[nwbcc] Rules for club competition

[Tony Cropper]

In article <200701212038.36204.robert at phipps.uklinux.net>,
   Robert <robert at phipps.uklinux.net> wrote:

> **** Comments on IoM Rules :-


> Also in Item 1 it says : "... maximum size of 1024 on the longest side
> at 72  ppi saved at the maximum level of 12."  This does not make any
> sense after  the word "side".

PPI is certainly irrelevant unless the displaying software calculates
that the correct on-screen display size (in pixels) = actual size (in
pixels) * (screen resolution(in dpi) / image resolution (in dpi)). Some
display applications do this; we should (and currently do, I think)
ensure our presenting software doesn't do it.

> The "level of 12" presumable refers to something in the image
> software used by  that particular writer, which I probably do not.

Yes, it refers to the level of JPEG compression applied to the image at
save. Again it is pretty irrelevant. It has nothing specifically to do
with resolution as such. If we assume the use of an Adobe product then
12 means the minimum amount of compression available.


> **** Comments on the WCPF Rules :-

> It says "The Landscape dimensions should be 1024 x 768 pixels and
> portraits  must not exceed 768 pixels high."  But why is it to be 1024
> x 768 *exactly*  for landscape but "not exceed" 768 for portrait?

Good point. 'Not exceed' has to be right as what is to be achieved is
not having images larger than the projector resolution, why should they
not be smaller if the entrant wishes it so.


> Nitpicking, they surely don't mean "landscape" and "portrait", but
> "landscape  format" and "portrait format".

Nitpicking, yes. Right, absolutely. We won't be so sloppy!

> **** Comments on other NWBCC comments :-

> I do not think it practicable to differentiate between "manipulated" and 
> "non-manipulated" images.  We never did so when it was all film images.

..<snipped lots and lots about unsubtle effects>.

Are you saying what the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve over?
In other words if it is subtle enough then let it through? This is
probably the easiest way to go as it creates the least constraints.
Should it prove a problem later then tweaks can be made.

I do wonder if the judges we use can be so 'enlightened', though. Do any
of the judges we use work on the basis of what the club sees as
acceptable or just what they think is? This is important as all these
competitions are internal to the club so if we choose to see things a
particular way then one could reason that the competition judging should
follow suit.

Hope the cold gets better, Jim.

Regards,

tony

-- 
tony cropper
Email: tony at acropper.com                                       bristol uk
Web:   http://www.acropper.com/