Fractured Axel

Sub wrote:

I realise entrants come from all over the world, are members of other forums etc.. but it would be nice if there was a central place for us all too discuss VF matters.

there is, the link on the website for discussion brings you to the VF part of FA. For my part I'd like to keep it that way.

bryan beasley wrote:

Nice debate all, well done.

FWIW, The only rule change that has made any significant difference for me, was the extension from 60 to 90 seconds, which essentially made every other aspect of taking part just a touch harder.
I like the rules as they are - although there were a few 'bends'of the 20MB limit this time around - the 'Out of Frame' moments mostly went unnoticed from this end. There is always the option to downgrade your score allocation if you object to anything you see... Common sense seems to have served us pretty well thus far. (although the older I get, the less common 'sense' seems to be - 'kin rare these days!)
As far as allocating 'Flow' (Artistic) scores go... the other thread I know, the quality of video production / music / background choice etc. etc. bear absolutely no relevance on the scores given what-so-ever. (Unless Lara doesn't like the track ) 'tis, and should be based purely on what is flown. Of course if someone choreographs a piece to 90 seconds of music and submits that, there maybe a different case to argue. I'm not sure that's 'freestyle' though.

YMMV.

Bryan

Choreographing a routine to 90 sec of music to put a more artistic edge to it would be fine with me, but that leads to another "editing" enigma. There would have to be an obvious source for the music. Sometimes I will use my high end stereo set up in my truck to play music while I fly, but would this be acceptable as an obvious source? Pretty much every entry this round cut out the actual sounds while flying and put music in its place and IMO that takes a bit away from the ambiance of the flight. Personally I like the buzz of the TE (depending on kite) and pop sounds the kite makes during a trick, but that also depends on the quality of camera used if it can even be recorded.

As for out of frame flying there are things I looked for.
1. Was there an obvious trick or figure involved
2. Was there any anomalies in the background to indicate a break in filming (cutting clips together always leaves some evidence)
3. If a trick was evident, where did the OOF fall in that trick (adjust trick score here during judging)
4. How many times during the routine did the pilot go off frame (1-2 brief oofs aren't too bad, more than that shows bad control IMO)
5. How long was the kite OOF (more than 2 secs is over my personal set limit)
6. Did it exit and enter on the same side or corner the frame.
7. Could you track the kite at all while oof (some I noticed I could still see a couple inches of LE)

For the most part I think points 2,4, 5 and 6 should be done during pre-screening for DQ purposes. Egregious OOF would be like this example Must86 posted of his entry that Mike rejected a few VF rounds back. Link here-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHtCfhrv38E

At 0.22-0.29 secs he goes completely OOF to the point where you can't see anything at all to tell if there is still a kite in the air save a shadow on the ground that you can't define. This particular OOF breaks points 1, 3(no trick evident), 5(more than 2 secs), 6 and 7 of my criteria and I have to admit I would have DQed this one. By contrast David's OOF at the start of his entry only broke point 7. There are ways to film with a tripod and stay fully in frame. For some reason I don't quite get, close ups of the kite are preferred to showing the full flight window.

Choreographing a routine (i think) makes it a ballet. Vf is a freestyle competition. There is place for a nice planned ballet, and I'd like to keep it firmly in TP.

With regard to the video used as an example in the above post, it wasn't clear that it hadn't been edited and the kite was out of frame for 3secs plus.
For the next round the 'rule' about out of frame will be "Infrequent, brief episodes are acceptable provided it is clear that no editing has been done".

As an example of the sort of OOF's I am describing here is my entry for VF11

Always good to hear what people want/think and I think that the majority are in favour of this sort of approach.

Your vid is a good example of the other side of the oof argument Yan. In that one the kite goes out of frame at least 7 times and thats a bit too much Imo. Also i think it was the 3rd or 4th oof that could be a real nail biter for the editing argument since it goes out and reenters in virtually the exact same spot and what looks like focus bluring could be argued as an attempt at hiding a splice glitch using a mild blur transition at a fast speed. As for the length of time OOF yes those were good examples of the brief OOF's I was talking about. Its definitely a difficult rule to enforce.

I propose a new term for such visual-field departures:

"Out of picture situation"

abbrev. "oops"

Out of frame or not, I think it would be pretty obvious if an entry was using oof/editing in order to improve their video and score. THAT is clearly against the rules and anyone caught should be subjected to frequent public humiliation.

If you can fly and trick moderately well, then you have no issue keeping the kite in a certain part of the window. The issue is, due to optical physics, you have little idea where that part of the window actually resides. So you see, it is really more a matter of photography than flying.....

