IC Source tiering?

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

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby NS » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:49 am

Silk_SK wrote: Bitching at the source choices is also allowed because sometimes they're complete bullshit.


Black sheep is a great source, shut up.
ImageImage
User avatar
NS
I like pants
 
Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Status: Pants

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby Kitsuner » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:51 am

This entire thread is tierable.
OtakuGray wrote:Sometimes anime can branch out to a younger audience and this is one of those times where you wish children would just go die.
Stirspeare wrote:<Stirspeare> Lopez: Vanquish my virginity and flood me with kit. ["Ladies..."]
User avatar
Kitsuner
Maximum Hotness
 
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Top Breeder

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby Silk_SK » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:57 am

Kitsuner wrote:This entire thread is tierable.



GOD Tier - God
High Tier - Arashinome (in all likelyhood)
Mid Tier - Kirby, Captain Falcon, Mario, Donkey Kong
Low Tier - Your mom
Shit Tier - This thread
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” - Winston Churchill
Image
Image
User avatar
Silk_SK
 
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Location: Where all good ROFLs are sold
Status: enduring/enjoying life

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby gotegenks » Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:18 am

Silk_SK wrote:
gotegenks wrote:Shit Tier - Elfen Lied


The fuck are you smoking?

well i personally hated that show's art, but i just put it there as an example, couldn't think of anything else for that tier.

NS wrote:Why didn't you quote any of my shit? I'm really curious as to what you think. I really am, because I'm kinda baffled, to be honest, at your mindset that just because somebody uses old anime they should have to "play" An IC in a lower fucking tier, that's fucking stupid.

i didn't think it was necessary, i argued how you could like ANYTHING as long as it was edited well and you come back with appreciation, which i answered in my last reply >_<

again, even if this were implemented, NOBODY WOULD HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. it'd just be an optional little set of guidelines for the ICers to agree upon beforehand.

I hate how i'm being bashed for "disliking" older anime when i only mentioned older anime because TYPICALLY it has worse animation and is harder to edit (typically)
You don't have to, you CAN though. If you wanted to even the playing field. If you're just going to come back with "IT'S ON HOW IT'S EDITED" or "source doesn't matter if the editor is good"

if you're equally familiar with Rurouni Kenshin and Samurai Champloo and you IC your own clone then the clone using samurai champloo is most likely going to make a better video and more entertaining and anybody that judged the ic would say that the samurai champloo video won. Samurai Champloo has more editable resources to it. The fluidity of the animation and the camera movements. Some sources have aspects that make them easier to make better videos with, like similar images or stances or repeats of scenes in different locations or built in camera movements or broader views or zooms or probably a million other things that i don't know about or can't remember. some sources > others and sure, a better editor can pwn a worse editor that uses a good source by editing a "bad" source, a good editor can make a bad source look good, just like a bad editor can make a good source look bad. It depends on the editor. But a lot of times in an ic the competitors are pretty even in skill level. The bad source is gonna hinder the average editor against the average editor that picks a good source.

A lot of potential unfairness while judging depends on taste too though, maybe the way to go with tiering isn't really animation superiority, maybe categories based on genre or tiers based on usage (idk how we'd get data)

Even if this were implemented it would be TOTALLY OPTIONAL. I'm not trying to take any sources away from anybody i'm just suggesting an idea that could produce some fun little ics with way underused sources. Maybe up the popularity of underused source. I HIGHLY doubt that would ever happen. Even if the Org went so far as to do this crap people would end up ignoring it. Even if they didn't ignore it it's not like there would be enough ics to make unpopular sources popular, and even if there WERE enough ics, the majority of ics here are never uploaded from what i understand.

ICs aren't really big or competitive enough to implement something so complex though. I just wanted to see what everyone else thought about it.
Image
User avatar
gotegenks
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: charlesgood, california

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby AaronAMV » Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:23 am

holy shit srsness
Image
User avatar
AaronAMV
eating that e. coli spinach
 
Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Location: (◔ ◡ ◔ )
Status: (◔ ◡ ◔ )

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby EvaFan » Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:23 am

I've never judged for an IC before but if I did, it would just be whichever vid I enjoyed the most gets picked. So therefor if your source animation is better (I consider it a part of presentation) then you have a slight advantage. The advantage itself would be practically indifferent though because for only 2 hours or so worth of editing, the actual editing in that time frame would be the most important element to the amv to determine its enjoyment. It would be a different story if both editors were given any amount of time they need to finish the source song. Obviously the one with better animation quality would have a bigger advantage then, even then its still not much cause enjoyment plays on too many factors.

Short version: The amount and quality of work done in 2 hours heavily outweighs the differences in animation qualities between the editors sources for it to even matter.

