AVC 2006 and 3D Awards

[Jeff Mottle]

Hi all,

I'm in the planning stages for the next AVC 2006 competition and wanted to get your feedback. I think things went realtively well last year considering the size of the competition and it being the first time I'd planned such a huge undertaking, but I want this year's event to be even better. I'm going to detail some rough ideas below and I'd like your feedback.


1. There will be 3 challenges (rather than 5 like last year), as the workload was pretty extreme for both the competitiors and the judges.

2. I'm thinking the challenges will be a 1. a rendering, 2. an animation and 3. something abtract/artistic with fewer contraints to make up the three challenges.

3. There will be a qualifying round like last year where you can submit 3 of your best images. Judges will narrow the field to 10 competitors, rather than 30 like last year.

4. All 10 competitors will compete through all of the challenges, there will not be any eliminations.

5. Judging will be done by chosen studios, so they can divide the task of judging and critiqing each round. Of course if there is a single judge who wants to do it themselves I am ok with that too.

6. The timeframes are roughly as follows:

Qualification Submission period: 1 month
Qualificaton judging: 2 weeks
Challenge 1 (abstract relatively simple challenge): 2 weeks
Challenge 1 Judging: 2 weeks
Challenge 2 and 3: 1 month each
Challenge 2 and 3 Judging: 2 weeks each

This works out so there is roughly 30 days between the final judging and SIGGRAPH. This allows enough time for competitiors to arrange travel VISAs and for me to plan the CGA event without having a near nervous breakdown.

7. The finall scoring will be based on an average of the 3 challenges. If you don't complete one, it will be nearly impossible to win, but you can still carry on.

8. There will be prizes, but I have no idea if it will be as big or bigger than last year. Maybe smaller. Will all depend on sponsorship.

9. There will be two entry categories: Individual (Like last year) and Group (Studios)/Team. Students can participate in either.

10. Awards will likely be given to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in each category.




The 3D Awards willl open for submissions about 1 month after the open of the AVC 2006. The submission timeframe will be 3 months and the categories will be Best still image and animation in both individual and group/team/studio categories.

Winners for both the AVC 2006 and the 3D Awards will be held in Boston at SIGGRAPH 2006.

That's everything that I have tought about so far to try to make things a bit better than last year. I welcome feedback from everyone.

Cheers,
Jeff

[Jeff Mottle]

Where are all those people who complained about last year's rules and competition? No comments?

[Ernest Burden III]

We're all afraid...

[Jeff Mottle]

We're all afraid...

LOL, honest I won't bite. If I didn't care what people thought, I'd have never posted this.

[Nicholas Moshenko]

Great to see the Challenge moving forward. It looks like some wise thought has gone into this year's version. Three comments from me:

2. I'm thinking the challenges will be a 1. a rendering, 2. an animation and 3. something abtract/artistic with fewer contraints to make up the three challenges.

Fewer challenges is a good idea, I think. It's difficult to say whether this particular format (still+animation+abstract) will work without knowing the specifics of how the challenges are created. Will they be designated spaces/structures? Self-designed? Existing? Premature questions, probably, but for what it's worth I felt that many of last year's challenges left too much up for speculation and decision.

4. All 10 competitors will compete through all of the challenges, there will not be any eliminations.

Bravo!

5. Judging will be done by chosen studios, so they can divide the task of judging and critiqing each round. Of course if there is a single judge who wants to do it themselves I am ok with that too.

Can you elaborate on this? Is this different than last year? Will judges be compensated for their participation as an incentive to provide adequate feedback? Will they be required to participate in WIP rounds?

[Ernest Burden III]

Fewer challenges is a good idea, I think. It's difficult to say whether this particular format (still+animation+abstract) will work without knowing the specifics of how the challenges are created. Will they be designated spaces/structures? Self-designed? Existing?

There was so much material created in AVC05 that it is astounding--especially since so much of it was so damned good. So cutting back is fine, but not too much. The comp. should not appear 'small'. It was tough on everybody, but it was big.

Will judges be compensated for their participation as an incentive to provide adequate feedback? Will they be required to participate in WIP rounds?

I hestitate to comment about this because I do not have an objective viewpoint. But AVC05 had the crits written by individuals. And it was a lot of writing. A lot. Of writing. None of us were prepared for the amount of time it took. But it was an honor. I would not have wanted to be compensated, my incentive was that I had accepted the task and wanted to do a good job, as good as the entrants did. Well, that's a hard hurdle to clear.

As for judges crits in the WIP stage, it has been suggested. I was careful to avoid posting in anyones WIP threads, though I read them. The arguement in favor is that it gives the entrants a chance to incorporate the judges advice in their piece, rather than leave it for 'next time'. I, for one, would be interested in what other people think about that subject, especially those of you that competed.

