Fractured Axel

tpatters · Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:54 pm

Sounds like we are gaining a consensus, I feel there should be no rule or DQ.

If you submit a video with a total of 10 seconds of out or frame flying, but 60 of incredible tricks, just let the judges sort it out.

Infinitive · Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:39 pm

A time based rule ("more than 3 seconds oof is a DQ") would not perform its main function of stopping editing, as an edit only requires one frame OOF. Indeed, anyone with good editing skills and software wouldn't even need the kite to leave the frame, and if their handiwork is poor they could hide evidence in compression loss. Besides until virtual freestyle is a competition in which careers, sponsorship, fame and fortune is at stake, cheating is not an issue.

As I've said, I feel any rule on the matter would penalise tripoders who are already at a disadvantage, and wouldn't encourage newcomers.

Sub · Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:01 pm

I think everyone should be free to make their own call as to whether the particular clip is marked down because of an OOF.

If someone wants to submit 10sec of in frame flight with 50sec OOF, well... I don't care how good the 10sec is, in my books they aren't going to get the same points as someone who flew 1min30sec with majority in frame. Whether you make rules about it or not, that's how I'll mark it. So why make any rules?

If we have rules it should be entry requirements only. So anything with 5 or more seconds of complete OOF is not permitted to enter.

tkippel · Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:03 pm

ok. Now my little statement.

VF11 was my ninth participation with VF; so I've just watched all my 9 entries.

Here the stats:
7 times filmed by Tripod
2 times filmed by a real human guy
total 13 OOF's
11 OOF's filmed by Tripod
2 OOF's filmed by my friend
1 or 2 OOF's with more than 2 sec.
2 entries with no OOF's (so 2 of 9 entries), both times filmed by tripod.
4 OOF's by VF11 (=>DQ?)

I think VF is for fun, and a DQ is not really fun, isn't it?
In my opinion there is no need for a new rule, the time when the kite is out of frame is time that is lost for showing great tricks (this is already like a "self-punishment").

Bye
Thomas

Zippy8 · Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:15 pm

tpatters wrote:
Sounds like we are gaining a consensus....

I'm not getting that feeling at all

Some asking for a free for all, others allowing a limited number of frames :shock:

For those that do favour a no restriction approach - how are you going to award an Artistic mark, for how well a routine flows together, if all you get to work is a kite making fleeting appearances in shot ?

I refer you to the founding principles of Virtual Freestyle:-
It is preferable that the kite remains in shot for the whole of the however it is understood that this is difficult, therefore MOMENTARY disappearances may be acceptable
Is this so wrong ?

Given that VF has usually tried to give away the best prize for participation I think a certain standard is reasonable otherwise, as others have mentioned, someone could just enter a piss-take video and potentially waltz off with a kite.

Mike.

Lex B · Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:55 pm

Zippy8 wrote:
I refer you to the founding principles of Virtual Freestyle:-
It is preferable that the kite remains in shot for the whole of the however it is understood that this is difficult, therefore MOMENTARY disappearances may be acceptable
Is this so wrong ?

I guess this is perfect. There is the rule and the spirit behind it is clearly understood.
It seems the pre-judge don't feel comfortable with the role needed to play.
But don't worry, I nowhere read an angry comment on the pre-judging.
Keep it as it is and newcommers [in flying and/or filming] will keep entering the competition, thuss keeping alive the comp.
And keep in mind all cheaters wil be cr********ed. [or so.] :punch:

Or should be.

Lex.

Infinitive · Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:20 pm

Zippy8 wrote:
For those that do favour a no restriction approach - how are you going to award an Artistic mark, for how well a routine flows together, if all you get to work is a kite making fleeting appearances in shot ?

I wouldn't give them a mark at all because you would have sent them a stern email suggesting that that is taking the piss, and not allowed them to enter. And if it was a marginal entry which you let through, but involved multiple five second-absences, it would be very easy to mark: ungenerously. :cool:

Bakardi · Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:35 pm

Infinitive wrote:
A time based rule ("more than 3 seconds oof is a DQ") would not perform its main function of stopping editing, as an edit only requires one frame OOF.

I didn't suggest a +3 sec oof should be DQ as it may be edited. I suggested it as would be boring to watch....

It is preferable that the kite remains in shot for the whole of the [video/film/movie] however it is understood that this is difficult, therefore MOMENTARY disappearances may be acceptable
It seems we already have a rule however, as it doesn't give specific limits 'MOMENTARY' will be pushed. So a specific score reduction per oof should self police.

Mike

Infinitive · Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:49 pm

but if this is all about how bored people get while watching the videos... so be it! I get bored of cascades going on forever, we can't outlaw them either

rboerth · Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:20 am

How about this revision?

It is preferable that the kite remains in shot for the whole of the [video/film/movie], but it is understood that this is difficult. Therefore, some MOMENTARY disappearances are acceptable. However, such disappearances might result in lower scores, especially when they interfere with the continuity of the routine. The head judge has the right to disqualify an entry for out-of-frame flying when, in his or her opinion, the frequency and/or length of such disappearances result in gross or excessive discontinuity.

I think something along these lines would (a) help to resolve the ambiguity of the phrase "momentary disappearances MAY BE acceptable"; (b) give direct, explicit authority to the head judge to make the call on more exessive cases of OOF flying; and (c) indicate that there can be scoring repercussions for OOF flying.

Zippy8 · Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:50 am

rboerth wrote:
give direct, explicit authority to the head judge

There is no head judge.

The only role that I see for the person(s) running the event is to act as gatekeeper to the entries; check them for compliance with the few rules we have then wave them through or knock 'em back. In the two rounds I've held that position I've made sure people stick to the time limits, start from a take-off and... as I understood it... stuck to staying in frame within reason.

I'm really not trying to impose my view on how this should be but, if I do another round, I want to make sure that I'm doing it how we all agree it should be done.

Mike.

Popeye · Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:06 am

I think leave it up to the other flyers to judge Mike but it is a good idea to have a time limit when entered just to narrow things down a bit, so long as that time limit on OOF. is written into the rules. 2 maybe 3 seconds seems about right. While it's true that it is possible to edit I don't think that would happen and if they do and get found out then they should be strung up by the bollocks, or is that too harsh. :badgrin:

rboerth · Sat Mar 14, 2009 10:10 am

By "head judge" I meant "gate keeper," "organizer," "the guy who's running the event" etc.--whatever the name is that we give to the person who is collecting the videos and doing all the other legwork for a VF round.

The title is irrelevant. What's important is that every round has someone who is setting up a fair playing field for the participants, working to enforce the few basic rules, and (most importantly) handling all the logistics to keep VF runnin. 8-)

I'll happily work within whatever parameters the organizer and the rules establish . . . but I personally prefer a flexible criteria like "continuity" to any hard-and-fast time standard. I'm confident that whoever is running a VF round has the ability to make the calls on excluding entries which aren't abiding by the spirit and intent of the VF framework.

Zippy8 · Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:07 am

If it's OK with you lot :wink:

I'd like to get VF12 rolling fairly soon so how's this for an advisory the rules page:

In keeping with the founding principles, the kite should remain in frame for the whole of the video but momentary disappearances are acceptable. Extended periods off screen or repeated occurrences may be grounds for rejecting a video by the organiser and can be expected to incur a discretionary score penalty from the other entrants.

Wordy but.... about right or way off mark ?

Mike.

Popeye · Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:37 am

Out of bounds