Fractured Axel

rboerth wrote:

I like everything about this statement except the last sentence, if by "refusal" you mean "DQ" or "score zero."

tpatters wrote:

I think it should be left to the judges. To me, having the kite briefly off the screen is similar to a panning shot that has the kite filling the entire screen.

I think I'm partially at fault for assuming that everyone is au fait with how Virtual Freestyle rules have evolved. I am, however, going to have to blame part of this on the various I Can't Believe It's Not VF® events that have sprouted as well who seem to have taken some liberties with what few restrictions there are.

Martin's initial proposal from 4½ years ago was "MOMENTARY disappearances may be acceptable" and I've tried to stay true to that. This has eased and tightened over the rounds but I've taken the view that if you're out of frame for more than 2 seconds at once, exit one frame side then enter through another or persistently exit even briefly then you have not made a video suitable for entry into VF.

If you do overfly the boundaries but not enough such that I do accept the video then it is up to the other entrants to score it as they see fit, as is always the case.

If I'm doing this wrong; tell me. I turned down some videos this round on the basis of the above. Part of the challenge of Virtual Freestyle is in making the video, not just the flying.

Mike.

I would say leave it to the judges Mike.

Popeye wrote:

I would say leave it to the judges Mike.

So are you saying that I shouldn't have refused any video, no matter how many times it flitted out of shot ?

I don't like the sound of that as it raises the unpleasant prospect of:-
a) totally bogus entries just to get a shot at the prize draw
b) serious entrants getting zero score due to a misunderstanding/misinterpretation

I'd really like to see a certain Quality Control over this without getting zealous.

Mike.

I seem to recall that the out of frame (OOF) rule evolved from a desire to ensure there were no sneaky edits going on. With that in mind I see the following choices:

a) assume everyone entering is completely honest and accept all videos regardless how long is spent flying OOF, and let the judges decide.

b) have a (panel of) pre-judge(s) examine 'questionable' videos for continuity errors and accept everything that passes regardless how long is spent flying OOF and let the judges decide.

3) set a rigorous time limit for OOF flying and adhere to that so everyone knows where they stand. This may result in fewer entrants.

I might add that as far as I can remember only one 'edit' has ever been spotted in a final video, and that was due to an honest mistake / lack of rule reading.

Given that the nicest prize is down to a draw, why would anyone cheat in order to enter. Fly boxes for 60s and you've still qualified (Keith! You're on! )

My thoughts FWIW as a VF newcomer:

VF is supposed to be a fun competition about presenting your kite flying through a video, so I think there has to be a rule that means that entries that aren’t “a video of kite flying” are ineligible. After all, if the major prize is randomly drawn (which I think is a good way to encourage participation BTW) then you only need to be in it to win it. The lure of a top end kite is strong enough that I’m sure there are those who would happily suffer ridicule for an entry that showed a take-off and flight straight out of frame and nothing more… Flying out of frame for a long time would also allow an unscrupulous entrant to make a subtle cut to a new scene more easily, but short departures in a routine where you’ve clearly tried to stay in shot should be OK. There is one pre-requisite to this though, which is the fair rejection/acceptance of all entries on a consistent basis. In that respect, I think it’s essential that the decision is made by one person (Mike). I also like the fact that the scoring is non-prescriptive, i.e. you don’t automatically lose 1 point for each time you fly out of frame, but rather it’s left to each judge to decide if the departures are significant or not. Of course, the more you are in frame, the more time you have to show off your flying, or in my case, the more opportunity I have to crash.

So I think the current system is about right as it is. If you are out of frame more than you are in, it shouldn’t be allowed. If you are out of frame for a long time it shouldn’t be allowed. If you fly out of frame and then fly back in using a different kite, it shouldn’t be allowed If the prizes are significant (and they are) there has to be a minimum standard (of entry not of flying), and there have to be some rules – that’s the only way it works in my view – and I don’t think the requirements we have at the moment really restrict anyone from entering if they want to, especially with Mike offering to check entries before the deadline and allowing you to have another go it’s rejected.

Andy S wrote:

Fly boxes for 60s and you've still qualified (Keith! You're on! )

I'll get my tail...

Keithgrif wrote:

I'll get my tail...

And this is precisely why we should have standards

Let's take another tack - does anyone think that any of the videos from VF10 & 11 should have been excluded on the grounds of excessively leaving the frame ? If not, how much more would have been acceptable ? Show your work.

Mike.

I'm in agreement with Benjai. Having some initial gatekeeper to filter out frivolous entries or entries that are too much out of frame seems reasonable. After that, common sense and generosity seem to be driving the scoring, which is a good thing.

