On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:11:57 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> It is the Technical rating that gets to me. Being a Pover, albeit I use
> a modeller. I feel that I can score Pov scenes on Technical but how can
> I rate something that uses software I don't know about?
> 
> Also a technically simple scene can look great so concept is important
> too.

I would concur.

Maybe the way to approach it is to use three different scores that are 
weighted differently (OK, I'm stealing an idea from the scoring 
methodology for Iron Chef America here).

In ICA, they use three scores - taste, plating, and originality.  Taste 
is weighted 10 points, the other two are 5 points each.

With IRTC, it seems to me that the three categories might be something 
like "concept", "technical", and perhaps "realization" - the last one 
being how well the concept + technical is realized in the final image.  
The first two could be weighted to be of lower importance (but important 
to the overall end result) and the last one is the "taste" (if you will) 
- how well the concept and technical components come together.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:07:43 -0400, Michael Hunter wrote:

> I think this is how things have been judged anyway but this puts it in
> writing and acknowledges the imprecise nature of voting.

Arguably judging in a situation like this is always going to have a 
highly subjective component.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 13 Jun 2009 12:22:20 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>I would concur.
>
>Maybe the way to approach it is to use three different scores that are 
>weighted differently (OK, I'm stealing an idea from the scoring 
>methodology for Iron Chef America here).
>
>In ICA, they use three scores - taste, plating, and originality.  Taste 
>is weighted 10 points, the other two are 5 points each.
>
>With IRTC, it seems to me that the three categories might be something 
>like "concept", "technical", and perhaps "realization" - the last one 
>being how well the concept + technical is realized in the final image.  
>The first two could be weighted to be of lower importance (but important 
>to the overall end result) and the last one is the "taste" (if you will) 
>- how well the concept and technical components come together.
>

Or then just give the highest scores to the ones you like the best ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:

> Or then just give the highest scores to the ones you like the best ;)




one.


technical, because after all most 3D applications have similar functions
(model, texture, lighting, and in some cases mathematical functions). Guess we



outside the box and perhaps invent a brilliant way to solve a problem or
achieve some particular effect.
Another thing, some programs use plug-ins, others use inc files, not much



So the less you know, the more impressed you are likely to be about the
technical ;-)
Right?

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:42:13 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13 Jun 2009 12:22:20 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>I would concur.
>>
>>Maybe the way to approach it is to use three different scores that are
>>weighted differently (OK, I'm stealing an idea from the scoring
>>methodology for Iron Chef America here).
>>
>>In ICA, they use three scores - taste, plating, and originality.  Taste
>>is weighted 10 points, the other two are 5 points each.
>>
>>With IRTC, it seems to me that the three categories might be something
>>like "concept", "technical", and perhaps "realization" - the last one
>>being how well the concept + technical is realized in the final image.
>>The first two could be weighted to be of lower importance (but important
>>to the overall end result) and the last one is the "taste" (if you will)
>>- how well the concept and technical components come together.
>>
>>
> Or then just give the highest scores to the ones you like the best ;)

Well, yeah, ultimately it comes down to that. :-)

The thought regarding using the ICA-style scoring is that you add up each 
judge's scores for each category and then get an overall score that's 
used for the final result.  That gives a chance (not a big one, but a 
chance) that someone who isn't artistically competent a shot at winning 
based on their concept and technical aspects.

That also makes it less clear who the winner is likely to be just based 
on looking at the image.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Michael Hunter wrote:



> How about this:
> 
> Submissions are expected to primarily demonstrate and document the use of 3D
> software. Scores are awarded based on artistic/conceptual, technical merit and
> quality of documentation.
> 
"Quality of documentation" -- absolutely not.  How well or badly a 
person can express him/herself verbally has nothing to do with the 
quality of the image.

I certainly also appreciate those that can and do document and explain 
their techniques, but that should be totally irrelevant to the scoring 
of the image.

      -=- Larry -=-

Post a reply to this message

> "Quality of documentation" -- absolutely not.  How well or badly a
> person can express him/herself verbally has nothing to do with the
> quality of the image.
>
> I certainly also appreciate those that can and do document and explain
> their techniques, but that should be totally irrelevant to the scoring
> of the image.
>
>       -=- Larry -=-


sharing ideas. A place to learn from each other. The documentation is central


If you are in it just to win then, yeah why would you want to give away any of


about how it was made.

The question is what do you want to get out of the competition? Do you want to
learn how people do things? Then you need to give them some incentive. It takes
time to do this. If your not going to read it then why bother? We might as well
put the time into making the image instead.

Post a reply to this message

On 13 Jun 2009 19:07:45 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> Or then just give the highest scores to the ones you like the best ;)
>
>Well, yeah, ultimately it comes down to that. :-)
>

So be it!

>The thought regarding using the ICA-style scoring is that you add up each 
>judge's scores for each category and then get an overall score that's 
>used for the final result.  That gives a chance (not a big one, but a 
>chance) that someone who isn't artistically competent a shot at winning 
>based on their concept and technical aspects.
>
>That also makes it less clear who the winner is likely to be just based 
>on looking at the image.

Now we need to discuss the weighting process. Arrg!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:11:08 EDT, "Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net>
wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>
>> Or then just give the highest scores to the ones you like the best ;)
>

>

Were you looking over my shoulder? :)


>one.
>

>technical, because after all most 3D applications have similar functions
>(model, texture, lighting, and in some cases mathematical functions). 

But do they? And after the first twenty or so...

>Guess we

>

True, very true,


>outside the box and perhaps invent a brilliant way to solve a problem or
>achieve some particular effect.
>Another thing, some programs use plug-ins, others use inc files, not much


>
>So the less you know, the more impressed you are likely to be about the
>technical ;-)
>Right?
>

If you say so ma'am

But if I may hazard the opinion that sometimes the technical is transparent and
not even seen. 
Ah well! From now on I'll just score as I like best and not think too hard. IMO
this has been a worthwhile thread.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:

>
> Were you looking over my shoulder? :)

Guess we all do similar things in similar situations ;)


> >technical, because after all most 3D applications have similar functions
> >(model, texture, lighting, and in some cases mathematical functions).
>
> But do they? And after the first twenty or so...



Reading through the documentation often changes my idea about a rendering
completely. Often I come to appreciate images much more after reading. If
somebody does not say much about their work, neither explains the concept nor
the method, often this makes me give lower score, not because I want to punish

thinking and how they are working.

This is not a fast rule though, sometimes the undocumented rendering simply
looks very impressive and this affects the way I vote.

> But if I may hazard the opinion that sometimes the technical is transparent and
> not even seen.

True, and makes documenting very important, if people want to receive higher
score that is.

English is not my native language. Writing a documentation can be a challenge,
but as long a you can make yourself understood, using a few words to explain
the idea and writing a simple list of techniques used, then it is very helpful
to those who are trying to evaluate your work. Without the documentation I
think many good renderings would have gone under my radar.

Hildur K.

Post a reply to this message