From vvaten at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 11:10:42 2008 From: vvaten at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ville_Vat=E9n?=) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 11:10:42 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Join up to ASM juries! Message-ID: Hi, Assembly Summer 2008 has started and we have already seen the game development competition. We are now inviting you to participate the juries. The jury signup is will be handled by Scene booth stand as last year, but its location has been changed to the opposite side of the Areena. It is now opposite the seminar hall. Gathering for the juries is also there - 5 minutes before the jury starts. Here's the remaining jury schedule: Friday 13:00 - Music Friday 14:00 - Graphics Friday 14:00 - 4k intro Friday 20:30 - Real wild Friday 23:00 - 64k intro Saturday 10:00 - Short film Saturday 13:00 - Demo We have some snacks and soda at the juries so you don't have to be thirsty nor hungry. If you have submitted entries of your own, you'll see your entry feedback status from the juries in PMS: go to my account and my compo entries. See you at the juries! Assembly compocrew From vjuhakos at ulapland.fi Thu Aug 7 12:21:42 2008 From: vjuhakos at ulapland.fi (Juhakoski Veera) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:21:42 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question Message-ID: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> Hi everyone! I was just going through this years graphics compo finalists and their unfinished screenshots and they reminded me to ask a few things about the compo rules that are a bit unclear to me. Can you use photographs/material you haven?t taken/created yourself? -> In the compo rules it is stated that "If you are using a modeler, it is not sufficient to submit six pictures of the final picture from different view points!If you are using a photograph, take few extra shots and include them as a proof." this would seem to hint that you can only use your own photos and materials, but for example the 2nd placed entry this year ( http://bassboost.deviantart.com/art/Wildlife-93566620 ) was built over a royalty free image bank photo ( http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1024317 ) and also in the compo rules it states "In addition to the image files, a text file called Readme.txt stating used techniques and sources of any material used in the entry must be submitted. If possible, we will tell the information about the techniques when showing the pictures on the big screen and when voting for them in the PMS system." and this makes it seem that it is okay to use material that is not your own if you state the source of that material. So which is it? Is it okay to use materials you haven?t created yourself as long as you state the sources in your readme.txt or do you have to use solely your own stuff? Also I would like to ask that if it is okay to use materials from different sources - where do you draw the line that defines whether the graphic is your creation or someone elses. I post this question on the oldskool mailinglist since here this question has the most chance of getting clear answers. Also I apologize if this is a moronic question this has just been nagging at me for quite some time. greetings from Lappland -veera From martti.roitto at utu.fi Thu Aug 7 13:32:47 2008 From: martti.roitto at utu.fi (Martti Roitto) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:32:47 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> Message-ID: <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> Juhakoski Veera wrote: >Can you use photographs/material you haven?t taken/created yourself? Apparently even the jury doesn't quite know where to draw the line. Content made by others is seemingly okay as long as you have their permission to use it, but the general competition rules (http://www.assembly.org/summer08/compos/general-rules) are, however, quite clear on the situation concerning whether the content has been previously released or not: "All the material participating in a competition must be previously unreleased! This means that the material in the demo (e.g. graphics, music) has not been used in any previously released production. You may however include a picture or a tune competing in the Sound & Vision track in your demo. Also, you can include some previously released components in your work if they don't constitute the main portion of the work. For example you can use previously released fonts and samples in creating your work if you have permission to use them." I made a quick comparison of the entry and the stock photo used: Entry: http://maraz.be/wildlife1.jpg Stock: http://maraz.be/wildlife2.jpg It might be just me, but I certainly wouldn't agree with the jury in this matter. Over 90% of the entry simply isn't analogous to fonts and samples. -- Martti "maraz" Roitto From jussi.laakkonen at assembly.org Thu Aug 7 13:50:55 2008 From: jussi.laakkonen at assembly.org (Jussi Laakkonen) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:50:55 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> Message-ID: <489AD38F.5020300@assembly.org> Hi, my 2 cents: use of stock photography is ok, however IMO it shouldn't be the main content of the image in a graphics compo entry. The rules need to be stricter for next year (to exclude entries like the one in question here). However, it will always be a judgement call as it is impossible to make the rules watertight & clear enough. -- Best regards, Mr. Jussi Laakkonen (a.k.a Abyss // ASSEMBLY Organizing & FC) partner, co-founder ASSEMBLY Organizing Ltd - http://www.assembly.org cellular: +358-40-582 3959 - snailmail: PL 160, 00381 Helsinki, Finland From bent at lorien.no Thu Aug 7 13:50:57 2008 From: bent at lorien.no (Bent Stamnes) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:50:57 +0200 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> Message-ID: >> Can you use photographs/material you haven?t taken/created yourself? > I made a quick comparison of the entry and the stock photo used: > Entry: http://maraz.be/wildlife1.jpg > Stock: http://maraz.be/wildlife2.jpg > It might be just me, but I certainly wouldn't agree with the jury in > this matter. Over 90% of the entry simply isn't analogous to fonts and > samples. I find it borderline cocky to write "Background stock from SXC.hu", when the "background" is almost all of the image. I am pretty sure that the jury and the people who voted for the image was under the impression that most of what they saw was made by the person who entered the image into the competition. Now; I don't know what kind of information was submitted along with the entry, because if it was just "Background stock from SXC.hu" then authentication is quite impossible, but if it said "Background stock from SXC.hu - view it HERE" (with a link, obviously) and nobody just bothered to check it, then.. well, that's a little silly. Either way - isn't it usual to submit stages along with entries any longer? It would have been pretty tough to fake his way through the entry process with stage 1 being "This image, which I got from a stock site". -- Bent Stamnes - Scene.org Public Relations (www.scene.org) - ZINE senior editor (zine.bitfellas.org) - Organizer of the Solskogen demoparty (solskogen.demoscene.no) From syksyisin at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 14:02:17 2008 From: syksyisin at gmail.com (Martti Juhana Nurmikari) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:02:17 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> Message-ID: <74e567ab0808070402p3fea14d0nb11330e4c13f42be@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/7 Martti Roitto : > I made a quick comparison of the entry and the stock photo used: > > Entry: http://maraz.be/wildlife1.jpg > Stock: http://maraz.be/wildlife2.jpg > > It might be just me, but I certainly wouldn't agree with the jury in > this matter. Over 90% of the entry simply isn't analogous to fonts and > samples. I have to agree with you. I hadn't seen the stock photo but now that I looked at it.. what's that, a couple of photoshop filters + rendered text? I am sorely disappointed. Speaking of graphics compos, I still think that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to have a graphics compo where you can enter pictures handdrawn with limitations, or rendered with a size limitation on modern computers. Due to the nature of the executable graphics, it is very hard to compete with hand-pixelled stuff, and in my opinion that is not even the point. I would suggest the revival of the oldschool graphics compo, and keeping the 4k executable graphics exactly as it is, 4k executable graphics. -- ~Martti Juhana Nurmikari, http://elsewhere.stc.cx ~Love broke out and I forgot it's war From jussi.laakkonen at assembly.org Thu Aug 7 14:19:54 2008 From: jussi.laakkonen at assembly.org (Jussi Laakkonen) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:19:54 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> Message-ID: <489ADA5A.3060108@assembly.org> Hi, > I find it borderline cocky to write "Background stock from SXC.hu", > when the "background" is almost all of the image. I am pretty sure > that the jury and the people who voted for the image was under the > impression that most of what they saw was made by the person who > entered the image into the competition. AFAIK the jury had access to the original artwork, and their interpretation of the rules was to allow it. Anyway, this *will* change for next year. -- Best regards, Mr. Jussi Laakkonen (a.k.a Abyss // ASSEMBLY Organizing & FC) partner, co-founder ASSEMBLY Organizing Ltd - http://www.assembly.org cellular: +358-40-582 3959 - snailmail: PL 160, 00381 Helsinki, Finland From service at aropupu.fi Thu Aug 7 14:48:26 2008 From: service at aropupu.fi (Teijo Laine) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:48:26 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> Message-ID: <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> Hi, Since it's a bit difficult to see from the freestyle pictures what the artists have actually done, could it be possible to display a small compilation of the work stages before displaying the final image on the screen (or at least in the entry compilation in PMS)? I don't know if this would work in practice but it would make voting decision easier at least in similar cases. -- Teijo Laine // Aroppuu aropupu at aropupu.fi www.aropupu.fi From assembly at nexticom.net Thu Aug 7 14:56:55 2008 From: assembly at nexticom.net (Mikael Hakali) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:56:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <74e567ab0808070402p3fea14d0nb11330e4c13f42be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <18631273.8911218110215739.JavaMail.root@imix.nexticom.net> ----- "Martti Juhana Nurmikari" wrote: > I have to agree with you. I hadn't seen the stock photo but now that > I looked at it.. what's that, a couple of photoshop filters + rendered > text? I am sorely disappointed. I agree. During the compo I was under the impression that the author had created most of the contents shown on screen. Tbh I expected it to be a creative competition, so I saw no reason to even investigate further. This would not have gotten my vote after this thread. Thanks for pointing it