I would have pick 2, 6 & 10 over what they regarded as photo realism. Didn’t say they were judging the products themselves just the quality of the image and that it fell within the guidelines of the subject matter. Would like to have heard the rationale for their decisions.
I think there might be some miscommunication here. The were three winners for concept, craftsmenship, and aesthetics. They are 2, 5, and 6 – I could be wrong, but I think the rest are ordered arbitrarily. As to why they numbered them if the numbers do not denote rank, I don’t know. There is more explanation here:
Wow. That is the worst photo real competition ever. When you compare it to the furniture one it is pretty awful. 95 percent of these are not even close to being considered “photorealistic” I wonder if it is just the nature of the toy biz. I don’t use much CAD where I work… [/i]
Ooohhh… I wholeheartedly agree. Worst photoreal competition ever.
I don’t think it’s an industry issue. I’ve seen some smokin’ 3D work from Fisher-Price, Hasbro, indepenent guys, etc. They just must not have had a lot of good entries to choose from - I don’t think this thing was very well advertised.
If you want to see some REALLY hot toy 3D, check out this guys site:
Hmm, I don’t think it was as widely publicised as with furniture.
I may be wrong, that was the impression I got, I probably got 3 times more exposure to the furniture comp. then the toy. perhaps it was the timing, I wanted to participate more so than the furniture one, but was strapped for time then.
I think a cool theme for the next one could be accessories, like cell phones, mp3 players, swiss army pocket knives… etc.
and as for the judges, they could short list and the public could vote on the best ones. Anyway, that’s how I feel.