The AMV theorum

This forum is for the general discussion of Anime Music Videos.

The AMV theorum

Postby CaTaClYsM » Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:37 pm

I speculate that the quality of an AMV is equal to the amount of time spent making - the amount of posts on the boards soemone has.

so to put it mathmaticaly
AMV TIME=z
POSTS=x
Qualtiy=y

z-x=y

so is this so mathmatical way to acuratley find the quality of a video? or am I just high?
So in other words, one part of the community is waging war on another part of the community because they take their community seriously enough to want to do so. Then they tell the powerless side to get over the loss cause it's just an online community. I'm glad people make so much sense." -- Tab
User avatar
CaTaClYsM
 
Joined: 26 Jul 2002

Postby mexicanjunior » Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:43 pm

Huh? :shock:
User avatar
mexicanjunior
 
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Status: It's a process...

Postby The Wired Knight » Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:45 pm

But what exactly does this number mean? And does this make my old videos worse even though I don't work on them but am still posting? Because after being on this board for two years that would make all my AMVs have a negative quality rating as well as a great many people here. Have you spent more than 600 hours on an AMV to keep a positive rating?
BANG

Intellectual Property, Real Estate & Probate Attorney.
User avatar
The Wired Knight
 
Joined: 07 Jan 2001
Location: Right next door to you
Status: Attorney At Law

Postby RichLather » Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:48 pm

Must be that there fuzzy math. :twisted:
User avatar
RichLather
 
Joined: 15 May 2001
Location: Lancaster, OH Position: One of the Elder Statesmen of the .org

Postby CaTaClYsM » Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:55 pm

Here is how my theory works, the amount of time spent denotes effort, and effort acounts for something, even if the person my lack skill, and how can someone be seriously working on an AMV if they are to busy spamming the boards, now see wired you have less posts than me, so your video's will have a smaller reduction because of it.

now lets look at my 2 older videos

I was spamming so there is a big reduction-
I finnished then in a day, not much effort

product, utter crap, and the people that had 3000 plus posts didn't even MAKE AMV's there wre here only to spam.
So in other words, one part of the community is waging war on another part of the community because they take their community seriously enough to want to do so. Then they tell the powerless side to get over the loss cause it's just an online community. I'm glad people make so much sense." -- Tab
User avatar
CaTaClYsM
 
Joined: 26 Jul 2002

Nope won't work.

Postby anneke » Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:56 pm

I have a video that I spent only 3 hours on and yet it has won an award. Another video I spent 3 hours on almost won an award as well.

That is ofcourse using awards as a basis of if a video is good, and thus being of quality.

Anneke
User avatar
anneke
 
Joined: 06 Apr 2001
Location: California

Postby Red Wolf » Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:29 pm

I meaausre my AMV time is second :twisted:
User avatar
Red Wolf
 
Joined: 01 May 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Red Wolf » Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:30 pm

[edit]

I measure my AMV time in seconds :twisted:

[/edit]
User avatar
Red Wolf
 
Joined: 01 May 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby jonmartensen » Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:41 pm

Red Wolf wrote:I meaausre my AMV time is second :twisted:



not quite up for going for first eh? haha no I saw your edit :D

I think the only way to tell if an AMV is good or not is to just watch it, the only thing you can kinda' use to decide if an AMV might or might not be good is previous work from the producer. If I've seen three good AMV's from one creator then I would think any new one they make will probably be good (maybe not as good as the previous work but still good)
Image
User avatar
jonmartensen
 
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Location: Gimmickville USA

Postby CaTaClYsM » Wed Oct 30, 2002 6:25 pm

I didn't say there wouldn't be a small margin of error, or a few exeptions to the norm, but for the most part this is the closest thing to an acurate mathmatical mesurement in AMV quality.
So in other words, one part of the community is waging war on another part of the community because they take their community seriously enough to want to do so. Then they tell the powerless side to get over the loss cause it's just an online community. I'm glad people make so much sense." -- Tab
User avatar
CaTaClYsM
 
Joined: 26 Jul 2002

Re: Nope won't work.

Postby The Wired Knight » Wed Oct 30, 2002 6:31 pm

anneke wrote:I have a video that I spent only 3 hours on and yet it has won an award. Another video I spent 3 hours on almost won an award as well.

That is ofcourse using awards as a basis of if a video is good, and thus being of quality.

Anneke


Post count =128
Time Spent = 3 Hous

3 - 128 = -125

I still don't see how this is effective at all at rating videos. What the hell does the -125 mean? What about people who don't have jobs and spend time on the boards and on their AMVs all day.

Also, within a two hour limit you can get about twenty to thirty posts but only maybe 10-30 seconds of footage done on an AMV. This mathmatical system is HIGHLY weightend against a video having a postive score. this also means that those of us who have NEVER posted should have the best videos.

Anneke's video has a score of -125 and yet Gerry Hsu has all his videos at a score of 2, higher than Annake by a large margin. Yet from what I've heard the videos are no good. But according to the system Gerry's are better.
BANG

Intellectual Property, Real Estate & Probate Attorney.
User avatar
The Wired Knight
 
Joined: 07 Jan 2001
Location: Right next door to you
Status: Attorney At Law

Postby Chaos Angel » Wed Oct 30, 2002 7:05 pm

What's the numerical rating scale for quality? Is 1000 good, bad? 50? Without defining a scale for giving the quality factor meaning, it holds no significance. And making a scale arbitrarily isn't fair. So, in order for this theorum to have any credance, first a fair scale must be created for the quality rating.

But even then, it's still bunk, no offense. AMVs are like any other art form: good and bad are highly subjective. Videos that one person loves, another may find to be mediocre. You can't measure how good something is mathematically; it's an opinion of the viewer.

Interesting theory, though.
Fragile and Frail | Summertime

I'm not a vegetarian because I enjoy eating cute animals.
User avatar
Chaos Angel
 
Joined: 07 Jan 2002
Location: Vidderating

Postby Castor Troy » Wed Oct 30, 2002 7:34 pm

2+2=5
Image
"Vlad, you will not get my new blockbuster video. Sorry bro." - Chemix800, Hollywood Editor
User avatar
Castor Troy
Ryan Molina, A.C.E
 
Joined: 16 Jan 2001
Location: California
Status: Retired from AMVs

Postby Flint the Dwarf » Wed Oct 30, 2002 7:36 pm

Heh, this is wrong on so many levels.

1) The scale, it's too convoluted to be successful. And disproportionate. And it cannot be made to be a good scale.

2) Jbone and AD.

3) Other peoples' preferences/opinions. (like Chaos said)

4) And that there are so many ways to judge the "quality" of any kind of art.

But hey, who am I to discourage mathematics? Just... put a little more into it next time. :wink:
Kusoyaro: We don't need a leader. We need to SHUT UP. Make what you want to make, don't make you what you don't want to make. If neither of those applies to you, then you need to SHUT UP MORE.
User avatar
Flint the Dwarf
 
Joined: 16 Jan 2002
Location: Ashland, WI

Postby SarahtheBoring » Wed Oct 30, 2002 7:44 pm

You assume that people only do two things with their lives: post and make AMVs.

So in my case, where do work, sleep, writing, playing games, watching things *without* editing them, sewing three different Halloween getups at once, revamping a website, and making lame RPGs fit in?

;) It's okay for a brief laugh, but not as anything remotely accurate.
User avatar
SarahtheBoring
 
Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Location: PA, USA

Next

Return to General AMV

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests