Visa resultat

Computer Graphics-2008/2009, TDA361

1. Attendance on lectures

55 svarande

<25%»		4		7%
25-50%»		3		5%
50-75%»		6		10%
>75%»		42		76%

Genomsnitt: 3.56

- I usually skip most lectures... I learn better by reading i guess...» (<25%)
- Det krockade med "Types for programs and proofs".» (25-50%)
- Duktig föreläsare, dock kunde det bli lite mycket "namedropping" ibland av olika saker utan att man hängde med vad det var.» (>75%)
- all of them» (>75%)
- Good lectures but sometimes lacking in explaining certain things» (>75%)

2. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		1		1%
Rather well»		23		41%
Very well»		31		56%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- Too few assistants, had to wait a very long every time we just wanted to show our solutions to the labs.» (Rather badly)
- The only annoying part was that the labs were too full most of the time.» (Rather well)
- The only thing I would want is to know what pages to read when the course starts in case I want to read some days before the lecture.» (Rather well)
- Could"ve been better with an electronic hand-in system for the labs since the queues were murderous deadline-nights.» (Rather well)
- Everything was well prepared and it communicated clearly what was expected of the students and by when.» (Very well)

3. How demanding was the course?

Not at all demanding»		0		0%
Slightly demanding»		8		14%
Quite demanding»		21		38%
Demanding»		21		38%
Very demanding»		5		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.41 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The tutorials were more demanding than the exam in my opinion.» (Quite demanding)
- I feel the course did a good job with the distribution of material between theoretical and practical (implementation). I appreciated that material that I was expected to know was clearly defined on the course page and in the lecture slides. For someone unfamiliar with OpenGL and C++, I feel like a good amount of work was required to do the tutorials. However, I feel this is fair as many of the other students have much more experience with such tools and can probably work much more quickly than me.» (Quite demanding)
- Slightly uneven, as usual.» (Quite demanding)
- The workload was to high.» (Demanding)
- Because of the tutorials, but nothing bad with it.» (Demanding)
- The labs required a lot of time which made me unmotivated to study for the exam. But most of the labs were fun.» (Very demanding)
- The labs were very demanding and made up most of the time that I spend on this course. Personally I think the labs were to time-intensive which made a negative impact on the theoretical parts of the course.» (Very demanding)
- I found the course to be very demanding due to the amount of work one had to do with regards to the labs. The minilabs were very easy and took little time but the big labs were more difficult and time-consuming. Despite the difference in work required of the labs, you had approx. one week to finish each lab regardless.» (Very demanding)
- The tutorials took up the entire week. And to develop a parsing method is to me not graphic.» (Very demanding)

4. Did you buy the course book?

yes»		33		60%
no, too expensive»		7		12%
no, other reason»		15		27%

Genomsnitt: 1.67

- The course text was quite expensive and possibly unnecessary to get a good grade in the class if one attends every lecture. However, I do feel like it is a good reference to have in the future as it is quite thorough. » (yes)
- I find it very useful and I will be using it a lot outside of my studies as well.» (yes)
- Didn"t read it.» (yes)
- It was great.» (yes)
- I finally got it from the library for the last two weeks before the exam.» (no, too expensive)
- I borrowed it at the library and downloaded a electronic version.» (no, too expensive)
- I got it from a friend who had this course last year» (no, other reason)
- Tack vare bra föreläsningar och slides klarade man sig bra utan boken.» (no, other reason)
- Information from slides and handouts were enough.» (no, other reason)
- I already had the previous edition of the course book» (no, other reason)
- Borrowed it.» (no, other reason)
- I was too lazy to buy it.» (no, other reason)
- Found it online» (no, other reason)

