 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien Mosen wrote in message <37810D09.9F0118E5@skynet.be>...
>
>And now, "landmarks" makes me fear a good dozen of damn pyramids !!!!
>(did someone ever seen an IRTC round without pyramids ? not me...)
>
Pyramids? Heck no! I'm doing a blue fireplug.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> Fabien Mosen wrote in message <37810D09.9F0118E5@skynet.be>...
> >
> >And now, "landmarks" makes me fear a good dozen of damn pyramids !!!!
> >(did someone ever seen an IRTC round without pyramids ? not me...)
> >
>
> Pyramids? Heck no! I'm doing a blue fireplug.
>
> Mark
I was thinkink about making a bunch of human looking creatures, name
them Mark, scatter them around a landscape, and then declare them Land
Marks :)
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien Mosen wrote:
> Yes, it seems more and more people are just trying to push their
> annoying
> sci-fi images into the competition. For about 100 images, only 10 of
> them
> really fits the topic, to me. We already had that phenomena with
> "imaginary
> worlds".
You know, I have no problem with a real SF image it is the
modern Sci-Fi that sucks. In the good old days the writers and
illustrators at least took a try at being good engineers. I would
love to see a well thought out space craft of any kind.
Unfortunately I have only seen a couple and not in the
competitions.
If someone wants to show me an alien, don't just make something
weird looking, think through the mechanics and the biology. (Like
the ILM folks did in the muscles for their Jurassic Park Dinos.)
> And now, "landmarks" makes me fear a good dozen of damn pyramids !!!!
> (did someone ever seen an IRTC round without pyramids ? not me...)
Yes, pyramids. I would like to see one that even evidences the
research to get the proportions correct. I did that for a pyramid
under construction for History. The real thing is certainly
beyond me and likely beyond POV due to scale and perspective
issues. I submitted it to make that point. But when I saw an
image of two impossibly steep pyramids with a river running
between them, I knew I was in POV-Land.
Putting together Landmarks and Sci-Fi, how many future landmarks
will we see? (Oddly the only thing the competition didn't suggest
as a possibility.) "This impossibly shaped thing became a
landmark in 2053 AD ... "
And I am working on a future landmark thing that I may or may
not submit (also a serious submission clearly on topic) but only
if it can pass muster with basic physics and sound engineering.
I've spent more time writing the tourist brochure (creation
guidelines) than on the POV code.
So much for griping. But playing with the gripes is fun, like
with my pyramids and my gripe about the unsubtle use of height
fields.
--
<blink>-------please--don't-----------------</blink>
http://www.giwersworld.org/artii/
http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/
Finally up on 99/06/22 updated 06/30
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Could you please toss a copy of those twelve my way. Would look
>> great above my computer at work.
Thanks. Should get some fun from these.
Gail
*******************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotix coza * ERROR: COFFEE.COM not found *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Insert cup and press any key *
*******************************************************************
My Software never has bugs, It just develops random features
*******************************************************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> Well, I was actually thinking of doing a pyramid :) Not quite what you have in
> mind, tho...
>
I would have nothing against a WELL MADE pyramid, with some
architectural/historic/geographic accuracy or credibility; a little bit
of storytelling wouldn't waste it...
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was going to vote on this round but after seeing the work I
decided not to bother, as to my mind there were only about 3
people who had taken any notice of the subject, Nathan was one,
and the Blue Ball magic image was another. The rest of the
images seemed to be make believe rather than unbelievable.
My idea for an image would have been something like someone
taking the back of a TV set only to see lots of little people
inside playing football or something like that.
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> Matt Giwer wrote in message <377DB355.8F3BC16F@giwersworld.org>...
> > Looks like another round of fanciful images that are incredible
> >because the creater says they are incredible.
> >
>
> Actually, it seems more like people are confusing 'unbelievable' and
> 'weird', 'strange', or 'odd'. Something can be weird while still being
> quite believable.
>
> Mark
--
Cheers
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error reading file mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I hope we get some good POV made images of soem of the places
around Central London. Or even East London, or from peoples home
towns or villages, a land mark is still a landmark even if it's
not famous.
Maybe I'll create a Wool Pack and enter it in this round.
Fabien Mosen wrote:
>
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >
> > Looks like another round of fanciful images that are incredible
> > because the creater says they are incredible.
> >
>
> Yes, it seems more and more people are just trying to push their
> annoying
> sci-fi images into the competition. For about 100 images, only 10 of
> them
> really fits the topic, to me. We already had that phenomena with
> "imaginary
> worlds".
>
> And now, "landmarks" makes me fear a good dozen of damn pyramids !!!!
> (did someone ever seen an IRTC round without pyramids ? not me...)
>
> Fabien.
--
Cheers
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error reading file mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
> I hope we get some good POV made images of soem of the places
> around Central London. Or even East London, or from peoples home
> towns or villages, a land mark is still a landmark even if it's
> not famous.
Not only if not famous but if not visible. Some English org just
declared a closed section of the New York City subway system as
historic or some such. Now there's a landmark even a novice can
do.
> Maybe I'll create a Wool Pack and enter it in this round.