Just my 2cents
"The people cannot be [...] always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to [...] the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to public liberty. What country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned [...] that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."-Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
EvaFan
 
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
Location: Somerset, KY
Status: (*゚▽゚)o旦~ ー乾杯ー♪

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby Taite » Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:22 am

Putting anime into tiers based on how good their animation is is completely subjective, and a lot of people would disagree on what anime goes where. Like the whole Elfen Lied thing. A lot of people might disagree. I don't think we necessarily need tiers. The "judge" or whomever decides the anime/song/etc. can just say "K, rules: This song and an anime from 2003-2003 or something." To say "Yeah, this song, and an anime that doesn't have crap animation" is kind of stupid.
If you wanted to edit an IC where the animation quality was almost equal, the guidelines in the IC could say "an anime from this time period." However, every anime has completely different animation (unless you're looking at anime coming from the same studio or whatever) and you're never going to be able to find two that are very similar in quality even if they are from the same time period. Everything about this topic is subjective, and can be debated forever.
Bottom line is, you can't separate anime into tiers based on the quality of their animation.

And let the people ICing or whatever decide the guidelines. If we were to say "OKAY, All ICs now have to be done like this" then it would get boring fast. That's why the guidelines vary for every IC. And it's fun that way. That's why there is no definite definition for how ICs are done.

A small part of this thread is also the debate over whether people judge based on animation. Some do a little, some not, but it's not that big a deal. Some people can be slightly biased and say "yeah, they're both equally great editing wise, but I'm leaning toward this one because I like the animation was better" or whaaatever (It can happen, but usually in this case hard observing of both videos is what decides it, at least for me. It can be various things), but in general, quality of the animation is never a big factor in the judging process, unless you have a shitty judge. Judging based solely on animation is completely asinine and defeats the purpose of ICs.
Have you ever ICed someone and had this happen: You used Kenshin and your opponent used Champloo. Then the judge said they were both incredibly good but he decided your opponent won. And then you thought "Wow, of course. The animation of Champloo is better, so of course I fucking lost!" No. If you knew you were going to lose because of the quality of your anime, then you wouldn't have used it.
I think that what anime the judge likes more would be more of an issue. It's more likely to lose because your judge hates Kenshin and loves Champloo, rather than because the judge prefers Champloo's animation over Kenshin. Or maybe the judge didn't see Kenshin, but did see Champloo.
There is nothing you can do about how a judge judges, however, and there is no way to improve the fairness of an IC. Winning or losing is all dependent on your editing.
All in all,
The amount and quality of work done in 2 hours heavily outweighs the differences in animation qualities between the editors sources for it to even matter.


So this topic should no longer be debated. If you have this issue with your ICs, then it's most likely a someone who has the issue.
Oh, and by the way, I don't think the animation of Kenshin sucks. I rather like it.

Yeah, just my opinion on this whole thing. As a last note, there's not a wrong or right way to do ICs. You do it your way. have it your way! :up:
Image Image
User avatar
Taite
 
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Location: Colorado

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby CastielTheFallen » Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:56 am

THIS THREAD

SO GODDAMN RETARDED

JESUS I THINK I'M HAVING AN ANEURYSM OF STUPIDITY
Image
DZ|BSP
User avatar
CastielTheFallen
Prodigal Pen-Throttle
 
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: Nowheresville, NJ
Status: Sick & Uninspired

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby Nya-chan Production » Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:13 am

gotegenks wrote:
Silk_SK wrote:
gotegenks wrote:Shit Tier - Elfen Lied


The fuck are you smoking?

well i personally hated that show's art, but i just put it there as an example, couldn't think of anything else for that tier.

See, you're just biased and can't imagine someone would rate it nicely with good editing.

Let me say this - if I get well edited video with "" (or insert any (old/classic?) source you can't get in bigger resolution than 320x240 - with luck), I'll put it over generic Karas "random cuts" IC anytime.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Nya-chan Production
The :< point of view
 
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Location: Ward 7F
Status: White bracelet

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby Enigma » Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:00 am

Silk_SK wrote:
Kitsuner wrote:This entire thread is tierable.



GOD Tier - God
High Tier - Arashinome (in all likelyhood)
Mid Tier - Kirby, Captain Falcon, Mario, Donkey Kong
Low Tier - Your mom
Shit Tier - This thread


:up: :aimkissyface:
User avatar
Enigma
That jolly ol' bastid
 
Joined: 07 Mar 2009
Location: California
Status: Free

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby Kimberly » Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:24 am

gotegenks wrote:a better editor can pwn a worse editor that uses a good source by editing a "bad" source, a good editor can make a bad source look good, just like a bad editor can make a good source look bad.


What.. why would the source matter ? It's an IC, not an art show /: I don't know about you, but I judge stuff based on which was better edited..not on which of the animation/art of the source is better.

(and lolol, just totally edited to gravi last week.. )
User avatar
Kimberly
Kardashian
 
Joined: 18 Sep 2004

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby gotegenks » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:33 pm

Plenty of you have said that you decide the winner based on who's you enjoy more. nobody consciously takes animation into consideration. The animation makes the video feel better edited. Plus what i said about an anime having more resources in it. More flexibility to do tricks without having to get knee deep in effects or making.

nya=chan Production wrote:if I get well edited video with "" (or insert any (old/classic?) source you can't get in bigger resolution than 320x240 - with luck), I'll put it over generic Karas "random cuts" IC anytime.