I also did not read other judges crits before writing my own. I wanted to respond to the entry, not the other judges. But sometimes judging is done in a room, so everybody talks, compares notes, fights for their favorites, etc. Neither is better, just different.

[Jeff Mottle]

Fewer challenges is a good idea, I think. It's difficult to say whether this particular format (still+animation+abstract) will work without knowing the specifics of how the challenges are created. Will they be designated spaces/structures? Self-designed? Existing? Premature questions, probably, but for what it's worth I felt that many of last year's challenges left too much up for speculation and decision.

At this point I do not anticipate having anythign pre-made for the competition, except perhaps some primatives like was done in the Challenge #1. As for the structure of the challenges, when you say designated spaces, what so you mean? If the challenged were to be more defined, what would make them better?

Will judges be compensated for their participation as an incentive to provide adequate feedback? Will they be required to participate in WIP rounds?

I'd love to pay judges, but the fact is I just don't make any money on this competition so I don't think this will happen. I have earmarked money this year, first for CGA, to pay some writters for the site. While I could shift this to the judges it would mean not being able to pay for some really exciting content for the site, so I think payment will likely remain off the table. As for participation in WIP rounds, unless EVERY judge provided equal commentary to every participant there is bound to be problems, so I think commentary will have to be limited to the results of each challenge.

My thinking in having studios act as judging centers is that they can shift the responsibilty around and ofset some of the time it will take to judge these. My estimate is that judges will have to spend around 8-10 hours per challenge judging. If I'm wrong on this, please let me know. I did not anticipate judges spending more than about 2-3 last year and I was WAAY off. I think some even spent more than 10, but I'm hoping this will not be the case this year.

One of my concerns with the judging and having the same number of competitors throughout the challenge and having both a Studio/Team and Individual categories, means 20 total competitiors. I will need many more judges this year so the two sides are divided.

[Jeff Mottle]

But sometimes judging is done in a room, so everybody talks, compares notes, fights for their favorites, etc. Neither is better, just different.

This is something that I would love to do. Get everyone together on a Skype conference call and get all of the judges to talk them through. The problem with this is trying to find a common tme zone, and sitting on the phone for 8 hours is not quite the same as hanging out in an office where you can walk around and take breaks. Probably wishfull thinking to do this unfourtunately.

[Nicholas Moshenko]

There was so much material created in AVC05 that it is astounding--especially since so much of it was so damned good. So cutting back is fine, but not too much. The comp. should not appear 'small'. It was tough on everybody, but it was big.

I agree, feeling big is a plus. I applaud the decision to lessen the amount of challenges because, well, they just killed me!

I hestitate to comment about this because I do not have an objective viewpoint. But AVC05 had the crits written by individuals. And it was a lot of writing. A lot. Of writing. None of us were prepared for the amount of time it took. But it was an honor. I would not have wanted to be compensated, my incentive was that I had accepted the task and wanted to do a good job, as good as the entrants did. Well, that's a hard hurdle to clear.

It was obvious that some judges felt the same way, that being a judge for this competition was an honor. With others, it just wasn't as obvious, even though I'm sure that they all felt that way. I completely appreciate how large the task of judging was and that the judges were busy people with real jobs and lives to attend to, so I hope nobody feels that I'm bashing. That's why I mentioned the compensation bit, thinking that it may be a way to ensure that the commitment is there. Competitors had the carrot of prizes dangled before them (as well as possible world-wide fame!), but the judges seemed to have no such payoff.

[Nicholas Moshenko]

At this point I do not anticipate having anythign pre-made for the competition, except perhaps some primatives like was done in the Challenge #1. As for the structure of the challenges, when you say designated spaces, what so you mean? If the challenged were to be more defined, what would make them better?

I found that I spent way too much time deciding what to do for some of the challenges rather than just getting to the job of doing it. It felt like being back in design studio again, and I don't exactly say that with fondness. A good deal of our job as illustrators is to bring someone's design to life, so having a challenge that is perhaps more rigid would allow competitors to get right to the task of illustrating rather than spending so much time making design or content decisions. So, by "designated spaces" I guess I'm talking about something like supplying a set of drawings to a particular building or space and letting the competitors go to it.

I'd love to pay judges, but the fact is I just don't make any money on this competition so I don't think this will happen. I have earmarked money this year, first for CGA, to pay some writters for the site. While I could shift this to the judges it would mean not being able to pay for some really exciting content for the site, so I think payment will likely remain off the table.

You've got lots of other things to offer to potential judges: publicized profiles/interviews, advertising, etc. Maybe compensation isn't needed, but it's something to consider.