The video describes a multi-character motion editing method that allows the user to manipulate synchronized multiple character motions interactively.

Superb. Makes its point really well, effectively conveys the problem they’ve tried to solve with neat examples and a great user interface that makes you want to read about it.

It mentions the Laplacian curve editing method for both editing both the path and timewarping. It describes extending the motion, either by making it longer in length and time and adding the idling motion sequence to achieve that.

The video again is a great advertisement and preview of what their paper is about. Completely sold me on it!

Great examples, clear audio. Very nice user interface, interesting problem, great application examples
If I absolutely have to find fault, it would be that the audio is a little sluggy (the speaker pauses a little more than necessary between words).
Overall, 5/5 again.

2) Spatial Relationship Preserving Character Motion Adaptation
Webpage: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/s0576323/projects/mesh/
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fua5M8gbto

The video presents a method that allows animators to easily edit and retarget movements involving close interactions while preserving the spatial relationships of the scene components (this the first thing the authors say..)

Excellent. The video describes what they’ve done, where exactly it is useful, a little about how they’ve done it, a key idea that previous methods in retargeting didn’t use (previous methods preserved joint angles, while they preserve the spatial relationships using an interaction mesh) and also talks about some limitations of their method.

Using the interaction mesh to capture close interactions which is useful for retargetting motion to different characters.

The video really augments the paper and works as a fantastic advertisement. I believe in general that most animation/graphics papers can’t really describe much technicality in the video. I feel that hinting some of the ideas used boosts the advertising potential rather than only showing the results (however cool it may be..).

The production was very good. The speaker was clear, the pace of the video was easy to follow, good use of colors to show/differentiate characters/objects and a variety of applications were shown.
Overall, I’d give it 5/5.

The video presents a method to perform group motion editing which preserves the neighborhood formation by manipulating characters of the group. It also takes into account collision avoidance, group motion merging and obstacle avoidance to come up with the resulting group motion.

I think the previous answer (i.e. above) captures a lot of what I’d want to say here.

Brilliant. The video describes what they’ve done, where exactly it is useful, the extra features that it takes into account, the real-time editing capability and some cool applications.

The video serves as an excellent advertisement, while giving a good preview of what the paper is about. It mentions some of the ideas/methods used and keeps the user engrossed throughout.

Excellent pacing, clear audio, interesting idea and superb examples that will definitely make you check out their paper.
Overall, 5/5! No questions asked!

The video shows the sound produced when brittle objects like ceramic plate, wine glass and glass windows are dropped/broken.
The author(s) don’t speak at all, apart from going “how did they do this?”, the viewer learns nothing.
There is some text, which I think has to do with filtering frequencies below a certain level, and figuring out the kind of sound produced.

Only that they generate rigid body fracture sounds in some magical way.

The video makes you want to know how they did it, but doesn’t tell you anything about it.
So, as an advertisement, yes, it worked. I did check their web page.

Definitely needs a paper to tell you how they did it. Its a good video from a “go to my web page” sense, but they could have at least mentioned a few technical terms that served as the basis of their idea.

Audio quality excellent (understandable as it really IS about the audio). The examples were interesting, but dropping plates over and over again w/o really telling anything about what is changing (ok, the text didn’t really help me..) is not useful from a viewer perspective.
Overall, 3/5 only because of the coolness quotient.

2. This video provides examples of the researcher’s sound rendering system for rigid bodies (both for impact and shattering). It also provides comparisons of the rendered sounds to the actual sounds of real life objects under the same conditions.

3. This video was very impressive to me. While I lack the technical expertise to determine if the sounds being rendered are completely correct, I certainly would believe them if I could not see the rendered images. In that sense, the video has me convinced of the effectiveness of their technique. However, I do feel it is entirely supplementary to a paper as there is no voice over describing what is going on and there are no details as to how the sound generation is done.

2. This video presents a system that can transfer a blend shape based rigging model of a generic face to any other facial target. Adding more examples increases the quality of the rigging transfer.

3. Well does video that aims to tell the whole story. Its a bit more on the technical side (need to know a bit about rigging and blend shapes) and is a bit fast paced, but ti shows off the system very well.

2. This video explains a system to control a character’s animation in real time using parametric motion graphs. The method connects motion segments together almost seamlessly, allowing for random walks in addition to motions with parametric constraints.

3. I thought the video was well done. It demonstrates clear examples of the system’s capabilities without any visible artifacts that I could see. Additionally, the voice acting was clear and provided a good explanation for what was being shown.

2. This video presents a system that allows users to “sketch” different constraints on motions. The system shows plenty of examples of input and results, some of which are very compelling but there is not much technical detail on how the system work.

3. It is a very good video that shows off what the techniques in the paper can and cannot do (but not how), but it does not stand on its own (more of an advertisement for the paper)

2. This video shows examples of problems that arise when characters are interacting with an environment or with other characters. It briefly explains their solution, and shows examples of how the method performs.

3. The video gets its point across very well, presenting the problem and solution concisely, while at the same time being able show a variety of examples and cases where the method does not perform well.

4. The problem, how they solved it, where it works, and where it does not. At varying levels of detail, but this video explores all of these aspects of their work.

5. I would say this paper stands on its own for most audiences. Unless one is looking to implement their method, the video does a very good job of explaining their approach at an appropriate level of technical detail.

6. The examples are well chosen and staged, but there are a few long pauses in the audio that a bit noticeable. Also the audio quality is a bit low.

2. This video demos a system to replace information seen written on traditional chalkboard in a video recording with typed text, high quality images, and videos.

3. The results were impressive, though it took me a moment to realize that what was shown was a post-processing of the original video where the presenter wrote on the board. Still, the added artifacts impressively handled being correctly obscured as the presenter moved in front of them, giving the appearance of a multimedia system, even though it was a chalkboard.

4. The video was fairly light on implementation details, but it demoed the important ability to insert cleaned up text and multimedia seamlessly into the video. There was a brief explanation of the workflow, which made it clear that the act of choosing the multimedia and replacement text was still being done by a human, while the content identification, regions, was being done automatically.

5. I see this paper as a great advertisement. There are not enough details to understand how it works, but the results make me want to read the papers to find out exactly how it all works.

6. Given that this video was a live action performance, there is the additionally component of a real actor ( in this case the researcher ). The camera work was good, the scene well lit – but I felt the acting could have been better. The voice was a bit too quiet and the presenter stumbled occasionally during the speech. Overall the content allowed me to ignore most of these things, but there is definitely room for improvement.