I get it, this is the case of good editor w/ cheap source winning against a bad editor w/ good source. But what if the karas part was edited equally well? DON'T COME BACK WITH "i'd consider it a tie" BECAUSE THERE'S VIRTUALLY NO WAY for you to know that they were equally well edited. You'd either give it to karas from entertainment value (not even saying because it has better animation but because the animation allows for more creative edits than some classic animes) or you'd give it to the old/classic anime becase you'd put it over "generic karas ic anytime".
Image
User avatar
gotegenks
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: charlesgood, california

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby Silk_SK » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:36 pm

Jeez, why all this crap about animation and which you enjoyed better? I just go by which video had more thought put into it.
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” - Winston Churchill
Image
Image
User avatar
Silk_SK
 
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Location: Where all good ROFLs are sold
Status: enduring/enjoying life

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby JaddziaDax » Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:01 pm

gotegenks wrote:You're hung up on the idea that all sources are made equal, when they're not. If you were to edit with images then are the images of a high school art student going to be equal to paintings from a trained professional? (typically, not saying it's impossible)

sure, a better editor can pwn a worse editor that uses a good source by editing a "bad" source, a good editor can make a bad source look good, just like a bad editor can make a good source look bad. It depends on the editor.


THIS is the point... You are assuming editors are always on the same level when ICing each other, similar maybe, but I doubt equal in every aspect. If editors are on the "same (exact) skill level" then the IC is to prove who can make a better presentation in a short amount of time, or to challenge each editor to improve upon themselves by editing under pressure.

As I mentioned before that is why video source should be randomized, not tiered*.

jaddziadax wrote:
if someone takes an anime you hate and puts it with a song you hate and edits it WONDERFULLY in a style you hate are you going to like it?


There are some people out there who can appreciate things they dislike. I can see the talent and time and effort in a video where I dislike all the sources.


I was mostly trying to argue his ability to like anything based on quality of editing alone. LIKE it, not appreciate.


I don't have to entirely like every single thing about a video for it to win a vote from me. As I said, most of weather or not I "like" a video is not based on sources but weather or not I like the concept and execution. In other words: the EDITING. You must be getting some pretty bad judges if they can't see past the sources. IC in my opinion is rarely about the sources, but more so about the editor's ability.

Ah yes, and since your "god tier" is so easy to edit with it's sweeping camera movements and intentional music sync, and your "shit tier" is so hard with all its duplicate animation and still frames, shouldn't it be named the other way around? Cause the way you make it sound, it's as though you need to be a "god editor" to be able to work with and win with a "shit tier" anime.

*Anyway as someone already mentioned the "quality tiering" would all be subjective... if you really wanted to make an IC completely fair you would use the same exact sources as your opponent.
User avatar
JaddziaDax
Crazy Cat Lady!
 
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Location: somewhere i think O.o
Status: I has a TRU Arceus

Re: IC Source tiering?

Postby gotegenks » Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:34 pm

JaddziaDax wrote:
gotegenks wrote:I was mostly trying to argue his ability to like anything based on quality of editing alone. LIKE it, not appreciate.


I don't have to entirely like every single thing about a video for it to win a vote from me. As I said, most of weather or not I "like" a video is not based on sources but weather or not I like the concept and execution. In other words: the EDITING. You must be getting some pretty bad judges if they can't see past the sources. IC in my opinion is rarely about the sources, but more so about the editor's ability.

Ah yes, and since your "god tier" is so easy to edit with it's sweeping camera movements and intentional music sync, and your "shit tier" is so hard with all its duplicate animation and still frames, shouldn't it be named the other way around? Cause the way you make it sound, it's as though you need to be a "god editor" to be able to work with and win with a "shit tier" anime.

*Anyway as someone already mentioned the "quality tiering" would all be subjective... if you really wanted to make an IC completely fair you would use the same exact sources as your opponent.


I GET IT! you can see past liking a video, he said he could like anything that was "well edited"

Nobody consciously takes sources into account, how many times do i have to say this. It's easier to build a comfortable chair when you have cushions already made as opposed to having wood and some cotton. that's all i was getting at.

...srsly? the tier labels have to do with the sources involved, and i just stole those names from 4chan so you don't have to attack the structure, it doesn't matter, this would never happen anyway.

Good idea, good different idea, i'm sure a lot of people already do that, or should do that.

jaddziadax wrote:If editors are on the "same (exact) skill level" then the IC is to prove who can make a better presentation in a short amount of time.

Is a presenter not going to make a better presentation if he has an electronic whiteboard w/internet and a pen tablet as opposed to the presenter using a traditional blackboard and chalk? It's possible, but these are presenters on the exact same skill level, most likely the whiteboard-wielding clone will do better as he has more tools and more resources available to him, and unless the blackboard clone is good at drawing, he's going to have a rougher time getting his audience to visualize his idea or message or w/e the hell he's presenting.
Image
User avatar
gotegenks
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: charlesgood, california

PreviousNext

Return to General AMV

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests