[nwbcc] Rules for club competition

[John Case]

All this verbosity makes my poor old brain spin!!

John

On 21 Jan 2007, at 22:36, Tony Cropper wrote:

> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ClubTalk mailing list
> ClubTalk at nwbcc.org.uk
> http://mail.nwbcc.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/clubtalk_nwbcc.org.uk
>