5. How much of the recommended chapters in the book have you read?

0-25%»		33		60%
25-50%»		9		16%
50-75%»		5		9%
75-100%»		8		14%

Genomsnitt: 1.78

- The book"s content is to heavy. Discussing alot of techniques. Of course the book is good for making some lookups but reading it for lectures just requires to much of time» (0-25%)
- I am not used to working so much with books as at my home university we mainly use them to look up unclear parts.» (0-25%)
- Slides were enough.» (0-25%)
- Didn"t get the book.» (0-25%)
- The lecture slides was enough in most cases.» (0-25%)
- Used the course book as a book of reference, and relied on lecture and lecture notes instead. If something was unclear I used the book for a more detailed description.» (0-25%)
- for I have another book on computer graphics I read some on that book» (0-25%)
- I"ve read the same info in other books and online tutorials» (0-25%)
- As mentioned, the lecture and slides were pretty thorough and so I only used the book to fill in gaps where I felt I missed something or was particularly interested.» (25-50%)

6. How did you find the book

poorly written»		2		3%
ok»		23		44%
well written»		27		51%

Genomsnitt: 2.48

- too technical, too abstract» (poorly written)
- Didn"t get the book.» (ok)
- The lighting equation part was very strangely written in the latest edition, however.» (well written)
- The book is awesome.» (well written)
- Definitely my favorite course books so far.» (well written)
- Didn"t read it, heard it was good.» (well written)
- Found the book to be descriptive, interesting and good.» (well written)

7. How useful were the lecture notes?

did not use them»		0		0%
useless»		0		0%
somewhat useful»		6		10%
good to have them»		19		34%
very useful»		30		54%

Genomsnitt: 4.43

- The problem with the lecture notes was, that the pictures and forulars are not self explaining. When you forgot what was said about it in the lecuture, you cannot understand what they mean.» (somewhat useful)
- borderline useless. Too messy and too much.» (somewhat useful)
- Without the (expensive) course book hard to understand. More explanations on the slides would be better. » (somewhat useful)
- Very good as a mindmap for Ulf, not so good to study alone.» (somewhat useful)
- A bit hard to grasp if you missed the lecture (or wasn"t paying attention)» (somewhat useful)
- They are a little bit to campact. One must attend to the lectures and remeber what have been said to remember what the slides is about. Although the slides are good, some pictures need to be more descriptive. Ex: some picture is of a quad in section about antialiasing, then is the quad a pixel, fragment, subcell etc. One cannot be to obvious!» (good to have them)
- But at some slides the images were not as self-exploatering as they should have been. » (good to have them)
- Used them to study for the exam» (good to have them)
- I thought the slides provided were very thorough although perhaps a bit cluttered at times. I appreciated when during math intensive subjects, the professor would take the time to work out problems on the chalkboard, which allowed me to see more examples and take more time to allow the ideas to sink in.» (very useful)
- I learned more from the lectures and by looking back at the slides than from the book.» (very useful)
- You got a nice understanding of the algorithms by reading the slides.» (very useful)

8. On average, how would you rate the amount of material covered in one lecture?

Boringly little»		1		1%
OK but more could be added»		3		5%
Just about right on average»		31		58%
OK but some material could be removed»		12		22%
Way too much to absorb per lecture»		6		11%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- little bit more than average. CG is such a large topic and with different topics in the topics so. It is understandable that it covers more than average» (Just about right on average)
- Sometimes it felt as if too much information was presented on each slide (especially mathematics) and it became hard to follow as the slides were changed to quickly.» (Just about right on average)
- This is a course gripping over a HUGE subject, which is pretty often the case on master levels. This is sad in one way, because not many subjects are studied in depth. My tip would be to remove some areas from the course and focus more on the ones that are actually studied. That would give more in-depth and probably more useful knowledge.» (Just about right on average)
- In some lectures the speed was just too high. If there is no time to process any of the presented information the use of the lecture is quite limited.» (OK but some material could be removed)
- Sometimes, there was too much for the time, and it was hard to grasp everything.» (OK but some material could be removed)
- I wanted more depth, I wanted to learn the math behind all algorithms, more linear algebra and such. Because we didn"t go into stuff deeper it was hard to grasp sometimes. I want the answer to the "WHY?" question about things and it"s hard to answer when just touching things.» (Way too much to absorb per lecture)
- It feels like it would have been better to have two courses in computer graphics as before. There was too much information to absorb and some of the subjects in computer graphics feelt a bit rushed.» (Way too much to absorb per lecture)
- The two courses has been made into one. No information seems to be removed except the project.» (Way too much to absorb per lecture)

