 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Congrats to PoolShark!!! That was an amazing selection
of entries, I thought, but I also had PoolShark as #1....
Anyone who hasn't downloaded this one should do so -- it had
all the elements (except sound :)) of a quality animation.
But some negative comments about voters:
* In the comments, one voter note he was unable to vote
on some images since ActiveMovie doesn't display images
sized in nonintegral multiples of 16x16 pixels. If
he was unable to view the images because he has only
obsolete software and can't be bothered to find better
software (like one of Microsoft's other free viewers),
he shouldn't vote at all -- voters have the responsibility
to view all accepted entries. To submit arbitary scores
is just unacceptable.
* I really hate to "name names", but r### [at] kol44 kauhajokifi 's
comments were just plain out of line. I don't know who this
"individual" is, but (s)he clearly has a major attitude problem.
I strongly recommend all entrants from this round ignore
anything (s)he wrote, as he had basically nothing good to say
about anything.
And one more comment :
* It's too bad Mousetrap didn't make the deadline -- it was
quite good, I thought. To those who haven't seen it, it's
available at
http://www.irtc.org/anims/1998-10-15/view.html
for downloading now.
Dan
--
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some people ain't worth to be commented.
No not the entrants which *all* did a fabulos job (I would be very happy
if I made any of those!!) but this r### [at] kol44kauhajokifi.
Just as I said, I don't comment on *that*.
To all the entrants:
Congratulations!!!
Povingly,
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Institut fuer Computeranwendungen
Universitaet Stuttgart
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan Connelly wrote:
>
> Congrats to PoolShark!!! That was an amazing selection
> of entries, I thought, but I also had PoolShark as #1....
> Anyone who hasn't downloaded this one should do so -- it had
> all the elements (except sound :)) of a quality animation.
>
> But some negative comments about voters:
>
> * In the comments, one voter note he was unable to vote
> on some images since ActiveMovie doesn't display images
> sized in nonintegral multiples of 16x16 pixels. If
> he was unable to view the images because he has only
> obsolete software and can't be bothered to find better
> software (like one of Microsoft's other free viewers),
> he shouldn't vote at all -- voters have the responsibility
> to view all accepted entries. To submit arbitary scores
> is just unacceptable.
I was that judge; if I hadn't voted at all, the scores would have
been essentially the same (same 1st, 2nd, 3rd places, and the same 3
honorable mentions). In my defense, however, the rules do say that
320x240 is the recommended frame size: "The MPEG file may have any
frame size or frame count. We recommend frames of 320x240 pixels,
however, based on current widespread hardware and software
limitations."
I have since downloaded VMPEG 1.7, and so this problem is fixed at my
end.
> * I really hate to "name names", but r### [at] kol44kauhajokifi 's
> comments were just plain out of line. I don't know who this
> "individual" is, but (s)he clearly has a major attitude problem.
> I strongly recommend all entrants from this round ignore
> anything (s)he wrote, as he had basically nothing good to say
> about anything.
But *read* the feedback that really is feedback: I read mine in the
April-July round, took the advice to heart, and got compliments on the
things I did differently.
> And one more comment :
>
> * It's too bad Mousetrap didn't make the deadline -- it was
> quite good, I thought. To those who haven't seen it, it's
> available at
> http://www.irtc.org/anims/1998-10-15/view.html
> for downloading now.
Yes, it's quite good.
And the good news: I note that the file size limit is now 5Megs
again. This means that we can turn out better animations than
before, with longer stories to them. Let's go for it!
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan Connelly wrote:
>
> Congrats to PoolShark!!! That was an amazing selection
> of entries, I thought, but I also had PoolShark as #1....
Drat. My cat was hoping chloe would win. :)
She's made me play it for her several times already. She likes to try to
play too. :)
--
Lewis A. Sellers: writer and contract Multimedia Website Developer
mailto:lse### [at] usitnet (The Fourth Millennium Foundation)
http://www.public.usit.net/lsellers/ & http://www.intrafoundation.com
http://brain-of-pooh.tech-soft.com/users/critters/bios/sellers_lewis.html
You can bug the living bejesus out of me live on ICQ @ 491461
(If I don't get back to you within a month, I'm out of prozac in some
dark corner somewhere screaming things quite unintelligable but -- most
curiously -- thick with a sumerian accent.)
"The comedy is over" -i pagliacci
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <van### [at] erolscom> wrote:
: And the good news: I note that the file size limit is now 5Megs
: again. This means that we can turn out better animations than
: before, with longer stories to them. Let's go for it!
Don't you know that "size doesn't matter"? ;)
--
- Warp. -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
>
> Don't you know that "size doesn't matter"? ;)
>
I fear that's not true when I try to download the submissions! ;))
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Congrats to PoolShark!!! That was an amazing selection
of entries, I thought, but I also had PoolShark as #1....
Anyone who hasn't downloaded this one should do so -- it had
all the elements (except sound :)) of a quality animation.
But some negative comments about voters:
* In the comments, one voter note he was unable to vote
on some images since ActiveMovie doesn't display images
sized in nonintegral multiples of 16x16 pixels. If
he was unable to view the images because he has only
obsolete software and can't be bothered to find better
software (like one of Microsoft's other free viewers),
he shouldn't vote at all -- voters have the responsibility
to view all accepted entries. To submit arbitary scores
is just unacceptable.
* I really hate to "name names", but r### [at] kol44kauhajokifi 's
comments were just plain out of line. I don't know who
this
"individual" is, but (s)he clearly has a major attitude
problem.
