Talks Submissions

Talks at SIGGRAPH 2016 provide a forum for presentation of new graphics techniques, novel applications of existing techniques, and other developments with broad interest to practitioners of computer graphics and interactive techniques. The essence of what we're looking for in a talk is simple: it must be new, interesting, and stimulating to the SIGGRAPH community.

Talk topics include the full range of computer graphics and interactive techniques: case studies, academic research, technical developments, improved pipeline tools, education and curriculum, professional development, or social commentary. Talks can cover technical or artistic aspects of projects, whether complete or still works in progress. We also encourage talks that elaborate on work submitted to the Computer Animation FestivalEmerging TechnologiesPosters, the Studio, or VR Village.

Sales and marketing presentations are not appropriate for the Talks program.

SIGGRAPH 2016 General Submissions Chair
Mashhuda Glencross

Talks Accordion

New for SIGGRAPH 2016

ACM Rights Management Form

If your work is accepted for presentation at SIGGRAPH 2016:

  • You must complete the ACM Rights Management Form. The form will be sent to all submitters whose work is accepted.  
  • Your representative image and text may be used for promotional purposes. Several SIGGRAPH 2016 programs - Art Gallery, Computer Animation Festival, Real-Time Live!, Technical Papers, and all installation programs  - will prepare preview videos for pre-conference promotion of accepted content, which may include a portion of the video you submitted for review.

How to Submit

Submissions are due by 22:00 UTC/GMT, 16 February 2016.

Log in to the SIGGRAPH Information System, select "Begin a New Submission," and then select "create" for the General Submission form. You will be asked for:

  • Basic submission information, including the title of the talk, a brief summary (50 words or less), and the name, affiliation, and contact information for each confirmed speaker (page 1)
  • Statement of permissions to use the submitted materials (page 2)
  • A presentation format (page 3). To propose a Talk, please select Talk as your presentation format. You will then be taken to the forms specific to this presentation format. Please see below for more information about required information and materials for this presentation format.
  • One "representative image" suitable for use in the conference web site and promotional materials. See Representative Image Guidelines..
  • An abstract (two pages maximum) describing your work (PDF). The abstract should include what area you are working in, what is novel about your work, and how this work fits into existing work. See Publication Instructions for help with your abstract.
Two examples of excellent talk abstracts: 
  • Length of talk: short (20 minutes) or long (20-40 Minutes). Due to scheduling constraints, the jury will be significantly more demanding of submissions that request 40 minutes, so please be sure to justify why you need the extra time. If your talk can fit either format, we encourage you to request either length and let the jury decide which is more appropriate.
  • A list of potential submission categories and keywords is provided to help ensure your submission is reviewed and juried appropriately. Please select the categories and keywords carefully. 


  • Up to six supplementary images and/or a maximum five-minute supplementary video. We only accept uploaded videos in QuickTime MPEG-4 or DivX Version 6 formats, and the file size should not exceed 100 MB. The file must be uploaded using the online submission system.
  • Supplementary text document (PDF). This material can include text and images to help the jury further understand any unique results of your submission beyond the merits of your required abstract. This material is only for optional jury use and might not be reviewed. Critical information for your submission should be noted in your abstract. There are no limits to the length of supplementary text, but please remember that this material is for optional jury use, and reviewers may be overwhelmed by large volumes of supplementary information. Please try to limit the supplementary material to four pages if possible.
  • Non-native English speakers may use the English Review Service to help improve the text of submissions. Please note that this process takes time, so plan accordingly.

If you are submitting other presentation formats on the General Submission form simultaneously with the Talk (a poster, for example), the other formats may share the same abstract and other uploaded materials.

Educator’s Resources Submission option. Those submitting content to a SIGGRAPH conference have the option of donating materials of educational value to ACM SIGGRAPH online resources for the benefit of the education community. Learn more

For more information about uploading files for your submission, please see Uploading Files.

For additional submission information, please see Submissions FAQ.


Common Evaluation Criteria

Jurors are asked to evaluate your submission using four criteria: Concept, Novelty, Interest, and Quality. The final submission score is based on a combination of these factors. For example, a high-quality talk that has broad appeal and is unlike other recent SIGGRAPH talks has a good chance of acceptance, while a poorly motivated submission of interest to few attendees (or that duplicates recent talks) will probably be rejected.