out. Mikael Hakali From valojuova at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 15:04:01 2008 From: valojuova at gmail.com (Juhani Auvinen) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:04:01 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> Message-ID: > could it be possible to display a small > compilation of the work stages before displaying the final image on the > screen (or at least in the entry compilation in PMS)? That would be nice if possible. People would have more accurate view how the pictures were made. At first I didn't look the picture close enough and I thought it was rendered and really good. -Juhani- From martti.roitto at utu.fi Thu Aug 7 15:18:46 2008 From: martti.roitto at utu.fi (Martti Roitto) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:18:46 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <18631273.8911218110215739.JavaMail.root@imix.nexticom.net> References: <18631273.8911218110215739.JavaMail.root@imix.nexticom.net> Message-ID: <489AE826.5080404@utu.fi> Mikael Hakali wrote: > I agree. During the compo I was under the impression that the author had created most of the contents shown on screen. Ditto. I thought it was 100% photoshop, I don't remember seeing any mention of stock photography being used. Could have missed it, though. Stuff used to make entries should be listed on the voting page, too. -- Martti "maraz" Roitto From bent at lorien.no Thu Aug 7 15:34:53 2008 From: bent at lorien.no (Bent Stamnes) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:34:53 +0200 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> Message-ID: >> could it be possible to display a small >> compilation of the work stages before displaying the final image on >> the >> screen (or at least in the entry compilation in PMS)? > That would be nice if possible. People would have more accurate view > how the pictures were made. > At first I didn't look the picture close enough and I thought it was > rendered and really good. If this is indeed going to be put into place (and I'll argue against it in just a few seconds :) then at least show them _after_ the final image; not before. Images created by skilled people often rely on a "wow!" effect, and that is simply ruined if you show the stages _before_ the image itself. Now, why this is a bad idea: it just is. It reduces the competition from a show of great looking images to an analytic and clinical approach to the technique instead of the result, which is NOT what graphic competitions should be about. Adding watermarked miniatures of the stages included in the delivered ZIP-file in PMS ought to be enough. People who are interested in finding out how the image was made are free to check these out after the compo. Listing what tools were used (in a proper way, not just "Wacom and MADSKILLZ!!!1111") and a brief recepie of how it was composed (in text) ought to be enough for the bigscreen. -- Bent Stamnes - Scene.org Public Relations (www.scene.org) - ZINE senior editor (zine.bitfellas.org) - Organizer of the Solskogen demoparty (solskogen.demoscene.no) From vjuhakos at ulapland.fi Thu Aug 7 15:44:18 2008 From: vjuhakos at ulapland.fi (Juhakoski Veera) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:44:18 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> Message-ID: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B69290@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> Hi all and thanks for the swift and thorough replies:) i?m really happy that my question was obviously not in vain and that this issue will be taken into account next year. I also voted for Wildlife and I was really disturbed when I saw the "source" picture (using a photo wasn?t even mentioned in the techinques list shown during the compo only in the readme.txt). It would be awesome if maybe next year the unfinished screenshots/making of process was shown to the voters during the compo as many of you here suggested so people can really grasp how the graphics were made. It might also be good to make some kind of example pictures or otherwise stern guidelines to make the compo rules easy to follow and understand. That is all, thanks again for clearing this up for me! -veera From matthew at walster.org Thu Aug 7 15:56:33 2008 From: matthew at walster.org (Matthew Walster) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:56:33 +0100 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> Message-ID: Breakpoint has done this for a while, it always made the amazement even greater for me - even the fact that they would fire up a magnifier and look closer at the image. I realise Assembly is a very different party from BP, but their system has worked for years very nicely - rather than being a slide-show it's been a demonstration, and a nice one at that. Matthew Walster 2008/8/7 Bent Stamnes : >>> could it be possible to display a small >>> compilation of the work stages before displaying the final image on >>> the >>> screen (or at least in the entry compilation in PMS)? >> That would be nice if possible. People would have more accurate view >> how the pictures were made. >> At first I didn't look the picture close enough and I thought it was >> rendered and really good. > > > If this is indeed going to be put into place (and I'll argue against > it in just a few seconds :) then at least show them _after_ the final > image; not before. Images created by skilled people often rely on a > "wow!" effect, and that is simply ruined if you show the stages > _before_ the image itself. > > Now, why this is a bad idea: it just is. It reduces the competition > from a show of great looking images to an analytic and clinical > approach to the technique