I strongly recommend all entrants from this round ignore
anything (s)he wrote, as he had basically nothing good to
say
about anything.
========================
Personally, i found some of his comments funny :) But ok, they were bordering on bad
taste, BUT, at least he was
expressing honest feelings, i think.
But, with regards to you, Dan, i noticed that for every animation, no matter how bad
and awful, you thought it was "great", to
paraphrase you. I thnk that if one can give advice on how to improve an animation, one
should give it instead of applauding whatever
the person comes up with. Sure, i can respect the fact that they put a lot of work in
the animation, but it it sucks, it sucks !
I, for one, would rather be told that my animation sucks, and why it sucks, and what
areas to improve rather than have a shower of
applause for whatever primitive , boring stuff i'd probably come up with at the
beginning.
maybe you did like them all tremendously . But i bet not everyone feels like that.
Don't take this as a vicious personal attack. It's not meant to be. Just commenting on
something that i found a bit odd.
sulfugor
PS : personally i really loved PoolShark and Rusty's late. Great stuff, no
reservations :)
And one more comment :
* It's too bad Mousetrap didn't make the deadline -- it was
quite good, I thought. To those who haven't seen it, it's
available at
http://www.irtc.org/anims/1998-10-15/view.html
for downloading now.
Dan
--
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
sulfugor wrote:
> Personally, i found some of his comments funny :) But ok, they were bordering on bad
taste, BUT, at least he was
> expressing honest feelings, i think.
> But, with regards to you, Dan, i noticed that for every animation, no matter how bad
and awful, you thought it was "great", to
> paraphrase you. I thnk that if one can give advice on how to improve an animation,
one should give it instead of applauding whatever
> the person comes up with. Sure, i can respect the fact that they put a lot of work
in the animation, but it it sucks, it sucks !
I didn't say every animation was great. But it is true -- there were aspects
of every one that I thought were quite good; there were no really bad entries in
the whole bunch. When in the stills rounds in which I have voted I didn't like
anything in an entry, I try to focus on what is needed to make it a quality image
rather than on what is wrong -- it is never productive to just say "this sucks".
But I respect your opinion.
Dan
--
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> sulfugor wrote:
>> Personally, i found some of his comments funny
I can't complain too much about r### [at] kol44kauhajokifi, as he complimented
me and made me laugh about my animation with a comment something like,
"I don't care if it's ugly, it's the winner!" I did indeed LOL.
But this does raise a question about taste vs. ethics in voting in the
IRTC. Undoubtedly many voters rate an entry on the question, "How
easily could someone confuse this for a photograph?" I, on the other
hand, rate entries on the question, "Would this look cool on a T-shirt
seen from 100 feet away?" I think it's more fun to look at plastic bugs
than beach scenes ('A Bug's Life' may be an exception).
In my voting, I've also found myself thinking, "I don't care how good
this one is; I don't think it should win," or, "I don't want to lose to
THIS entry." Is this contrary to the spirit of the IRTC? For example, I
thought I'd much rather lose to 'Pool Shark' than 'Canyon', and so gave
'Pool Shark' near 20-20-20's. I suppose this philosophy could be taken
to an unethical extreme, in giving everyone else's entry a 1-1-1. I'm
certainly not doing that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Many voters there are simply modelers and artists (call them what you may)
themselves.
I often wonder how many non-users actually make their way to the IRTC and for
that matter vote on something.
Think you got it right about how one votes. I myself like the photorealism,
unfortunately the most difficult objective. That doesn't prevent me from
thinking anything else is *not* good. I've seen many images that have mere
shading, etc. in 3D form and that's good enough for me. Heck I see so many of
my own makings that run the gambit (my opinion of self), maybe that's why.
Except I can't make everything imaginable myself, not even close, so other
peoples images is the filler for that fact. So in the end I suppose voting a
winner in is probably a rather non-calculable event. It does seem obvious to
me that at least the winners in the past I've seen (only actually voted once
or twice) have either a commercial feel to them, artistic value, or realism.
The innovative and conceptually significant ones tend to fail unless they have
one of those characteristics as well. Unless you count the runner up
categories.
Message <3667fc7e.0@news.povray.org>, Greg M. Johnson typed...
>
>> sulfugor wrote:
>>> Personally, i found some of his comments funny
>
>I can't complain too much about r### [at] kol44kauhajokifi, as he complimented
>me and made me laugh about my animation with a comment something like,
>"I don't care if it's ugly, it's the winner!" I did indeed LOL.
>
>But this does raise a question about taste vs. ethics in voting in the
>IRTC. Undoubtedly many voters rate an entry on the question, "How
>easily could someone confuse this for a photograph?" I, on the other
>hand, rate entries on the question, "Would this look cool on a T-shirt
>seen from 100 feet away?" I think it's more fun to look at plastic bugs
>than beach scenes ('A Bug's Life' may be an exception).
>
>In my voting, I've also found myself thinking, "I don't care how good
>this one is; I don't think it should win," or, "I don't want to lose to
>THIS entry." Is this contrary to the spirit of the IRTC? For example, I
>thought I'd much rather lose to 'Pool Shark' than 'Canyon', and so gave
>'Pool Shark' near 20-20-20's. I suppose this philosophy could be taken
>to an unethical extreme, in giving everyone else's entry a 1-1-1. I'm
>certainly not doing that.
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.html
=Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
