Following two evenings packed with thrilling displays, the judging panel of three professional and three lay judges, with input from the competition adjudicator, declared Skyburst the Firework Co. as winners. Read on to see the scores and a selection of the judges comments for each team.
Wednesday Night
Display 1 - UK Firework Co.
Judge A - 22
Judge B - 18
Judge C - 18
Judge D - 19
Judge E - 21
Judge F - 20
Adjudicator - 9
TOTAL - 127
(6th Place)
Judge's Comments
- This display had some good material but there was no sense of overall travel , narrative or well thought through sequences.
- No sense of a connected design vision.
- Nice simple colour finale.
- Not enough gaps.
- Too much white to start.
- Some beautiful individual sequences.
Display 2 - Distant Thunder Fireworks
Judge A - 30
Judge B - 27
Judge C - 26
Judge D - 24
Judge E - 28
Judge F - 30
Adjudicator - 9
TOTAL - 174
(5th Place)
Judge's Comments
- Beautiful combinations of effects
- Series of really strong moments but all rammed together. A little too frenetic
- Good symmetry
- Nice finale
- Over-use of shells in the middle
- Strong display
- Good connected design between low, mid and high level effects
Display 3 - Shockwave Pyrotechnics
Judge A - 32
Judge B - 33
Judge C - 32
Judge D - 31
Judge E - 31
Judge F - 32
Adjudicator - 9
TOTAL - 200
(Runner-up)
Judge's Comments
- High quality display
- Nice use of shells
- Beautiful sequence structure and timing
- Strong finale development
- Good use of sound
- Lovely pace and rhythm
- Good use of percussive sound effects
- Beautiful graphical sequences mixing single and multi-colour effects
Thursday Night
Display 1- Skyburst the Firework Co.
Judge A - 34
Judge B - 34
Judge C - 34
Judge D - 33
Judge E - 35
Judge F - 36
Adjudicator - 9
TOTAL - 215
(Champions)
Judge's Comments
- A good, progressive storyline
- Beautiful sequences leading to beautiful finale
- Near perfect timing
- Great use of effects
- Wonderful colour transitions
- Some original product uses
Display 2 - Pyrovision
Judge A - 29
Judge B - 30
Judge C - 30
Judge D - 34
Judge E - 26
Judge F - 30
Adjudicator - 10
TOTAL - 189
(3rd Place)
Judge's Comments
- Strong start and finish
- Middle section lost it's way and rhythm
- Several sequences "samey" in the middle section
- Great start
- Best single shot use
- Low points too low
- Some really powerful moments
Display 3 - Electrify Pyrotechnics
Judge A - 23
Judge B - 22
Judge C - 26
Judge D - 32
Judge E - 32
Judge F - 32
Adjudicator - 9
TOTAL - 176
(4th Place)
Judge's Comments
- Good rhythmic single shots
- Sequences confused
- Some errors
- Big on product not on design
- No killer sequences or patterns
- Amazing finale
Notes
- The professional judges awarded each team marks out of 10 in four areas: quality of design; quality of performance; symmetry and artisitc impression. This gives an overall score out of 40 from each judge.
- The lay judges 40 points were awarded for: variety of fireworks and sequences; rhythm; use of colour and overall impression.
- Prior to the second evening's displays, the judges were shown complete, unedited footage of each of the three displays from the first evening to serve as a benchmark for their scores on night two.
- The adjudicator's score is formed by observing the teams at the firing site, focussing in particular on: timely submission of documentation; sportsmanship, technical competence; adherence to the rules and compliance with legal transportation laws. Traditionally teams automatically receive a 10 from the adjudicator with deductions only made where necessary. Pyrovision were singled out for extra praise but, as the adjudicator cannot award additional points, this year Pyrovision received the only 10, however all of the teams this year were excellent in all areas under the adjudicator's remit.