To be completely beyond reproach, the only recourse is simply to stay in the darn frame (wherever it is!).

tpatters wrote:

If you can fly and trick moderately well, then you have no issue keeping the kite in a certain part of the window.

Your right, but if you are new to kiteing and want to enter you should feel able to. VF is for all flyers to be part of something more than standing on their own in a field as well as a competition and international coming together of flyers. Keeping a kite in frame with only a tripod is hard for me - a moderate flyer - so i guess it is hard for others.

I agree that there may be too many 'OOPS; in the example given, but the OOPS that are there are what I think is acceptable.

At that time I was an 'aspirational flyer', with very infrequent contact with any other flyers and without VF to aim for and be part of I may well have drifted out of flying.

My definition of what's acceptable stands at "Infrequent, brief episodes are acceptable provided it is clear that no editing has been done".

If anybody wants to offer an alternative, or thinks it is wrong please say now.

Yan

Yan wrote:

tpatters wrote:

If you can fly and trick moderately well, then you have no issue keeping the kite in a certain part of the window.

Your right, but if you are new to kiteing and want to enter you should feel able to. VF is for all flyers to be part of something more than standing on their own in a field as well as a competition and international coming together of flyers. Keeping a kite in frame with only a tripod is hard for me - a moderate flyer - so i guess it is hard for others.

I agree that there may be too many 'OOPS; in the example given, but the OOPS that are there are what I think is acceptable.

At that time I was an 'aspirational flyer', with very infrequent contact with any other flyers and without VF to aim for and be part of I may well have drifted out of flying.

My definition of what's acceptable stands at "Infrequent, brief episodes are acceptable provided it is clear that no editing has been done".

If anybody wants to offer an alternative, or thinks it is wrong please say now.

Yan

WEll it seems at least two of us agree for the most part:) One thing I did to get an idea of where my camera frame is was taking some string used for marking zones when landscaping in bright yellow or orange, look at the view screen and find some landmarks at the edges of the frame. THen take the string tie it to the tripod legs and run out about 75 yards of it angled toward the landmarks. on either side of the camera. Starting at 10 feet in front of the camera I took 30 sec vids of flying a rectangle within the string and at a comfortable height of about 30-40 feet up for the top pass. Once I found a spot in front of the camera that gave me the height I wanted for my window as well as a comfortable width I added another 5 feet for footwork room. That pretty much guarantees I stay in frame as long as I stay in those boundary markers. From there its a matter of moving right or left as the wind shifts.

tpatters wrote:

If you can fly and trick moderately well, then you have no issue keeping the kite in a certain part of the window. The issue is, due to optical physics, you have little idea where that part of the window actually resides. So you see, it is really more a matter of photography than flying.....

I'll agree with the first part...if you use silly short lines and a camera position well behind the pilot.

And I'll agree with the 2nd part for sure...we are talking more about photographic technique than flying. Yet another reason we are losing the plot. It's a kiting competition, not a video competition. That's why brief out of frame stuff shouldn't be sweated, except by each individual judge.

Put it this way: I'd rather have a new flier with a couple OOF moments win a mug and enter next round than turn him/her away and say, *Thanks, but try again next round*. But that's just me.

Suggestion: One COULD make it up to the judges during the judging...majority says you are DQ'd, you are DQ'd. Majority gives you a low score, fine. If not, fine. This will also take all the pressure off the coordinator to make the call solo. All entrants would know that OOF moments could cause them to be DQ'd, and submit accordingly. Problem solved.

I hope you all are not on the fast track to make VF a technical detail oriented (20MB, perfect in frame, perfect angles) competition. Participation should be the highest priority.

obi


[rant]
I hate videos where I can see the pilot...sloppy flying looks sloppier...and good flying looks sloppy. I don't want to see how asymmetrically you pull your lines, the hesitation which results in that imperfect lazy, how awkwardly you move giving slack too late, or how you throw your left arm out to the side and up when pulling to the fade.

I hate flying with short lines...so much so that I don't know what my shortest set is. It's like defaulting out of any precision flying to make your window short and narrow. Sure, tricks are easier...but who cares?! Flying in a 10m circle of sky is weak!

This is becoming a discussion about nothing. If there were no prizes involved, who here would care? I am now leaning toward not caring at all anymore.

I have to put some real thought and planning into finding time for a session, much less filming, and if there is a possibility that an out of frame moment will DQ me...I am far less motivated to participate FOR SURE. I already get frustrated when a session yields cuts too short for a proper entry. I have neither three days a week on a field to fly nor to film for the perfect 90 seconds. Heck, I need to travel at least 60min just to find a less-than-ideal flying location.
[/rant]

Yan wrote:

Choreographing a routine (i think) makes it a ballet. Vf is a freestyle competition. There is place for a nice planned ballet, and I'd like to keep it firmly in TP.

