AnimeMusicVideos.org

But they are not 100% effectless.

mirkosp wrote:

Lirinis wrote:Isn't it time to remove this category? Any good video has some kind of effects nowadays.

That's isn't necessarily true... if you check the finalists, there are good vids in there.

Are they 100% no-effects? 3d camera moves here, masking and keying there, pure effects-driven titles in this one, incidental glow in that one...

There is this frame of thought that says that the moment you do anything other then a hard cut you are using an effect. I myself don't like to think of cross-fades and fade-to-black as effects, because they are standard live video techniques. Hell, in some respects even simple overlays, partial screens, and lower 3rds are basic live video editing techniques. But I'm not here to argue this...

I'm more concerned with the opinion that a video with no-effects isn't a worthy video. When the hell did this start coming up? This idea annoys me even more then the idea that you have to notice an effect for it to be good. I mean come on. Go back and watch older movies that you saw back in the day and thought were awesome, seriously, do it, then tell me if you think the effects in that movie stand up to your eye now. I do this all the time. In the end the old effects work seems cheesy because now you can notice it. The same can go for any low budget film or TV show that comes out now. When you notice the effect for exactly what it is you generally consider the production to be of lesser quality then some big budget production where the effects are seamless. Well, unless you like the b movie thing...

In the end, there are a TON of great videos that utilize no effects. It's where this hobby came from back when the main way to edit (mostly because it was affordable) was to do hard cuts because, well, you were using a VCR to record the video. It takes a great amount of knowledge and feel for a project in order to portray a story or mood simply through the use of simple editing. And that is something in this day and age where people feel that effects is what makes a video good we seem to have lost sight of.

That's why I feel this category is still valid. It gives editors, like myself, who prefer or try to edit a video using the simplest of techniques a category that they can at least get recognition in. After all, you have to have effects in order to make a video good.......

Well, provided the people voting actually pay attention to the fact this category is suppose to be about not having effects.

ngsilver wrote:There is this frame of thought that says that the moment you do anything other then a hard cut you are using an effect. I myself don't like to think of cross-fades and fade-to-black as effects, because they are standard live video techniques.

Hey, I wasn't talking about fades. I was talking about glows, 3d cameras and such. They are clearly effects.

ngsilver wrote:I'm more concerned with the opinion that a video with no-effects isn't a worthy video. When the hell did this start coming up?

If there were worthy videos without effects, we'd probably had them in the finals.

ngsilver wrote:In the end, there are a TON of great videos that utilize no effects. It's where this hobby came from back when the main way to edit (mostly because it was affordable) was to do hard cuts because, well, you were using a VCR to record the video.

So, there's nothing cool in making a no-effects video. Dinosaurs made hardcuts, cause they couldn't afford effects, not because their videos were going to be better with hardcuts.

ngsilver wrote: That's why I feel this category is still valid. It gives editors, like myself, who prefer or try to edit a video using the simplest of techniques a category that they can at least get recognition in.

The category is valid, because it's your only chance to win anything? Come on, it's not an argument.

ngsilver wrote: It takes a great amount of knowledge and feel for a project in order to portray a story or mood simply through the use of simple editing. And that is something in this day and age where people feel that effects is what makes a video good we seem to have lost sight of.

If your "simplest techniques" had any power, you could win a normal category with it, say, best drama or best storytelling.

Giving an award for not using effects is just like giving an award for coding in DivX instead of h264. It's sooo hard to get good quality with DivX!

By your reply, and your massive ability to overlook what I was actually talking about, I rest my case.

I think you're confusing taste with quality. I think the boundary is now blurring and definitely even in simplest videos bits of masking or glow or 3D motion pop up these days, but on the whole... I think this category is NOT something to force people into making videos without using available tools. Rather, it's just to cater to a particular preference, both among editors and viewers. There are still people out there that like montage videos, and there are editors out there who make them as a choice, not as a 'dinosaur' of inability. On the other hand in some circles, which are very prevalent in voting these days, effects are a big factor; as a result, some people get bitter that a basic subjective taste preference among a lot of audiences for effects is overruling others' taste preference for simpler montage. This category is a compromise to let neither side be offended and for editors who are primarily concerned with montage and internal sync rather than external visuals (i.e. effects) to feel a) at home; b) not like they're being bullied into using effects to elicit good audience response.

Honestly, it's been a favourite category of mine over the years. I'm not too too thrilled with it this year, and maybe something needs to be done to its name, but I'm tempted to just tempted to say something like "bah, kids these days!". This is a matter of taste and, on the VCAs behalf, to allow more room for particular tastes to be presented.

It's alright with tastes. The name and the definition are both misleading and incorrect.

this video shows that it does not need special effects to be interesting, compelling, or memorable. Entrants to this category will be limited to basic edits like cuts, simple transitions, simple text, and very subtle masking (such as lip flap removal).

This heavily contradicts the reality and should be at least updated.

Lirinis wrote:It's alright with tastes. The name and the definition are both misleading and incorrect.

this video shows that it does not need special effects to be interesting, compelling, or memorable. Entrants to this category will be limited to basic edits like cuts, simple transitions, simple text, and very subtle masking (such as lip flap removal).

This heavily contradicts the reality and should be at least updated.

Why should the people who do these videos pay for some jerks who can't categorize vids properly?

If there were worthy videos without effects, we'd probably had them in the finals.

I doubt it, because in my honest opinion it is hard to stand out without effects. There were some nice no-fx vids in the semis. Like Strange Has Been Found or Number 1.

Giving an award for not using effects is just like giving an award for coding in DivX instead of h264. It's sooo hard to get good quality with DivX!

Eh... yeah it is way harder to get a great popular video done without the use of effects. We should apprecite it! There are still concept that just don't need any effects at all.

this video shows that it does not need special effects to be interesting, compelling, or memorable. Entrants to this category will be limited to basic edits like cuts, simple transitions, simple text, and very subtle masking (such as lip flap removal).

That's how I see this category and I like it this way.

Nya-chan Production wrote:

Lirinis wrote:It's alright with tastes. The name and the definition are both misleading and incorrect.

this video shows that it does not need special effects to be interesting, compelling, or memorable. Entrants to this category will be limited to basic edits like cuts, simple transitions, simple text, and very subtle masking (such as lip flap removal).

This heavily contradicts the reality and should be at least updated.

Why should the people who do these videos pay for some jerks who can't categorize vids properly?

Because they are unpopular on a popularity contest?

Do you think the vids that are currently in the finals are not properly categorized?
If you do, then what's the point of having a nomination which is systematically populated with wrong videos?
If you don't, then please pay attention that in fact they do have effects and this means you admit that the category definition is incorrect.