=====
From lg@pixar.com:
motion blur would have been really good for this scene

=====
From bill.marrs@pureatria.com:
Yes! I remember that scene too - very cool, good choice too.

=====
From mrehula@student.oulu.fi:
There is no such mountain.tga

=====
From jaime@ctav.es:
A bit hard contrast between photomountains and raytaced objects. Otherwise,
very nice CSG on these objects.

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
Very vivid.  Nice glow on the airplane lights.  The main figures are quite
small, which makes it hard to see detail.  Nice snow, but the cliff edge seems
rather straight and flat.

=====
From eallen@highway1.com:
If you had modeled the mountains instead of an image map, I would have rated
this image higher.



=====
From wozzeck@club-internet.fr:
The 3 main elements are nice, and their lighting and coulour balance are very
close to the image. However the front part is a bit simple (it was long for me
to figure out it was a road), and the rear mountain seems to lack resolution.
This surprises me considering the original resolution of this kind of photos
(3072x2048?).

=====
From bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de:
The main objects are too small and/or too far away. No details can be seen.
Make more detailt and make the objects cover a larger image area.

=====
From Martin.Magnusson.7121@student.uu.se:
Good modelling on Bond and the bike. 

=====
From arcana@sinbad.net:
This was an interesting choice for the competition. I think I would have given
it
more in the way of a score if you'd used a heightfield and focal blur instead
of
an image map of a mountain. Also, the edge of the cliff is too straight-edged
for me. :{)


=====
From web_user@px1.syd.aone.net.au:
cool.  but do you notice how the lighting of the 3d objects doesn't quite match
the lighting of the background?
Notable for composition