How exceptional are the ideas, problems, solutions, aesthetics, etc. presented in this submission? How coherently does the submission convey its overall concept? Is the concept similar to existing ones, or does it stand out? This criterion is particularly applicable to submissions that pull together existing technologies into a single product (for example, demos, animations, art pieces). Submissions of this type, where the individual technologies are not necessarily new but their combination is, are evaluated on both the final product and how well proposed technologies integrate to meet the desired goals. Many submissions in this area are rejected because they do what existing systems do, and they do not demonstrate that the proposed approach leads to better results.


How new and fresh is this work? Is it a new, ground-breaking approach to an old problem, or is it an existing approach with a slightly new twist? You must first demonstrate to the jury that your work is sufficiently different from existing approaches. Second, you should evaluate you work in the context of other approaches where appropriate: Is it faster? Easier to use? Does it give better results? Is it more accurate? Many submissions are rejected either because the work is too similar to existing work or because the submission materials did not convince the jury that the improvements were substantial enough.


Will conference attendees want to see this? Will it inspire them? Are the results or approach appealing to a broad audience? This is partly a measure of how broad the potential audience is and partly a measure of the overall clarity and novelty of the submission. A submission in a very niche area is more likely to be accepted if the results are exceptionally better than what exists already, or if the proposed solution might be applicable to other areas.

Quality, Craft, and Completeness

This is a measure of how well-written the abstract is and the quality of the supporting materials. The abstract must effectively communicate both the problem and the solution in enough detail and clarity that the jury can evaluate it. You must also convince the jury that your solution works. Many submissions are rejected because, while the problem and solution seemed interesting, the materials did not convince the jury that the solution had actually been implemented and evaluated. If your submission has an animation, simulation, or interactive component, then including a video is essential.

During the review process, the jury sorts submissions into three categories: Research, Production, and Studio. Submitters do not need to select one of these categories. This sorting is purely for use in scheduling accepted talks and to provide "at-a-glance" information to attendees. The primary reason for rejection of each type of talk is given below, to help submitters understand what the jury will be looking for in typical talk submissions:

Research Talks

Accepted research talks typically fall into one of two categories: an exploration of a new problem or a novel approach to an existing problem. For talks on new problems, the jury accepts those they believe will interest attendees and inspire subsequent discussions or research. For talks on solving existing problems, the jury accepts those that clearly solve a problem of interest to many attendees. Primary reasons a talk is rejected include:

1. The jury was unconvinced the work solves a new or existing problem. This can happen either because the abstract did not clearly differentiate the work from existing work, or because the proposed solution was too incremental.

2. The jury was unconvinced that there was sufficient improvement over existing work. It is not sufficient for the approach to simply be new; the submission materials must also demonstrate that the proposed approach works better (it is faster, more accurate, uses less memory, easier to use, etc.) than existing work.

3. The submission materials did not clearly convey both the problem and the proposed solution. If the jury has to struggle to understand the submission, they are unlikely to accept it. Good abstracts first provide a concise statement of the problem and solution then provide sufficient detail to convince the jury the submitter would present a compelling talk. 

4. The area is off-topic and unlikely to be of interest to SIGGRAPH attendees.

5. The jury believes the talk will be an extended advertisement for a product.

Production Talks

Accepted production talks typically explore solutions to problems frequently encountered in production environments. They should be motivated by unique visual results or the production pipeline rather than production scope, size, or budget. Examples include new applications of research ideas in a production setting, combining existing techniques in new and unique ways, or improvements to pipeline tools or workflow for improved efficiency. The jury accepts production talks that will interest attendees seeking details on production difficulties and their solutions or because the technical details may interest the broader SIGGRAPH community. Production talks are not limited to film and visual effects, but could cover other production environments such as game development, mobile graphics, or CAD software. 