instead of the result, which is NOT what > graphic competitions should be about. Adding watermarked miniatures of > the stages included in the delivered ZIP-file in PMS ought to be > enough. People who are interested in finding out how the image was > made are free to check these out after the compo. > > Listing what tools were used (in a proper way, not just "Wacom and > MADSKILLZ!!!1111") and a brief recepie of how it was composed (in > text) ought to be enough for the bigscreen. > > -- > Bent Stamnes > - Scene.org Public Relations (www.scene.org) > - ZINE senior editor (zine.bitfellas.org) > - Organizer of the Solskogen demoparty (solskogen.demoscene.no) > _______________________________________________ > Oldskool-list mailing list > Oldskool-list at assembly.org > http://justiina.assembly.org/mailman/listinfo/oldskool-list > From joonas.pihlajamaa at iki.fi Thu Aug 7 16:07:46 2008 From: joonas.pihlajamaa at iki.fi (Joonas Pihlajamaa) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:07:46 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B69290@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B69290@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> Message-ID: <6380793b0808070607j5d3b66a6v28cf26a789a217b8@mail.gmail.com> > the compo only in the readme.txt). It would be awesome if maybe next year > the unfinished screenshots/making of process was shown to the voters during > the compo as many of you here suggested so people can really grasp how the > graphics were made. It might also be good Or, there could be small intermediate thumbnails below PTN screencapture, so you'd get a quick idea how it was done. This wouldn't then impact the "decision process" while in the compo, or ruin the Wow-effect. Joonas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://justiina.assembly.org/pipermail/oldskool-list/attachments/20080807/2f80e86a/attachment-0001.html From truck at trebel.org Thu Aug 7 22:37:02 2008 From: truck at trebel.org (Andrew 'Truck' Holland) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 22:37:02 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> Message-ID: <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> I'm also going to disagree with Gloom here. Anything that increases the attention to detail and amount of work involved - i.e. showing the stages, zooming in on the final image to show minute details (and flaws) - I _like_ that. I do that myself, if I can, with the images. Heck when Ra let me see his bits, I looked at the final, then zoomed, looked at detail, looked at the stages, looked at the final release and compared to the party version (party version was scaled down (!) ... so, I guess in your mind I'm looking at graphics all wrong. I disagree (: The 'stages' relevation portion of 'Arte' certainly didn't detract from Ra's picture. Heck, it can even be called a demo effect (: So as for it being a bad idea: It just isn't. It can increase the competition, as it allows people to inspect just how an image came about, and provide longer time on screen WITH additional interest. It changes the process from "yeah yeah yeah pictures on screen whee I don't care" to "hey, cool, they got THIS from THAT." It amplifies the 'WOW' effect naturally; and if the competitor actually understands the process of generating the 'WOW' effect, it can amplify it. And it sure as heck would stop 'I put a font on top of a stock photo' things. (Maybe that isn't what that pic is after all, but in my mind it is now. Probably would NOT have been had I seen stages before being told it used stock photos AFTER the voting.) But I do agree that one should _always_ show the final image first; THEN the stages. And the stages should not be zoomed; just shown. Think 'Arte' again. On Do, 07 Aug 2008, Matthew Walster wrote: > Breakpoint has done this for a while, it always made the amazement > even greater for me - even the fact that they would fire up a > magnifier and look closer at the image. > > I realise Assembly is a very different party from BP, but their system > has worked for years very nicely - rather than being a slide-show it's > been a demonstration, and a nice one at that. > > Matthew Walster > > 2008/8/7 Bent Stamnes : > >>> could it be possible to display a small > >>> compilation of the work stages before displaying the final image on > >>> the > >>> screen (or at least in the entry compilation in PMS)? > >> That would be nice if possible. People would have more accurate view > >> how the pictures were made. > >> At first I didn't look the picture close enough and I thought it was > >> rendered and really good. > > > > > > If this is indeed going to be put into place (and I'll argue against > > it in just a few seconds :) then at least show them _after_ the final > > image; not before. Images created by skilled people often rely on a > > "wow!" effect, and that is simply ruined if you show the stages > > _before_ the image itself. > > > > Now, why this is a bad idea: it just is. It reduces the competition > > from a show of great looking images to an analytic and clinical > > approach to the technique instead of the result, which is NOT what > > graphic competitions should be about. Adding watermarked miniatures of > > the stages included in the delivered ZIP-file in PMS ought to be > > enough. People who are interested in finding out how the image was > > made are free to check these out after the compo. > > > > Listing what tools were used (in a proper way, not just "Wacom and > > MADSKILLZ!!!1111") and a brief recepie of how it was composed (in > > text) ought to be enough for the bigscreen. > > > > -- > > Bent Stamnes > > - Scene.org Public Relations (www.scene.org) > > - ZINE