9. How did you find the lectures?

very poor»		0		0%
rather poor»		1		1%
rather good»		16		29%
very good»		20		36%
excellent»		18		32%
no comment»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Too much material and too messy.» (rather poor)
- The first couple of lectures I"d rate as somewhere between rather good and rather poor, but the last five or so was rather good to very good. I missed some in the middle.» (rather good)
- teachers ability to explain simple math is rather poor. » (rather good)
- A bit unstructured and not extremely pedagogical, but definately OK and quite fun.» (rather good)
- I thought they were bad in the beginning but when the course came to the end Ulf rapped it up rather nicely. Some explanations were hard to fol» (rather good)
- In particular the 5 minutes in the end of each lecture where you summarised the things you wanted us to know were really usefull. Also the repetition slides were great.» (rather good)
- As in 8, you were sometimes too fast to explain some not-that-easy-to-understand things.» (rather good)
- Sometimes, especially if someone asked you a question, you became stressed and tried to go through the slides fast to catch up. This was annoying, and made me lose focus. Plan for some questions on the lectures. Other than that, they were good!» (rather good)
- The lectures often seemed to cover more material than there was actual time for.» (rather good)
- Overall, I feel the lectures were cohesive and well prepared. The professor always welcomed questions (although perhaps too much in the case of one student), which was helpful.» (very good)
- Teacher knows his subject and is very good at teaching it to others» (very good)
- High tempo, very interesting information and it felt very relevant as there was much focus on modern techniques and hardware.» (excellent)

10. Which parts of the course did you find difficult?

11. Did the exam reflect the course in a fair way?

poor»		1		1%
fair»		1		1%
adequate»		11		20%
good»		30		55%
excellent»		11		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.9

- Some issues that were only mentioned once in the lectures had a surprisingly weight in the exam. Like the homogenization question and the question about the Shadow Map algorithm which gave 5p. I mean, is the shadow algorithm that important to learn and does it have that kind of weight in the course? I would prefer some more problems in the exam like the last question, where you actully solved a problem. » (poor)
- There was a little too much math i think.» (adequate)
- Hehe. There where some basic linear-algebra-math. which is good. They are basics that CG-people should know of» (good)
- It was very clear what subjects would be given focus on the exam. However, some of » (excellent)
- I think the exam was just about right in both coverage and depth.» (excellent)

12. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		1		1%
Fair»		2		3%
Adequate»		7		12%
Good»		27		49%
Excellent»		18		32%

Genomsnitt: 4.07

- I wanted more pseudo code to describe the algorithms, I think it would have been easier to understand the algorithms that way.» (Adequate)
- Computer graphics was a very interesting course, but the labs and the lectures covering too much information made it far to timeconsuming compared to other courses. » (Adequate)
- Too much practial overweight caused lesser focus on the theori. Otherwise rather good.» (Good)
- Liked the course. It was fun. » (Excellent)
- Overall, I thought this was a very good course that covered a good variety of topics. I enjoyed that we usually were informed as to specifically what material would be on the exam so that we could study the breadth of required material and then search deeper into areas that were of particular interest. » (Excellent)
- One of the most interesting courses I"ve taken. It gave a feeling for most things you need to know in order to implement real-time rendering on modern hardware. The freedom to use any graphics API and programming language was greatly appreciated.» (Excellent)
- Best course so far since i started at Chalmers.» (Excellent)

13. Other comments/suggestions for how the course can be improved?