The abstract needs to provide context for the work and visual goals, the underlying technical solution, and some kind of evaluation metrics. To support the submission’s claims, we strongly encourage the inclusion of some kind of visual or video material, either work in progress or the finished result.  The jury frequently rejects unsubstantiated submissions. Note:  it is possible to submit material for viewing only at the jury meeting (when it has not been approved for public display or release). Please contact the Talks Chair to make arrangements.

Primary reasons that a production talk is rejected:

1. The jury was unconvinced the submission provides a substantially new solution to a production problem. Exceptions may be made when the solution is only known to a small community; in this case, clearly acknowledge previous work and explain how this talk reaches a broader audience.

2. Workflow improvements are not supported by an objective measure (for example, a reduction in render time or shot turn-around).

3. Critical visual media are missing, making it difficult for the jury to judge the approach in practice. If media will be viewable only at the jury meeting, make that clear in the submission so jurors understand the images are only stand-ins.

4. The talk fails to cite existing work or explain differences from existing approaches. While talks need not be as rigorous as research papers, a clear discussion of the historical context is important.

5. For large productions with multiple talk submissions, the jury may feel that there is some overlap, and some or all of the submitted talks could be merged into a single, stronger talk.  In this case, they will reject one and accept the other, suggesting such a merger. If this is not acceptable, please contact the Talks Chair to discuss the situation.

6. The jury is unclear what they would learn by attending the talk; vague talks are a waste of attendee time. Your submission should provide insight on the talk content.

Studio Talks

The Studio is the place for making and creating at SIGGRAPH 2016. A Studio Talk presents technology or a project that:

  • Can be used by attendees from many backgrounds and levels of expertise.
  • Facilitates creating and experimenting.
  • Is very durable and able to withstand use by attendees for the entire duration of the conference.
  • Allows attendees to bring home a digital or physical artifact of their experience.

If your Studio Talk meets the above criteria, it will be evaluated based on the following:

  • Benefits to Attendees
How will presenting your technology, process, or project directly benefit attendees? What will they be learning and how can they apply what they learn to their own work?
  • Level of technical innovation
  • Does the project represent a new step forward in graphics and interactive technology?

Upon Acceptance

You will be notified of acceptance or rejection in mid-April.

If your talk is accepted, you must prepare and submit a revised abstract (two pages maximum). This abstract must be submitted by 29 April 2016. If we do not receive your revised abstract by 29 April, you will not be allowed to present at SIGGRAPH 2016.

After we receive your revised abstract, we will provide complete information on your talk presentation: length (20 or 40 minutes), time, location. We will also provide information on how to submit final versions of your accepted work and the deadlines for final updates. 

You must also attend and present your work at SIGGRAPH 2016 in Anaheim. If you are unable to present, your talk will be canceled.

After acceptance, the SIGGRAPH Information System will allow you to update basic information about your work and upload any final materials for inclusion in the conference program and web site. This information needs to be finalized two weeks after acceptance. Final versions of accepted work must be submitted before required deadlines (normally one week after acceptance notification). You will receive information on how to submit final versions of your accepted work and the deadlines for final updates. 

If your talk is accepted, you will need to:

  • Prepare and submit a revised abstract 
  • (Optionally) Update your auxiliary images and video
  • Prepare a 20- or 40-minute presentation (as determined by the jury)
  • Attend and present your work at SIGGRAPH 2016 in Anaheim.

The time and location of your talk will be posted on the SIGGRAPH 2016 web site well in advance of the conference. As SIGGRAPH 2016 approaches, the session chair for your session will contact you with further logistical details.

If your topic matches other Studio Talk content to form a coherent session, your research or production talk may be accepted as part of the Studio. This does not affect anything you need to do as part of the acceptance or presentation process; it only affects which attendees will have access to your presentation.

Most registration and travel costs to attend SIGGRAPH 2015 are at your own expense; however each accepted talk receives recognition as specified in the SIGGRAPH 2016 Recognition Policy.


16 February

Deadline for all General Submission forms and upload of materials.


Acceptance or rejection notices are sent to all General Submissions submitters.

29 April
Deadline to make any changes to materials for publication. 
Abstract (two pages maximum) due. If we do not receive your revised abstract by 29 April, you will not be allowed to present at SIGGRAPH 2016.

24-28 July

SIGGRAPH 2016, Anaheim.