senior editor (zine.bitfellas.org) > > - Organizer of the Solskogen demoparty (solskogen.demoscene.no) > > _______________________________________________ > > Oldskool-list mailing list > > Oldskool-list at assembly.org > > http://justiina.assembly.org/mailman/listinfo/oldskool-list > > > _______________________________________________ > Oldskool-list mailing list > Oldskool-list at assembly.org > http://justiina.assembly.org/mailman/listinfo/oldskool-list From albert.sandberg at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 23:50:16 2008 From: albert.sandberg at gmail.com (Albert Sandberg) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 22:50:16 +0200 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> Message-ID: I'm totally in on trucks way here, and I think it's a shame if the 2nd placing entry is not disqualified, because it's not skill at all. It fights what the demoscene should stand for - creativity. It's not about who's the best at googling an image or picking one at press sites. If you look at the two images back and forth, it's just some effects or blur, some strokes and a font! Albert "thec" Sandberg On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Andrew 'Truck' Holland wrote: > I'm also going to disagree with Gloom here. > > Anything that increases the attention to detail and amount of work involved - i.e. showing the stages, zooming in on the final image to show minute details (and flaws) - I _like_ that. I do that myself, if I can, with the images. Heck when Ra let me see his bits, I looked at the final, then zoomed, looked at detail, looked at the stages, looked at the final release and compared to the party version (party version was scaled down (!) ... so, I guess in your mind I'm looking at graphics all wrong. I disagree (: > > The 'stages' relevation portion of 'Arte' certainly didn't detract from Ra's picture. Heck, it can even be called a demo effect (: > > So as for it being a bad idea: It just isn't. It can increase the competition, as it allows people to inspect just how an image came about, and provide longer time on screen WITH additional interest. It changes the process from "yeah yeah yeah pictures on screen whee I don't care" to "hey, cool, they got THIS from THAT." It amplifies the 'WOW' effect naturally; and if the competitor actually understands the process of generating the 'WOW' effect, it can amplify it. > > And it sure as heck would stop 'I put a font on top of a stock photo' things. (Maybe that isn't what that pic is after all, but in my mind it is now. Probably would NOT have been had I seen stages before being told it used stock photos AFTER the voting.) > > But I do agree that one should _always_ show the final image first; THEN the stages. And the stages should not be zoomed; just shown. Think 'Arte' again. > > On Do, 07 Aug 2008, Matthew Walster wrote: > >> Breakpoint has done this for a while, it always made the amazement >> even greater for me - even the fact that they would fire up a >> magnifier and look closer at the image. >> >> I realise Assembly is a very different party from BP, but their system >> has worked for years very nicely - rather than being a slide-show it's >> been a demonstration, and a nice one at that. >> >> Matthew Walster >> >> 2008/8/7 Bent Stamnes : >> >>> could it be possible to display a small >> >>> compilation of the work stages before displaying the final image on >> >>> the >> >>> screen (or at least in the entry compilation in PMS)? >> >> That would be nice if possible. People would have more accurate view >> >> how the pictures were made. >> >> At first I didn't look the picture close enough and I thought it was >> >> rendered and really good. >> > >> > >> > If this is indeed going to be put into place (and I'll argue against >> > it in just a few seconds :) then at least show them _after_ the final >> > image; not before. Images created by skilled people often rely on a >> > "wow!" effect, and that is simply ruined if you show the stages >> > _before_ the image itself. >> > >> > Now, why this is a bad idea: it just is. It reduces the competition >> > from a show of great looking images to an analytic and clinical >> > approach to the technique instead of the result, which is NOT what >> > graphic competitions should be about. Adding watermarked miniatures of >> > the stages included in the delivered ZIP-file in PMS ought to be >> > enough. People who are interested in finding out how the image was >> > made are free to check these out after the compo. >> > >> > Listing what tools were used (in a proper way, not just "Wacom and >> > MADSKILLZ!!!1111") and a brief recepie of how it was composed (in >> > text) ought to be enough for the bigscreen. >> > >> > -- >> > Bent Stamnes >> > - Scene.org Public Relations (www.scene.org) >> > - ZINE senior editor (zine.bitfellas.org) >> > - Organizer of the Solskogen demoparty (solskogen.demoscene.no) >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Oldskool-list mailing list >> > Oldskool-list at assembly.org >> > http://justiina.assembly.org/mailman/listinfo/oldskool-list >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Oldskool-list mailing list >> Oldskool-list at assembly.org >> http://justiina.assembly.org/mailman/listinfo/oldskool-list > _______________________________________________ > Oldskool-list mailing list > Oldskool-list at assembly.org > http://justiina.assembly.org/mailman/listinfo/oldskool-list > From gasman at raww.org Fri Aug 8 00:08:41 2008 From: gasman at raww.org (Matthew Westcott) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 22:08:41 +0100 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> Message-ID: <472EF43E-F73C-46BE-ABD2-E1B3C96EF0A8@raww.org> On 7 Aug 2008, at 20:37, Andrew 'Truck' Holland wrote: > So as for it being a bad idea: It just isn't. It can increase the > competition, as it allows people to inspect just how an image came > about, and provide longer time on screen WITH additional interest. > It changes the process from "yeah yeah yeah pictures on screen whee > I don't care" to "hey, cool, they got THIS from THAT." It amplifies > the 'WOW' effect naturally; and if the competitor actually > understands the process of generating the 'WOW' effect, it can > amplify it. What Truck said. How close does your typical Assembly visitor get to seeing "the creative process"? Showing work stages is pretty much the difference between "Here's some stuff that those guys upstairs made. Now sit quietly and be appreciative of how great we are" and "This is what we do. People like you are making this stuff - it doesn't just arrive here from another planet. Why don't you try it some time?" Although, playing devil's advocate for a moment: it's hard to see why this should only apply to graphics. If I suggested that demo compos should include a bit where key scenes get played back in wireframe, or that musicians should expect their stuff to be replayed with tracks randomly muted, you'd rightly think I'd gone mad, so why should graphics entries be treated like that? I don't actually have the answer, but I guess it must be something to do with 'trickery' being regarded as acceptable or even positive in some disciplines more than others. - gasman From bent at lorien.no Fri Aug 8 00:46:45 2008 From: bent at lorien.no (Bent Stamnes) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:46:45 +0200 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <472EF43E-F73C-46BE-ABD2-E1B3C96EF0A8@raww.org> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> <472EF43E-F73C-46BE-ABD2-E1B3C96EF0A8@raww.org> Message-ID: > If I suggested that demo compos should include a bit where key > scenes get played back in wireframe, or that musicians should expect > their stuff to be replayed with tracks randomly muted, you'd rightly > think I'd gone mad, Correct. :) > so why should graphics entries be treated like that? I don't > actually have the answer, but I guess it must be something to do > with 'trickery' being regarded as acceptable or even positive in > some disciplines more than others. I don't have an answer either (and Truck has some good points indeed), but I think that perhaps it is that graphics is so easily faked. Demos (or music, unless it's just a complete rip) are not. -- Bent Stamnes - Scene.org Public Relations (www.scene.org) - ZINE senior editor (zine.bitfellas.org) - Organizer of the Solskogen demoparty (solskogen.demoscene.no) From juhovh at iki.fi Fri Aug 8 05:40:48 2008 From: juhovh at iki.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Juho_V=E4h=E4-Herttua?=) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:40:48 +0800 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> Message-ID: <60F5568A-F9E1-4415-8225-9DC100ED83FE@iki.fi> On 8.8.2008, at 4.50, Albert Sandberg wrote: > I'm totally in on trucks way here, and I think it's a shame if the 2nd > placing entry is not disqualified, because it's not skill at all. It > fights what the demoscene should stand for - creativity. It's not I am also curious why the 2nd placing entry is not disqualified, and I don't care much about creativity. Creativity is all left to the judges and the audience to decide and they have spoken, although maybe not so well informed. However, the stock photo it uses in the background uses a license that says the following: "SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!" - http://www.sxc.hu/txt/license.html Assembly redistributes the image (in its edited form), and last time I checked the rules (a while ago I admit) also wants the rights for that. Only thing one can dispute is that the edited image is not enough related to the original so that the license rule would apply, but even in that case it looks a bit shady. So is this all just ok with the compo rules, and can I start to rip off copyrighted stuff to the background in that large amounts as well, since my graphical skills are very limited? Better make it all straight at once, certain organizations might also be interested in this kind of ruling. Juho From jaakko at setala.fi Fri Aug 8 10:54:32 2008 From: jaakko at setala.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jaakko_Set=E4l=E4?=) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:54:32 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <60F5568A-F9E1-4415-8225-9DC100ED83FE@iki.fi> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> <60F5568A-F9E1-4415-8225-9DC100ED83FE@iki.fi> Message-ID: <489BFBB8.5020603@setala.fi> Juho V?h?-Herttua wrote: > On 8.8.2008, at 4.50, Albert Sandberg wrote: > >> I'm totally in on trucks way here, and I think it's a shame if the 2nd >> placing entry is not disqualified, because it's not skill at all. It >> fights what the demoscene should stand for - creativity. It's not > > I am also curious why the 2nd placing entry is not disqualified, and > I don't care much about creativity. Creativity is all left to the > judges and the audience to decide and they have spoken, although > maybe not so well informed. However, the stock photo it uses in the > background uses a license that says the following: > > "SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH > OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH > OTHERS!" - http://www.sxc.hu/txt/license.html Reading the license a couple of times revealed that the limitation you mentioned does NOT apply on derivative work (just the photo as