 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
> I have noticed, that some people name their entry file names so that their
> image will be at the top of the viewing page. For example some filenames
> from this round: 001.jpg, 00pfboat.jpg, 13youth.jpg, 1j_canal.jpg, 2000l2.jpg,
> etc. It seems clear that at least some people deliberately name their files
> so that they get at the top of the page (of course I'm not saying _all_ the
> people at the top are doing this, but I suppose that at least a few of them).
>
> Wouldn't it be a good idea to build the viewing page so that the entries
> are not in alfabetical order, but in random order? This way nobody can get
> advantage by naming his/her files with leading 0's.
> Of course this makes it harder to find your own entry, but I think that's
> a minimal disadvantage... :)
>
> --
> - Warp. -
Personaly I think it's all a bunch of paranoid hogwash. Either the
submission contains the artisctic quality to win or it doesn't. To
presume that people will favor a certain entry due to it's relitive
position on a list is putting the judging staff in a less than
intelligent light. I would be insulted to think that you think that
such a trivial matter would in any way cloud my judgment when voting.
I base my judgment soley on artstic merit and nothing else. If others
are not then they should re-evaluate whether they should participate
in the judging process at all.
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
: Personaly I think it's all a bunch of paranoid hogwash. Either the
: submission contains the artisctic quality to win or it doesn't. To
: presume that people will favor a certain entry due to it's relitive
: position on a list is putting the judging staff in a less than
: intelligent light. I would be insulted to think that you think that
: such a trivial matter would in any way cloud my judgment when voting.
: I base my judgment soley on artstic merit and nothing else. If others
: are not then they should re-evaluate whether they should participate
: in the judging process at all.
You sound angry.
Maybe there is people out there, who first start judging the images
very carefully. They examine the images very detailedly. Images and more
images, and still more... After examining 30-40 images, they become a little
tired and their concentration is not as good as at the beginning and they
start to analyze the images more quickly and with less enthusiasm. Maybe
they watch the last images just a half or less the time they watched the
first images. The judging may suffer.
Of course this is not the case with all the people (it's curious that when
you say "some people" people read "everyone"), but it's very possible.
--
- Warp. -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
> Maybe there is people out there, who first start judging the images
> very carefully. They examine the images very detailedly. Images and more
> images, and still more... After examining 30-40 images, they become a little
> tired and their concentration is not as good as at the beginning and they
> start to analyze the images more quickly and with less enthusiasm. Maybe
> they watch the last images just a half or less the time they watched the
> first images. The judging may suffer.
This is just what happened to me (so I haven't voted yet)! This also the
reason why I asked for some good advice on voting. To my disappointment
nobody answered. Maybe the question was stupid.
I will try my best and maybe try to pick the pics randomly, I don't
know.
Greetings,
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
> You sound angry.
Me ! Angry ? Not at all. I'm only expressing an opinion.
> Maybe there is people out there, who first start judging the images
> very carefully. They examine the images very detailedly. Images and more
> images, and still more... After examining 30-40 images, they become a little
> tired and their concentration is not as good as at the beginning and they
> start to analyze the images more quickly and with less enthusiasm. Maybe
> they watch the last images just a half or less the time they watched the
> first images. The judging may suffer.
This is where it is incumbent upon those doing the judging to allowsufficient
time for the task. It is not something that should be rushed.
There is certainly no deadline on the judging. That is to say no one is
making you view them all at once and render an opinion for each
right now. It can be sampled over the period of a few days allowing
for fatigue and other factors to even out. If people are unable to handle
the task of judging multiple entries no matter how great the number then
perhaps they don't belong on the judging panel.
Not everyone has the temperament, concentration power, or personal
drive to accept the responsibility and should admit this to themselves.
There is no doubt about the responsibility placed on the shoulders of each
judge and there are very real personal feelings at jeopardy when you
consider the number of hours it takes to put together a scene worthy of
submitting to the competition.
This responsibility should not be accepted lightly on the part of those who
stand in judgment over others.
