There's artistic, technical, and concept. So just take the difference!
Artistic is really the artistical point, art vs reality. What is being said,
and how? Is it expressed with colors and contrasts, through objects?
Technical is the technical side, e.g. lighting, radiosity, scripting for
objects, modelling of objects, that kind of stuff. Maybe image-composition
as well (golden ratio comes to mind, and the use or lack there of). Lighting
artifacts, crude polygons on models, that kind of stuff comes to mind.
Sometimes the accompanying text tells a little more, like that the image was
raytraced with a home-built raytracer, or that some tweaks were implemented.
Depending on their use I sometimes take that into consideration as well.
And concept is, for me, the valve for those who wish to do better, but
simply are newbies in what they do. A 1-week old Pover will never be able to
achieve the same quality (unless with former knowledge from other apps) like
an old veteran. But maybe the concept, how the image was planned, what's
*meant* to be there, is great, just the execution lacks the skill. IMHO, you
can often tell if an image is supposed to *look like* newbie, or if it *is*
newbie. And then again, even if the image is great and from a veteran, the
concept may be great as well.
That's how I divide it. If you just look at one thing alone, it gets
difficult to define, but with these three broad spectrums, its quite easy to
As for the audio-issue: the IRTC clearly states that judges should focus on
the animation, so they might as well just switch it off to watch the movie,
and rate by that. Audio is just considered "ear-candy". Then again, if the
audio truly sucks, you wonder if the author wasn't able of knowing that by
himself. If it's full of static, you can't understand a thing, then why add
it? I for one wouldn't rate it harsher then, though it might get penalized
on the technical aspect (*technical* execution of audio = bad).
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Post a reply to this message