itself). I think the license is valid for Assembly entries, although it limits (unless the participant havent asked for permission) the use in selling the work as a print. -- Jaakko 'JJaska' Set?l? Assembly Organizing / Systems Crew Function Head From martti.roitto at utu.fi Fri Aug 8 11:17:22 2008 From: martti.roitto at utu.fi (Martti Roitto) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:17:22 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <489BFBB8.5020603@setala.fi> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> <60F5568A-F9E1-4415-8225-9DC100ED83FE@iki.fi> <489BFBB8.5020603@setala.fi> Message-ID: <489C0112.7010404@utu.fi> Jaakko Set?l? wrote: > Reading the license a couple of times revealed that the limitation you > mentioned does NOT apply on derivative work (just the photo as itself). The widely accepted definition of derivative work includes translation, reproduction, abridgment, condensation, and adaptation in general, among other things that don't apply here. I can't see how this work adapts anything or makes anything new out of the previously published photo. Colorization, adding a text and a few brush strokes is not even nearly enough original content to fit the definition. Things would be greatly different had he, for example, recreated the photo in PS/whatever. -- Martti "maraz" Roitto From jaakko at setala.fi Fri Aug 8 12:56:48 2008 From: jaakko at setala.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jaakko_Set=E4l=E4?=) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:56:48 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <489C0112.7010404@utu.fi> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <489ACF4F.2060506@utu.fi> <489AE10A.1060306@aropupu.fi> <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> <60F5568A-F9E1-4415-8225-9DC100ED83FE@iki.fi> <489BFBB8.5020603@setala.fi> <489C0112.7010404@utu.fi> Message-ID: <489C1860.5090909@setala.fi> Martti Roitto wrote: > Jaakko Set?l? wrote: >> Reading the license a couple of times revealed that the limitation you >> mentioned does NOT apply on derivative work (just the photo as itself). > > The widely accepted definition of derivative work includes translation, > reproduction, abridgment, condensation, and adaptation in general, among > other things that don't apply here. > > I can't see how this work adapts anything or makes anything new out of > the previously published photo. Colorization, adding a text and a few > brush strokes is not even nearly enough original content to fit the > definition. Could be, but I still dont think the license itself counts as a reason for disqualification. (Morally I do think that the entry is not fit as an 'original work of art' and should be disqualified) I have to leave the final conclusions to compocrew and will be satisfied to any decision made by them. -- Jaakko 'JJaska' Set?l? Assembly Organizing / Systems Crew Function Head From albert.sandberg at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 15:34:30 2008 From: albert.sandberg at gmail.com (Albert Sandberg) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 14:34:30 +0200 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: <489C1860.5090909@setala.fi> References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> <60F5568A-F9E1-4415-8225-9DC100ED83FE@iki.fi> <489BFBB8.5020603@setala.fi> <489C0112.7010404@utu.fi> <489C1860.5090909@setala.fi> Message-ID: Maybe not relevant to the discussion as I have not read the license myself, but how would you feel if you were the author of the photo and some guy/gal at asm cashes in on your work? I don't think it's too late to take a step back and acknowledge the fact that we made a mistake. Albert "thec" Sandberg On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Jaakko Set?l? wrote: > Martti Roitto wrote: >> Jaakko Set?l? wrote: >>> Reading the license a couple of times revealed that the limitation you >>> mentioned does NOT apply on derivative work (just the photo as itself). >> >> The widely accepted definition of derivative work includes translation, >> reproduction, abridgment, condensation, and adaptation in general, among >> other things that don't apply here. >> >> I can't see how this work adapts anything or makes anything new out of >> the previously published photo. Colorization, adding a text and a few >> brush strokes is not even nearly enough original content to fit the >> definition. > > Could be, but I still dont think the license itself counts as a reason > for disqualification. (Morally I do think that the entry is not fit as > an 'original work of art' and should be disqualified) > I have to leave the final conclusions to compocrew and will be satisfied > to any decision made by them. > > > -- > Jaakko 'JJaska' Set?l? > Assembly Organizing / Systems Crew Function Head > _______________________________________________ > Oldskool-list mailing list > Oldskool-list at assembly.org > http://justiina.assembly.org/mailman/listinfo/oldskool-list > From gasman at raww.org Fri Aug 8 19:53:43 2008 From: gasman at raww.org (Matthew Westcott) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:53:43 +0200 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> <60F5568A-F9E1-4415-8225-9DC100ED83FE@iki.fi> <489BFBB8.5020603@setala.fi> <489C0112.7010404@utu.fi> <489C1860.5090909@setala.fi> Message-ID: On 8 Aug 2008, at 14:34, Albert Sandberg wrote: > Maybe not relevant to the discussion as I have not read the license > myself, but how would you feel if you were the author of the photo and > some guy/gal at asm cashes in on your work? Well, this *is* stock photography we're talking about. Every photographer uploading their stuff to sxc.hu should, I hope, be