I also like the great diversity of the entries, with lots of different ideas, styles, and approaches on display. One of the reasons why VF is getting this diversity is because the rules and standards are rather non-dogmatic. This implies that, when scoring, you are trying to take each flyer on his or her own merits. "Fly your kite, fly your way" is a great mantra, and that idea was definitely driving my approach to the scoring.

All the entries in VF 10 and 11 are, in my mind, good entries, all of them worthy of inclusion in the competition.

Sorry guys, I still don't see the point of rejecting videos in order to improve the quality of entrys.

Staying in frame is just one aspect of quality - you could launch and just fly figure sloppy circles for 60 seconds, spend 30 seconds doing a cartwheel, or even just hover. Where do you draw the line? If you want to improve quality, then you need a tiered and tracked scoring system, which seems too complicated to bother with.

If there is a new rule, I think it needs to be pretty clear-cut, not subjective. For example, if the kite completely exits the frame for ANY period of time, then its disqualified.

As I understand it, we want more people to participate, rejecting entrys will not do that.

tpatters wrote:

Sorry guys, I still don't see the point of rejecting videos in order to improve the quality of entries.

No videos were rejected by me on the basis of quality. They were rejected on the basis of not meeting what few rules we have. Mostly it was flying outside the frame but also it was not starting from the ground.

As I said, I should have made it crystal clear that this is expected not merely suggested. And I know that I have been more lenient than some people would like.

If there is a new rule....

It's not a new rule. It's been there from the very start of Virtual Freestyle (see 4th point under The Video).

rejecting entries will not do that.

Nor will letting through entries that don't meet the few requirements we do set out.

Mike.

Zippy8 wrote:

Let's take another tack - does anyone think that any of the videos from VF10 & 11 should have been excluded on the grounds of excessively leaving the frame ? If not, how much more would have been acceptable ? Show your work.

Mike.

OK, then I will

You can call this a little sad if you like, but I’ve been through the videos again to try to put a figure to this whole “OOF” debate… If you really want I can show you the workings, but here’s the analysis of all the entries to VF11:

Total 24 entries, total 29 OOF’s (instances of the kite being completely out of frame), at an average of 1.2 OOF’s per entry.
The minimum number of OOF in an entry was 0, and the maximum was 7.
The average duration of an OOF was 0.4 seconds, with the longest 2.1 seconds and the shortest 0.03 seconds.
The highest proportion of time in any entry spent OOF was 5%, and the average under 1%.

So, I’d say that OOF’s weren’t really an issue this time, but that there were a couple of entries that were a little bit borderline on the grounds of multiple OOFs or OOF’s exceeding a couple of seconds in length. Just my view of course…

Just for fun, here are couple more stats…

Longest intro = 14 seconds, average = 6 seconds.
Longest outro = 38 seconds, average = 9 seconds.
Lowest proportion of video actually between the intro and outro = 62%, average = 84%.

Not sure if all that helps the debate or not, but it gave me an excuse to watch the videos again, and you did ask for views and justification…

Great stats!

What % of entrys contained OOFs of any duration?

Nice work Benjai!

In the two rounds I participated, I didn't find the OOF-question to be a problem.
If I think a kite is a bit too much OOF, and it affects the overall impression, the score will be lower.
But I DO think we need the videos to be evaluated before they are allowed to enter the contest.... and you're doing a fine job on this too, Mike! If in doubt, let the video through and let the "real" judges decide

Good luck to all...

Zippy8 wrote:

Popeye wrote:

I would say leave it to the judges Mike.

So are you saying that I shouldn't have refused any video, no matter how many times it flitted out of shot ?

No not at all Mike unfortunately my post is out of context because it's the wrong place looks like you slipped yours in just before mine. I'm only really talking about minor OOF infringments.

benjai wrote:

You can call this a little sad if you like

This is a little sad. And this is me talking.

So, I’d say that OOF’s weren’t really an issue this time, but that there were a couple of entries that were a little bit borderline on the grounds of multiple OOFs or OOF’s exceeding a couple of seconds in length.

So the entries that were accepted were OK, according to your statistical analysis, but what about the ones I didn't let through.

I, for one, don't want to go to a hard rule that exiting the frame means your video isn't accepted. I know the pain of spending time shooting a VF entry, thinking you've got a nice, representative bit of flying (for once !) then discovering that the kite wasn't in the frame between 0:48:17 and 0:48:19

I'd rather take a freestyle approach of knowing when too much is too much, without having to define it to two decimal places. Entrants should always consider flying off frame to be A Very Bad Thing.

But that's just my view and not the final word.

Mike.