On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:11:08 EDT, "Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net>
wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>
>> Or then just give the highest scores to the ones you like the best ;)
>

>

Were you looking over my shoulder? :)


>one.
>

>technical, because after all most 3D applications have similar functions
>(model, texture, lighting, and in some cases mathematical functions). 

But do they? And after the first twenty or so...

>Guess we

>

True, very true,


>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?
>

If you say so ma'am

But if I may hazard the opinion that sometimes the technical is transparent and
not even seen. 
Ah well! From now on I'll just score as I like best and not think too hard. IMO
this has been a worthwhile thread.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:

>
> Were you looking over my shoulder? :)

Guess we all do similar things in similar situations ;)


> >technical, because after all most 3D applications have similar functions
> >(model, texture, lighting, and in some cases mathematical functions).
>
> But do they? And after the first twenty or so...



Reading through the documentation often changes my idea about a rendering
completely. Often I come to appreciate images much more after reading. If
somebody does not say much about their work, neither explains the concept nor
the method, often this makes me give lower score, not because I want to punish

thinking and how they are working.

This is not a fast rule though, sometimes the undocumented rendering simply
looks very impressive and this affects the way I vote.

> But if I may hazard the opinion that sometimes the technical is transparent and
> not even seen.

True, and makes documenting very important, if people want to receive higher
score that is.

English is not my native language. Writing a documentation can be a challenge,
but as long a you can make yourself understood, using a few words to explain
the idea and writing a simple list of techniques used, then it is very helpful
to those who are trying to evaluate your work. Without the documentation I
think many good renderings would have gone under my radar.

Hildur K.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:44:25 EDT, "Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net>
wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> Were you looking over my shoulder? :)
>
>Guess we all do similar things in similar situations ;)
>

Great minds think alike :)


>> But do they? And after the first twenty or so...
>

>

I must admit I do too.

>Reading through the documentation often changes my idea about a rendering
>completely. Often I come to appreciate images much more after reading. If
>somebody does not say much about their work, neither explains the concept nor
>the method, often this makes me give lower score, not because I want to punish

>thinking and how they are working.
>
>This is not a fast rule though, sometimes the undocumented rendering simply
>looks very impressive and this affects the way I vote.
>

Stop being so reasonable :)
If only I could write a description the way that some can :(


>> But if I may hazard the opinion that sometimes the technical is transparent and
>> not even seen.
>
>True, and makes documenting very important, if people want to receive higher
>score that is.
>

Or then as the artist once said "If they can't see what it means then that's
their loss"
Actually I find some overly descriptive text that tells me what to see in the
image annoying. No names, no pack drill. ;)
 
>English is not my native language. Writing a documentation can be a challenge,
>but as long a you can make yourself understood, using a few words to explain
>the idea and writing a simple list of techniques used, then it is very helpful
>to those who are trying to evaluate your work. Without the documentation I
>think many good renderings would have gone under my radar.
>

What else do you have to do during those long dark nights? :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Arguably judging in a situation like this is always going to have a 
> highly subjective component.

That's only your opinion.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:20:59 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Arguably judging in a situation like this is always going to have a
>> highly subjective component.
> 
> That's only your opinion.

Well, in fairness, I did say "arguably", and didn't present it as an 
absolute.  However I'd like to know how exactly you would do judging with 
the total removal of subjectivity.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:

> What else do you have to do during those long dark nights? :P


hemisphere.


at 23:59 and sunrise 02:57, I would call that a very short night, less than
three hours.

On the other hand all this daylight makes you stay up a lot. No need to sleep.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:20:59 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Arguably judging in a situation like this is always going to have a
>>> highly subjective component.
>> That's only your opinion.
> 
> Well, in fairness, I did say "arguably", and didn't present it as an 
> absolute.  However I'd like to know how exactly you would do judging with 
> the total removal of subjectivity.
> 
> Jim

I should have thrown in a smiley :)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:56:48 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> I should have thrown in a smiley :)

Ah, that does make the difference. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>
> > What else do you have to do during those long dark nights? :P
>

> hemisphere.
>


Me being corrected, that is.



> at 23:59 and sunrise 02:57, I would call that a very short night, less than
> three hours.
>


the long days/nights and I do know it is the summer in the Northern hemisphere.


humorous :D


> On the other hand all this daylight makes you stay up a lot. No need to sleep.

Is that so? I found that it made no difference to me but other people I worked
with found it very difficult to sleep when it was daylight. Not that they did
not want to or need to sleep.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

4a343141$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.

Some years ago I ran correlation statistics on IRTC votes, and the 3 notes 
were extremely correlated. Basically it all comes down to a single "wow or 
not" rating. There were outliers (the occasional 
bad-concept-but-good-execution-image and the other way round) but they are 
just that, outliers, and they didn't affect the output of the competition. 
Having several scores is more intellectually satisfying than really 
significant and useful.

G.

Post a reply to this message