well aware that they're giving up control over where that picture is going to be used, including uses that could potentially make other people money. If someone had stuck the words "Explore the dramatic scenery of Iceland!" on top of that picture and used it to sell package holidays, that would be perfectly fine (indeed, that would be the whole point of stock photography). I agree with everyone else that this entry isn't in the spirit of fair competition - but in my eyes it is a legitimate use of stock photography. - gasman From taelkall at st.jyu.fi Fri Aug 8 23:08:18 2008 From: taelkall at st.jyu.fi (Elina Kallunki||Vantte Kilappa) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:08:18 +0300 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question In-Reply-To: References: <42A46D5E2238244782DCC9D7F206F6988EC7B6928F@EXMBSRV-01.ulapland.local> <20080807193702.GR3498@cube.lomal.la> <60F5568A-F9E1-4415-8225-9DC100ED83FE@iki.fi> <489BFBB8.5020603@setala.fi> <489C0112.7010404@utu.fi> <489C1860.5090909@setala.fi> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20080808230818.00e58ad0@pop.st.jyu.fi> >I agree with everyone else that this entry isn't in the spirit of >fair competition - but in my eyes it is a legitimate use of stock >photography. Now that I'm reading these, it's perhaps time to admit that I was in the graphics jury. We discussed this image and saw that it's a stock photograph with very little manipulation, but under the information at that time, we cocluded that the image was public domain and that it did not break any copyrights. Even after this, I was against allowing the image to be shown, just because it was 'lazy', and felt cheap against the other entries in the compo. This was perhaps a bad choise of words, as a discussion ensued and the majority of the jurors were of the opinion that it was not our place to decide what a definition of lazy is and whether works should be disqualified just because they don't display effort. In the end, the image was fairly graded and that decided its fate. Some of the jurors just liked it more than I did and it passed the screening threshold. Simple as that. Possible copyright issues aside, I think the other jurors were right. It was indeed not my place to say that the image shouldn't recieve a fair chanse just because it wasn't the product of much work, and especially the jury should grade the images mainly on whether they look good, as long as the compo rules were not broken. I don't know about you, but I liked the previous Drawn Graphics / Freestyle Graphics -division. Even though it may seem arbitrary, some kind of a division like that feels necessary, concidering that photographs, renderings and pixel art really aren't the same. - Warma / Faemiyah From maija at writeme.com Mon Aug 11 14:51:59 2008 From: maija at writeme.com (Maija Haavisto) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:51:59 -0500 Subject: [ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question Message-ID: <20080811115159.3696111581F@ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com> > And it sure as heck would stop 'I put a font on top of a stock > photo' things. (Maybe that isn't what that pic is after all, but in > my mind it is now. Probably would NOT have been had I seen stages > before being told it used stock photos AFTER the voting.) > > But I do agree that one should _always_ show the final image first; > THEN the stages. And the stages should not be zoomed; just shown. > Think 'Arte' again. I think this is not the only time when a picture has won a prize largely owing to confusion about the techniques used in the creation process. Several years ago a fairly unimpressive photo won the freestyle graphics compo (to the author's credit it was their own photo, not someone else's). I was puzzled, but when I asked several people it turned out they had voted for it because they thought it was either a) a digital painting or b) a rendered picture. That year the techniques were not listed on the screen, but even now you can apparently enter just about anything (secret ninja techniques) and qualify. I have nothing against the use of stock photos and have used stock photos in my own compo entries before (and I also offer stock photos online myself). Technically most stock photo licenses allow you to do just about anything you want with the material, but I still think it is unethical to use a stock photo as it was used in the entry we're discussing, because you are giving people the impression you are presenting your own artwork, when you aren't (IMO). Aside from the curves adjustments, I think the original photo was actually made _worse_ by the edits. People should be able to find out what they're voting for. Even if the stages weren't shown on the bigscreen (that would leave less showtime for the CS compos :((( ), they should be available for viewing in the PMS. That way, those who feel that the stages ruin their experience of amazement and awe could also choose not to look at them. I also think the rules of the graphics compo should be clarified. In general they're quite unclear about what you can and cannot do. Something like "You are allowed to use stock photos, clip art and other PD material, but if the jury does not think that you have made substantial changes to the source material, the jury has the right to disqualify the work". -- %. _ /) That's why I didn't kill myself sooner, the pressure `%-('`._/ ) _ of spelling mistakes. -"5 Suicide Notes" by Saracen Tate `\ \ `'/ Maija Haavisto * DiamonDie at IRCnet * http://www.fiikus.net `.___.'mh My CFS/ME/FM book: http://www.brokenmarionettebook.com -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com