=====
From r@dmsst59.d.resnet.pitt.edu:
Overall, the quality of animations in this round seems better than the last.
Mr. McCarter's animation sets a new level of technical excellence.


=====
From r@gateway.worldy.com:
Sorry, I don't have a fucking super computer to load these damn images in two
seconds you fuck!


=====
From r@dial-up7.webbernet.net:
The expectations of the contest are starting to define themselves.  Some very,
very good work.  The big lack in many entries, was story.  Even more than a
still, an animation needs a story.  It needs to be "about" something.  And the
animation should tell it without relying on the text file to make the point.


=====
From r@pm1-21.spectranet.ca:
I think we could use some additional "notable for"'s catagories
in things like object and camera motion.


=====
From r@auasc7-104.flash.net:
McCarter's work is incredible -- it's unfair, almost, to Bashforth's "Melvin",
which deserves to win a contest like this, to have to settle for what is,
in my mind, a battle for second place.

McCarter's stills winner from the Cinema topic served as an excellent model
for me in good PO-Ray coding style..... You've got to admire the guy's
work for excelling in all areas.

One thing -- it would be nice if the disk space allocation were increased.
McCarter clearly needed to comprimise on his texturing to get his work
in under the spec.

Dan



=====
From E079A2E0919E:
Several entries could have benefited from an application of those formulas
found
in physics text books.  Motion along a curve is a valid alternative to those 
dreary straight lines.  Also, acceleration and deceleration can both be used to
great effect.
Mastery (or lack thereof) of compression techniques seems to have been a major
factor in the quality of many entries.