( I really like that last line. )
Ken Tyler
> Of course this is not the case with all the people (it's curious that when
> you say "some people" people read "everyone"), but it's very possible.
>
> --
> - Warp. -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc Schimmler wrote:
> This is just what happened to me (so I haven't voted yet)! This also the
> reason why I asked for some good advice on voting. To my disappointment
> nobody answered. Maybe the question was stupid.
It wasn't a stupid question. I suspect that no one answered you because
there is no real consensus on "how to vote." Different voters have
different priorities, different esthetic sense and different degrees of
background knowledge in 3d graphics. The hope is that these varied
viewpoints will even out and produce a good set of winners. Usually,
they do. For whatever good it will do, I will outline some of my
methods and criteria. First, I quickly go through the images with a
slideshow program. I do not study them in detail at this point, I am
just looking for common themes, the overall quality level and things
like that. One thing this does is, if many people come up with the same
interpretation, I know it before I start detailed judging so that the
knowledge affects all renditions of that particular idea equally. I
then load them into Winvote, read each text file, and look more
carefully at each image with the textfile info in mind. This helps me
to spot clever technical tricks and artistic decisions and judge their
success. It also ensures that I have all needed info to recognise and
judge the idea of the image and how well it presents it. In some cases,
I look at the zip file, e.g. to determine whether a particular object is
a csg, a custom mesh or a canned object, so that I can give due credit
for technical skill. This is seldom needed. I then go through, vote
the images, and comment them as I vote, flipping frequently between the
image, the text and my comments. The vote helps me see just how well I
like the image and which aspects to comment on. I then read my comments
again in order to decide whether the vote was, in retrospect, correct
and fix it if needed. When I am done voting and commenting, I go
through all of the votes one last time, looking for ones that no longer
seem right (I do this over a period of several days and I want to be
sure that, say, a bad mood one day doesn't make some scores too low.)
Then I compile the whole mess and send it in. For specific voting
criteria, I start at 10 and add or subtract as needed. The scores I
assign tend to be low compared to the averages. I seldom go over 15 and
the highest I have assigned to date is 18. I call that "leaving room
for Picasso." This, of course, hurts no one as I do it to everybody. I
assign a preliminary score in a category based on my overall impression
of the image in that respect. I then add or subtract if needed for
special circumstances. In artistic, I look for either overall beauty or
artistic ugliness, composition (placement of objects in relation to the
viewpoint, use of dynamic asymmetry, etc.), use of color, lighting,
appropriateness of textures, realism (if the image tried to be
realistic), selectivity (does everything in the image contribute to
it?), good use of detail, and stylistic coherence (is one key object
very realistic, while the rest are cartoonish?). In technical, I look
for original and clever techniques, whether the textures are well
designed, whether the artist is pushing the limits of the renderer, how
well the artist overcomes the limits of the renderer, how intelligently
the artist exploited the strengths of the renderer, how well made custom
meshes, csg's and height fields are, whether the artist created new
tools for the image, whether the textures and colors are custom created
(and how well) and things like that. How well this can be judged
depends on your knowledge about the various rendering programs. If
something is flashy, but is routine for the renderer (e.g. Bryce
mountainous landscapes), it is worth less technically to me than the
same thing done in a renderer not specialized for that purpose. I also
penalize technical rules violations (such as illegal postprocessing)
here if I think it is warranted. In concept, I look for whether the
image is on topic, how original and clever the idea is, whether the
image actually shows the alleged idea, how strained the connection to
the topic is, etc. If the connection to the topic is unexpected, but
good it adds points. If it is a stretch or an irrelevant detail thrown
in to "qualify" an otherwise irrelevant sci fi, fantasy, car, tv, comic,
etc fan image it loses lots of points. I penalize here for rules
violations such as entering an image made before the round began or
entering an image with no actual rendering involved. The main thing I
look for in concept (and it tends to spill over into artistic) is: "Does
the image say something" Does it tell a story, make a philosophical
point or illustrate a meaningful event. A random building, for
example, is just a technical exercise. It probably isn't saying
anything. The great pyramid being constructed, a rotting hulk in an
otherwise vibrant downtown area, or an old barn with encroaching condos
and strip malls in the background are saying something. This is hard to
explain, but I hope you see what I mean. If an image is a blatant
violation of any rule, I lower all category scores as well. When I
comment, I try to find something positive to say about each image, but
if I see nothing good ... so be it. I confine negative comments to
aspects of the image itself (I might say "Your textures are much too
simplistic," but I won't say "You're a lousy artist.") In scoring, I
try to judge every image by the same criteria, but in commenting, I try
to go easy on people new to rendering, and concentrate on general
suggestions for improvement, while I am much more likely to nitpick work
by established masters. I could go on at some length, but I think you
get the idea. Remember that none of this is obligatory or set in stone
and other people have completely different criteria and methods. This
is just how I do it.