--
<blink>-------please--don't-----------------</blink>
http://www.giwersworld.org/artii/
http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/
Finally up on 99/06/22 updated 06/30
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>There is just something wrong with the competition that is hard
>>to put a finger on.
My observations:
1) One of the "problems" is that people are too nice to each other when
voting.
If a picture is off-topic, it should get a 1.
If a picture is poorly composed, it should get a 1.
If a picture is a Bryce Render with 3 objects in it, it should get a 1.
If a picture is so dark you can't see anything in it, it should get a 1.
By the same token...
If a picture is so on-topic it knocks your socks off, it should get a 20.
If a picture is so well composed you say "wow", it should get a 20.
If a picture is realistic, even of imaginary objects, it should get a 20.
Basically, everyone voting in the range of 5-15 for pictures is saying
nothing about the pictures they are voting for. The average scores tend to
center around the 9-12 point range. The really lousy pictures tend to get
about the same scores as the really good pictures.
I vote in two passes. The first vote is for good or bad, basically
eliminating all the pictures that either didn't impress me, or that simply
were off topic. The ones that do impress me get some vote based on how well
they impress me.
The voting program then gives you a screen with the pictures in order of
your voting score for each of them. I then perform a second pass through
the top 10-15 pictures revoting on just those pictures for a final vote.
I've found this technique gets rid of the pictures that are really lousy to
begin with and allows me to focus in on the good pictures for a better study
and more accurate vote. I've taken what used to take me a week to do and
shortened it down to about 3-4 hours.
2) I also find that the written text document submitted with a work is very
important in determining the artists intent with regard to their work. If
when looking at a picture you are unsure of what it is, or how it fits the
topic, the text description can be very instrumental in turning a picture
that appears off-topic into a picture that actually is on-topic. If a
picture is not documented or it lacks a description on how a particular
effect was achieved, I've even gone so far as to download the source to
render it for myself before giving a vote. Naturally, if the doc is lacking
and there is no zip file included, you can't hope to resolve questions like
this, you have to doc the artist in your vote.
3) Comments cannot be retracted once posted. While not a flaw in the
voting process, people must be careful in what they post. Constructive
critism about the picture is good feedback and should be taken as such.
Judges should keep away from making statements that are not in that vein.
4) The competition has no way to take into the hours one picture may have
taken to develop versus the 20 minutes another artist spent in a last-ditch,
whim submission. Usually this is quite apparent and can be handled with the
voting technique listed above. However, as a competition, artists should
respect the time that judges are giving their work and this type of
submission should be frowned upon. As a judge, you will spend more time
judging the submissions than some people spend on putting their entire
submission together... including render time. (Most of my pictures have in
excess of 100 hours of work in them by the time they are submitted.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Robert J Becraft wrote:
> My observations:
>
> 1) One of the "problems" is that people are too nice to each other when
> voting.
tend to agree.
> If a picture is off-topic, it should get a 1.
tend to agree, the off-topic tendency is becoming very annoying from
month to month, and should be marked.
>
> If a picture is poorly composed, it should get a 1.
outside off-topic images, I never give less than 8; giving lower points
has no real sense... (we're not in shool, everyone is allowed to
participate
next time); outside the top-20 images, comments become the important
thing,
and point doesn't matter.
> If a picture is a Bryce Render with 3 objects in it, it should get a 1.
I didn't know that you could make a scene with as much as 3 objects in
Bryce ;)
> If a picture is so dark you can't see anything in it, it should get a 1.
I turn up brightness instead... Do you know that some "computers"
produces
images with a gamma that gives very dark results on a PC screen.
> If a picture is so on-topic it knocks your socks off, it should get a 20.
But then, how do you make a difference between the images that are very
on-topic, and those who bring an amazing (but still very on-topic) twist
on the subject ?
> If a picture is so well composed you say "wow", it should get a 20.
see remark above.
> If a picture is realistic, even of imaginary objects, it should get a 20.
...
> Basically, everyone voting in the range of 5-15 for pictures is saying
> nothing about the pictures they are voting for. The average scores tend to
> center around the 9-12 point range.
I tend to vote in the results range... never under 8 (unless off-topic),
and rarely above 15. this give me margin for exceptional images...
Having been in art school (or similar) for some time, I don't remember
many works that were given more than 75%
>The really lousy pictures tend to get
> about the same scores as the really good pictures.
If it was true, the winners would be often lousy pictures. This
is not the case.
> I vote in two passes. The first vote is for good or bad, basically
> eliminating all the pictures that either didn't impress me, or that simply
> were off topic. The ones that do impress me get some vote based on how well
> they impress me.
Did you had a second pass this time ? ;)
> I've found this technique gets rid of the pictures that are really lousy to
> begin with and allows me to focus in on the good pictures for a better study
> and more accurate vote. I've taken what used to take me a week to do and
> shortened it down to about 3-4 hours.
Commenting is important, not voting.
> 3) Comments cannot be retracted once posted. While not a flaw in the
> voting process, people must be careful in what they post. Constructive
> critism about the picture is good feedback and should be taken as such.
> Judges should keep away from making statements that are not in that vein.
... and I'll add that "nice image" is not a very helpful comment to
someone
that made a fair image.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
