AVC 2008 - Suggestions/Ideas

[Jeff Mottle]

I've been starting to think about how to format the competition for next year's AVC 2008 and seeing some images on the forum lately got me thinking it might be pretty cool to have a series of compositing challenges this year, both still image and perhaps even animation. For example competitors would be given a raw render right out of the rendering engine and then it's up to the competitor to make the necessary color grading, compositing etc. Then they would be asked to write a short tutorial on how they did it.

 

What do you guys think?

 

I'm also thinking of debating whether or not we even have pro judges this year. It seems that the majority don't have the time to spend to make the critiques I had hoped for, so it may simply be public voting and crits. Maybe the very final challenge will somehow have selected judges to do some analysis or something.

 

Any other suggestions or ideas for the overall format would also be greatly appreciated. The goal must be to keep the competition difficult otherwise the results will be mediocre, but I recognize we've not quite figured out the best flow yet. It's getting better each year I think.

 

Also, I'd like to hear from past competitors. How much did the prizes affect your willingness to participate in the competition vs the recognition. Organizing that many prizes both before and after the competition is a small job in and of itself.

 

Thanks for your feedback.

[Bwana Kahawa]

Although the compositing exercise sounds like a great exercise, not everyone who might enter would have access to animation compositing software.

 

Maybe the compositing task could form part of the still image, but the animation would tackle other arch vis skills (lighting, textures, etc.)?

 

Looking forward to it, anyway!

[AJLynn]

I agree - compositing is important, but it's only one part of the process and I don't think it plays to the strengths of the forum regulars. I would like to see something more like the first year, with everybody doing some design, modeling, texturing, lighting, rendering and compositing - though not as much of it as that year, which was a bit crazy.

[aaron-cds]

I would like to see a competition with one phase over the same time line. A still and an animation was too intense for my busy schedule. I really enjoyed participating in the AWII competition at 3dAllusion.com. That is a good model to follow, imo.

[TheAllusionisst]

I would like to see a competition with one phase over the same time line. A still and an animation was too intense for my busy schedule. I really enjoyed participating in the AWII competition at 3dAllusion.com. That is a good model to follow, imo.

 

They had some real good judges in that one as well

 

http://www.3dallusions.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=142

 

Sorry Jeff, I couldn't resist

[BrianKitts]

I would really like to see you bring back the challenge from either 2005 or 2006 (can't remember which year) where the contestant were provided 6 or so standards shapes and had to construct their scene only using those shapes.

 

I was totally blown away by what the competitors were able to create, in the end I think it really displayed a new side of creativity and ingenuity that we don't always get to see. Some people are just really good at lighting and textureing and it makes for great images, but I think this puts more of the focus on what you can do with the model in conjunction with those other aspects.

[Nic H]

^ I agree with BKittsArc

 

Something more *open* would be good, something that allows you to extend your ideas and ability beyond what you might do day to day. Something that allows you to really craft and create a showpiece image / scene utilizing modeling/texturing and lighting but still within the realm or arch vis.

 

I found last years challenge fairly boring and staid (no offense to the authors of the models) due to the use of those terribly conservative and very similiar similar models. The fact that the modeling of the main elements was provided was not a good choice I dont think.

 

I don't think compositing should really be included even though its something we do on alot of jobs.

 

Something aspirational that pushes arch viz away from the traditional day to day is what I think would be popular, worthwhile and relevant.

[Spooner04]

I think it would be nice to see some type of group/firm category. Maybe projects could be submitted that were done throughout the previous year, not necessarilly done just for the competition. Maybe have a student group category and a professional studio category. Prizes wouldn't have to be anything great for the professional category. I think if you're just submitting something you've done previously that just some notariety would be enough.

 

*edit* Don't you hate it when you post and then remember a few days later that there is already a category for what you suggested. I'm not sure why I didn't remember the incredible animations I saw here: http://www.cgarchitect.com/news/newsfeed.asp?nid=3776

sorry. Although the student group might be a nice addition.