With regard to the video used as an example in the above post, it wasn't clear that it hadn't been edited and the kite was out of frame for 3secs plus.
For the next round the 'rule' about out of frame will be "Infrequent, brief episodes are acceptable provided it is clear that no editing has been done".

As an example of the sort of OOF's I am describing here is my entry for VF11

Always good to hear what people want/think and I think that the majority are in favour of this sort of approach.

Nope, no editing in that area. If I had edited it, I would have reduced the OOF to less than 3 seconds
So, it took me 2 more rounds to get any footage that stayed in frame. That was all I cared about, the tricks were secondary (obviously). From a newb's perspective, it is terribly deflating to have your entry rejected due to an undefined technicality, so I would say there should be a more defined rule, or no OOF whatsoever...
Or... the easy way to go is just to find someone to film your flying...

~Rob.

Having a strict no OOF policy is unrealistic and will discourage entry. As Rob said his entry essentially became more about keeping the kite in frame than showing what he can do.

The current VF definition for what is acceptable remains "Infrequent, brief episodes are acceptable provided it is clear that no editing has been done".

It seems Yan made it quite clear how he will look at the entries.
The coleague pilots/competitors should be able to judge what they personaly see as exceptable [or not] and give their points as they see fit.

May I also suggest a new thread to start ended discussions again and again

I think were starting to get off into the realm of arguing instead of discussing. I think Yans example of aceptable OOFs is fine. We as judges can take off from the scoring if we deem it to be happening too much. An OOF during a trick does take away from that trick and the scoring I'm sure will reflect it. I will use the criteria I posted and judge accordingly for myself if the entry is deemed acceptable by Yan or whoever does the initial screening. As for the editing dilemma probably the only way to get around that is to have both pilot and kite in frame at all times and that gets into a lot more issues than a rule like that would be worth IMO.

Here's my thoughts (as someone who has entered VF, has to film with a tripod, and has had a borderline video from OOF perspective accepted).

We want to keep people entering VF. We want to keep it fun and less formal. We want to make the competition as easy to run as possible (or no-one will want to do it).

As far as I see, the exclusion rules are Ok at the moment (provided the admin remains fair and impartial - and I've nothing to suggest they aren't). Going more formal in this respect is likely to make it harder to enter, or else allow videos where there's no flying on screen - and yes, it's a kite flying not a video making event, but it's impossible to judge the flying if the kite isn't on screen! So I say, leave it to the democratic process of judging. But assist the judges by making a formal recommendation that points be deducted for flying out of frame that the judges feel is unacceptable. Importantly, don't define "unacceptable". Then, if the majority of entrants feel that someone is taking the piss, it will be reflected in the scores, and if they don't, it wont. When I've scored videos before, a momentary departure from the screen iis fine and doens't bother me, but a departure for long enough that I start wondering if the kite is coming back is irritating and I've docked points...

Just my thoughts...

(and belatedly, good job this time Yan )

We are not arguing

[/joke]

• Just FYI.... I don't think I got one video that I even suspected of having been edited. People do seem to have understood that particular point.
• I would hope that we all agree that a return to the original notion of out-of-frame = out-of-VF isn't going to be welcome.
• Conversely whilst a free for all would almost certainly lead to greater participation but you've got to wonder about the worth of some of extra entries and I, for one, wouldn't be too happy about trying to score fleeting glimpses of a kite. And I'd be colossally annoyed if a video like that strolled off with a prize.
• Counting frames/instances of out-of-frame constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. You want Yan to stick around for a bit, don't you ?
• I really would stick a few hard and fast rules in though - if you simply fly straight out of frame at the start (sorry David) then you might as well have started in the air and if you exit one side of the frame and re-enter through another.
• Do the other competitors really want to have to decide about DQs as well ? Are we not happy with the benign dictatorship that has characterised the way VF has been run to date ? Forming a committee doesn't feel like a good move.
• 20MB means the videos can be e-mailed so no issues finding upload locations. It also keeps the overall download size of each round down to non-insane levels. My camera spews out FullHD video at 60fps - that'll be a 300MB file per entry. If you really want a quality war then bring it It also means we can stick whatever music we like on 'cos the files aren't on YouTube or Vimeo who occasionally take offence at these things.

I think VF is just groovy as it is. I can easily accept a few changes here and there and still be happy with it.

Mike.