 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
distinguish.
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).
2 cents.
Regards,
Tim
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sascha Ledinsky <sas### [at] users sourceforgenet> wrote:
> But in that case, wouldn't it make sense to abandon the three-categories
> concept at all and let the judges simply submit a ranking list?
Yes.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> wrote:
> 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.
Well, no. The rules say to "focus" on the animation. This clearly means that
it should be judged with the sound _on_. If the entry was intended to be
judged without sound, it would have been submitted without sound.
But the judges aren't complaining about the _animation_, but that the
_story_ is not understandable without sound:
"Baffling without sound."
One could argue similarly that the "rusty025" and "travel_lb" submissions
aren't understandable without being able to read the titles.
Further, another judge claimed the rules specifically instructed him to turn
off the sound:
"The words may have been great but the guidelines are to judge without
sound."
But it says no such thing.
> Then again, if the audio truly sucks, you wonder if the
> author wasn't able of knowing that by himself.
That's not my problem at all. I happen to agree with the criticism of the
sound _quality_.
My concern is that judges apparently deducted points because the _story_
relied on audio, even though it's clearly allowed in the rules. I'm just
trying to clarify this now, so it's not an issue for judges in the future.
-- David Cuny
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, no. The rules say to "focus" on the animation. This clearly means
that
> it should be judged with the sound _on_. If the entry was intended to be
> judged without sound, it would have been submitted without sound.
SNIP
> My concern is that judges apparently deducted points because the _story_
> relied on audio, even though it's clearly allowed in the rules. I'm just
> trying to clarify this now, so it's not an issue for judges in the future.
Ah, I get your point. Yes, if the movie doesn't tell itself without sound,
you're right that the sound has to be listened to. Then again, if you think
about it: IRTC's guidelines say that sound may not be available everywhere.
Hence there is this notion that you should try and make a movie *without*
sound, at least that's how I feel. It's difficult to say: "Don't reduce
points because of audio", because if someone can't listen to it, he won't
understand it, and then he *has* to deduct points because he couldn't
understand what the movie is about. It's a feedback loop, if you think about
it.
I'd judge case by case, and wouldn't give a decisive "Don't deduct points",
because if you rely too much on sound, when you're doing an *Animation*
contest, well, you're entering the wrong contest. :-) It's not a
"Short-Movie" contest, but "Animation", and there definitely is a difference
between the two.
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias wrote:
> IRTC's guidelines say that sound may not be available everywhere.
Yes, but that's rather theoretical - I don't know anybody who has no
soundcard and no speakers or headphones. (I don't think that the makers
of this rule had the hearing impaired in mind).
I interpreted the rule about sound as: Not everybody has got expirence
with sound mixing or has the hard- and software needed to record
dialogs, compose/perform music, record sound-effects, etc. So it's not
about being able to hear the soundtrack, but about being able to create
a soundtrack. And as this contest is about animation, the judges should
focus on the animation, i.e. not give an entry a better score just
because it includes a soundtrack. That does IMHO not imply to penalize
entries that do!
Some entrants/judges also seem to destinct between sound and spoken
words. Take a look at the 1st and 2nd place winners of the January 2004
round (finale and rpaz_teo). Both rely on the soundtrack, the first one
on the piano playing, the second one on dialog. By reading the comments
I got the impression that rpaz_teo was penalized because it had a
dialog: "Concept: Weakened by reliance on soundtrack." (John VanSickle)
> It's not a "Short-Movie" contest, but "Animation", and there
> definitely is a difference between the two.
Well, if the difference is that a "Short-Movie" may include or rely on a
spoken dialog but an "Animation" must not, then this should be
explicitly mentioned in the rules, e.g. "The animation must not contain
spoken words".
However, the rules say: 5.d "MPEG audio streams are allowed in the
animation file, but not everyone will be able to hear them; also
remember that judges are instructed to focus on the rendered animation.
For the time being, audio streams will probably be just a waste of space."
To sanction a general "background" soundtrack, but penalize dialog seems
a bit random to me.
If the distinction in fact is "dialog", then I don't understand John
VanSickles comments: Most of his Rusty animations rely heavily on dialog
(he uses this fancy LED-displays on the robots, which can be considered
as subtitles) - [btw, I like his Rusty animations!]
Ok, lets come to the point: Do you think that, if a stroy relies on
dialog, addind subtitles is ok (and will not lead to penalizing the
entry), or do you think that a story that relies on dialog is generally
weak (for an "Animation")?
-Sascha
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Ok, lets come to the point: Do you think that, if a stroy relies on
> dialog, addind subtitles is ok (and will not lead to penalizing the
> entry), or do you think that a story that relies on dialog is generally
> weak (for an "Animation")?
I don't think that a story relying on dialog is generally weak. But when you
do have spoken words, and only with those you make the emotions clear (e.g.
shouting, crying), but the animation doesn't show this, you really "rely" on
the audio to show what you're incapable of animating, and that definitely is
not what an animation contest is about.
If the same mood can be acquired via subtitles, then it's fine and there's
no point in penalizing it because of the sound used. That's my take on it,
and others might see it different.
The piano animation for example is relying on the sound, but it's because
it's music that is being played, you can't subtitle "Nice and moody music".
But, like I already said, if the sounds take the place of what you should
animate, then you're entering the wrong contest.
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>Snipped all of the conversation<<
OK.. I have a relavent question:
If the animation has sound, and if that sound contains dialog, Would it
necessarily be a bad thing to knock points off for poor lip sync at that
point?
The addition of audio seems to really muddy the waters. It *shouldn't*
affect Artistic, Concept, or Technical merits, but can. I think anyone
who is willing to take the extra step of adding a dialog track to the
animation must also be willing to take the extra step to ensure that
dialog "looks" correct in the animation. Though, those who cannot hear
the audio stream would then give the animation a higher rating.
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> If the animation has sound, and if that sound contains dialog, Would it
> necessarily be a bad thing to knock points off for poor lip sync at that
> point?
Sure, but you should add a comment telling the entrant that you gave the
animation e.g. a bad technical score because of poor lip-syncing, and
not because "it relied on a soundtrack"...
IHMO lip syncing and animating talking faces is an interesting and funny
topic (and clearly belongs to "animation"). It's a bit hard to do
without sound though... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How do you know the judges comments? After I entered my first
competition last year I could only see the public comments.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I checked with Bill Marrs (who runs the IRTC contest). He wasn't interested
in getting involved in this discussion, but quoted section 5.d of the
rules, noting that:
> I think that's pretty clear and is what we intend.
> I'm not sure how we would clarify that.
He also encouraged me to correct people who were misinterpreting the rules.
-- David Cuny
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
