SIGGRAPH 2001 Paper Review Form

-------------------------------

This form will be parsed by an automated system. It is important that formatting of the lines above the BEGIN COMMENTS and below the END COMMENTS lines (inclusive of those two lines) not be altered, except for the specific addition of values between the brackets to the right of the colons. And it is important that the entire form be edited only in plain text, never as HTML or Word or other formats.

Otherwise you may edit lines between the BEGIN and END COMMENTS lines as you desire. When your review is complete, please email it to

You will receive a confirmation message, which you should peruse to be sure that your review has been successfully transmitted. -- Note that "reply" characters such as the "greater-than" symbol will be stripped from your review comments if such characters appear at the beginning of a text line.

-- IMPORTANT: You must insert carriage returns in your text to retain formatting. Please do not exceed 70 columns in your text blocks.

-- IMPORTANT: If you submit two review forms for the same Paper the second will completely overwrite and replace the first. To append or update a previously submitted review, you _must_ resubmit a completely filled out email review form to edit your comments. We also suggest you keep a copy of all your reviews as a precaution.

Your username/password is username/password

Questions? Please contact your primary reviewer, the Papers program chair (papers-s2001@siggraph.org), or Vicki Caulfield, Papers Program Coordinator (vicki@siggraph.org).

*BEGIN REVIEW==============================================*

Anything between this block of text and the END REVIEW block of text will be parsed by the automated review parser. Anything outside of these delimiter blocks is ignored.

*BEGIN REVIEW==============================================*

+Online_ID: papers_500

+Reviewer_ID: 500

+Rating:

+Comments:

+BEGIN COMMENTS=============================================

Title: Motion Blur Effects Using Film Recorder Jiggling

Category: Research

Number of final-format pages: 8

Before writing your review, please be familiar with the SIGGRAPH 2001 papers call for participation, and in particular with its discussion of paper categories and paper length. The call is available at

and the relevant category and length discussions are reproduced at the end of this form. Authors have been asked to indicate the category of their paper beneath the title on the first page. The length of most submissions is obvious, and is denoted explicitly on unformatted submissions.

Review Instructions and the SIGGRAPH Ethics Policy are available at

1. Briefly describe the paper and its contribution to computer graphics and interactive techniques.

2. Is the exposition clear? How could it be improved? 

3. Are the references adequate? List any references that are needed.

4. Could the work be reproduced by a skilled graduate student?

(Reproducibility is critical for Research papers, but may be impractical for Systems and Alternate category papers.)

5. How would you rate this paper for the SIGGRAPH 2001 Papers program on a continuous scale from 1 to 5, where:

Please base your rating on the paper as it has been submitted, not on the paper as it could appear if the authors respond to substantial suggestions or corrections in your review. While the authors of accepted papers will be strongly encouraged to address any issues and concerns raised in the reviews, there is no requirement that they do so.

BE SURE to write your numeric rating between the brackets on the "+Rating:" line at the top of this form. You may utilize decimal notation (e.g. 3.2) if you like. Do not include text (e.g. "4.5 or maybe 5") on this line.

6. Explain your rating by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the submission, guided by the SIGGRAPH 2001 papers call for participation, and especially by the category and length instructions, which are reproduced at the end of this form. Include suggestions for improvement and publication alternatives, if appropriate. Be thorough -- your explanation will inform any committee discussion of the paper, and will be used by the authors to improve their work.

+END COMMENTS===============================================

*END REVIEW================================================*

Anything between this block of text and the previous, BEGIN REVIEW block of text will be parsed by the automated review parser. Anything outside of these delimiter blocks is ignored.

*END REVIEW================================================*

Research Category

Research papers present a new and useful contribution to the state of the art. They are sufficiently complete so that a competent graduate student in computer graphics could implement the work. Relevant previous work is referenced and discussed. The new and useful contribution is stated explicitly, and its advantage over previous work is clearly demonstrated.

System Category

Systems papers present a blend of algorithms, technical requirements, user requirements, and design that solves a large- scale problem. The system that is described is both novel and important, and it has been implemented. The rationale for significant design decisions is provided, and the system is compared to documented, best-of-breed systems already in use. The comparison includes discussion of how the described system differs from and is, in some significant respects, superior to those systems.

Alternate Category

Though most papers are expected to be either Research or System papers, authors should not feel compelled to force an innovative paper into one of these two categories if neither is appropriate. However, papers that are reviewed in the Alternate category may be judged even more rigorously than those reviewed as Research of System papers. Alternate papers reference and discuss relevant previous work, and make a substantial contribution to the computer graphics and interactive techniques community.

Paper Length

There is no arbitrary maximum length imposed on papers. However, reviewers are instructed to weigh the contribution of a paper relative to its length. For example, a useful idea presented completely in four pages is more likely to be accepted than the same idea presented in eight pages. Papers longer than 8-10 pages must make a very significant contribution to be accepted.