[vizwhiz]

if The contest Time requirements are Too much

Then, how about breaking The submittals into segments

 

1 person could do modeling

1 person could do Textures/Lighting/rendering

1 person could do Photoshop entourage/Landscape etc

 

if animation or compositing That could be a separate step also

 

just an Idea To minimize The person effort, but make some kind of Team work

 

just an Idea

 

how about bringing back The MONTHLY CHALLENGES?

even on a quarterly basis Then The people who dont make The big Contest

 

still have something To do

 

randy

[Ernest Burden III]

I'm also thinking of debating whether or not we even have pro judges this year. It seems that the majority don't have the time to spend to make the critiques I had hoped for, so it may simply be public voting and crits. Maybe the very final challenge will somehow have selected judges to do some analysis or something.

 

I'm not a big fan of 'juried shows'. But when you are running a high-profile competition, there are certain expectations. One of those is what you called pro judges. That implies payment, but I don't think that's what you meant, literally. I would bet the judges are part of what makes your sponsors comfortable putting up the bling that they have in the past. there's nothing wrong with public input and voting, of course.

 

The suggestion of limiting the judges' involvement to the last stages is interesting. However, I would think it better to have them at least do a simple part of the selections if you do a narrowing down process. If its an everybody fights 'till the end, then they could come in to judge the results. Along the way, the competitors' peers will be advising and critiquing. That could work.

 

Getting judges to write appropriately detailed crits--hey, it comes with the job. Being asked to judge a competition is considered an honor. We just have to find qualified people who are willing to put in the time to do a good job. It helps that after doing this thing for a few years we have an idea of the effort it will require. When I judged the first year, I was really surprised at how much work it was. So we make sure the judges are aware of that and promise to put in the time for the crits. There are people who can do this, and do it well.

[Justin Hunt]

Personally I think the first and second competitions worked the best. The last one, with no disrespect to the competitors, was probably the least successfully.

 

Whilst I liked the freedom to take the subject and run, it got a bit out of control and it showed in the end. In the first couple of comps, the quality of the work took priority and the end results were incredible.

 

As a result the competition got a lot of credibility in the CG community and helped bring architectural visualization to the forefront of mainstream CG. It has been interesting seeing the evolution of Arch viz in the wider CG community. When the competition started, arch viz was considered to be just a hobby, and not taken seriously. Gaming and VFX were the driving force in the development of 3D. Today arch viz is the driving force, especially for render engines.

 

I would be very disappointed if the competition were to fall to the wayside. In fact I would rather see it being a bigger part of the wider CG community.

 

I agree with EB that the judges are a great part of what gives credibility. I also agree that the judges should have a say in who is selected to compete and who gets to proceed. However I don't think they should be part of the WIP commenting process. That should be down to the competitors and public.The final score should be a combination of public vote and judges choice. Hell the format works so well with the umpteen TV competition shows on at the moment like "So You Think You Can Dance" and "Idol". Just don't bring in payed voting;)

 

As to the format, I like the idea of a single theme with specific challenges to demonstrate essential skills. Once of those challenges being compositing. Just like the first comp. I found it quite disappointing that the group/team component didn't work. It would be great to work out a way to get it to work considering that Arch Viz is very much an individual, "Jack of all Trades" industry.

 

Hopefully we can work together to really make this competition stay alive and grow.

 

JHV

[vizwhiz]

how about letting The Judges select The contestants who go on To The Final contest/stages

 

and for Those of us (especially me) let us continue with The same Theme

and Then we can do a peer-To-peer critiques and comments, suggestions

 

so That we can still improve our skills.

as presently configured The Best get Better

 

without any monthly contests only a few can get in The contest

and for Those of us who hang out here all-year only To get locked

 

out of a 1x per year contest (personally speaking) it is kind of frustrating

i may never be as good as others but i would like To improve if at all possible

 

just my 2 neuros

 

randy