Jerry Anning
cle### [at] dholcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Your expanation is the best, well thought out guide to voting that could
possibly be written (other that paragraph structure ; ) ). My hat is off to
you sir. It demonstrates fairness, a thoughtful approach, and a dedication
to the art as well. I certainly could not have stated it better and agree with
every point made.
Well done.
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry Anning wrote:
> by established masters. I could go on at some length, but I think you
> get the idea.
Thank you very much. This helps a great deal and is a real guideline for
voting.
Povingly,
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
:> You sound angry.
: Me ! Angry ? Not at all. I'm only expressing an opinion.
You still sound angry :)
: If people are unable to handle
: the task of judging multiple entries no matter how great the number then
: perhaps they don't belong on the judging panel.
That was my point: How do you control that?
I don't know how many people is judging the images or if there are judges
who estimate the images in one long session terminating at 2am, but there
is a possibility that somebody is doing this, or even many people. The idea
"they souldn't do that" doesn't help. If they do it, they do it.
This way people who name their files with leading zeroes are getting
advantage in a very unfair manner, because it's possible that some people
are judging the images this way. Maybe nobody is doing this, but since
there is the possibility, it causes that participants can get unfair advantage.
Of course you can get advantage even if the images are sorted randomly if
your image gets at the top, but the next time it's not probable you get at
the top again. At least you can't deliberately place yourself at the top.
Maybe it's even possible to give a different ordered list to each judge,
so possible disadvantages are minimized.
--
- Warp. -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> :> You sound angry.
>
> : Me ! Angry ? Not at all. I'm only expressing an opinion.
>
> You still sound angry :)
I AM NOT ANGRY DAMN IT !(&%$@*/-* ;^ }
> : If people are unable to handle
> : the task of judging multiple entries no matter how great the number then
> : perhaps they don't belong on the judging panel.
>
> That was my point: How do you control that?
Getting them to read Jerry Anning's reply to this thread would be a great
start.Perhaps this newgroup will help spread the correct philosiphy to the larger
community. There is that to hope for anyway.
Ken Tyler
> I don't know how many people is judging the images or if there are judges
> who estimate the images in one long session terminating at 2am, but there
> is a possibility that somebody is doing this, or even many people. The idea
> "they souldn't do that" doesn't help. If they do it, they do it.
> This way people who name their files with leading zeroes are getting
> advantage in a very unfair manner, because it's possible that some people
> are judging the images this way. Maybe nobody is doing this, but since
> there is the possibility, it causes that participants can get unfair advantage.
> Of course you can get advantage even if the images are sorted randomly if
> your image gets at the top, but the next time it's not probable you get at
> the top again. At least you can't deliberately place yourself at the top.
> Maybe it's even possible to give a different ordered list to each judge,
> so possible disadvantages are minimized.
>
> --
> - Warp. -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Makes sense to me, Warp. Just a note though. Not having looked at the voting
page, I want to place a bet: 13youth.jpg is by Nathan O'Brien, it features
the number 13 somewhere in the pic and all over the source code -- variable,
texture and object names, etc. Get the point?
Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
