verbally has nothing to do with the
quality of the image.
I certainly also appreciate those that can and do document and explain
their techniques, but that should be totally irrelevant to the scoring
of the image.
-=- Larry -=-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Quality of documentation" -- absolutely not. How well or badly a
> person can express him/herself verbally has nothing to do with the
> quality of the image.
>
> I certainly also appreciate those that can and do document and explain
> their techniques, but that should be totally irrelevant to the scoring
> of the image.
>
> -=- Larry -=-
sharing ideas. A place to learn from each other. The documentation is central
If you are in it just to win then, yeah why would you want to give away any of
about how it was made.
The question is what do you want to get out of the competition? Do you want to
learn how people do things? Then you need to give them some incentive. It takes
time to do this. If your not going to read it then why bother? We might as well
put the time into making the image instead.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13 Jun 2009 19:07:45 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Or then just give the highest scores to the ones you like the best ;)
>
>Well, yeah, ultimately it comes down to that. :-)
>
So be it!
>The thought regarding using the ICA-style scoring is that you add up each
>judge's scores for each category and then get an overall score that's
>used for the final result. That gives a chance (not a big one, but a
>chance) that someone who isn't artistically competent a shot at winning
>based on their concept and technical aspects.
>
>That also makes it less clear who the winner is likely to be just based
>on looking at the image.
Now we need to discuss the weighting process. Arrg!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
