by Kinematics » Thu May 31, 2012 9:26 pm
Group C-2
First note: I really didn't care for the song when I first looked it up (the official video for it got kind of tiresome), but all four of these videos did beautifully at rendering it into something enjoyable.
[Copycat] Reading Material (The Readening)
CRF 18, using a ~3 year old version of x264 (suspect). A few minor, but noticeable and prevalent video flaws (mosquito noise, banding, macroblocking), though I suspect a large part of it is a carryover from the source. The diagonal cuts at ~1:50 were the worst of that.
The random notes were cute, and fit in well with the video. The idea of a "cubic pound" still makes my head hurt, though.
The notes also let you drop in the rather long-winded analysis of the song itself, though, which was really quite interesting.
The masked footage blended quite well with the overall feel of the video.
The only notable flaw I could point to has to do with the intensely saturated colors of the original source. Because of that, you tend to have footage that is either strongly red or strongly blue in tone. However while you generally keep the like tones together, or move between them smoothly, occasionally one of the opposite tones slips through. It doesn't really disrupt anything, but those bits have a very subtle sense of being 'off'. The most noticeable of these were the handful with a stronger green/brown tone (eg: walking on the railway, holding up his fingers for the picture frame).
[GuntherAMVs] Average, Slightly Annoying Life
A few minor video issues (banding, macroblocking) in dark areas, but mostly pretty solid.
Went for a story and kept it on track throughout. Was very easy to follow the story, and it felt 'real', like it could have actually been pulled from the original anime. Good scene selection to match the intent.
Video distraction: the phone pics were a bit *too* clean; they stood out against the more earth-tone feel of the anime itself.
[HaydenST] Time for Life
CRF19 probably introduced a few more artifacts than preferred, but given the final output was on the high side for file size, will let it slide. The 'old film' filters likely hurt the compression ratio a great deal.
More 'pure' relation between the anime source and the song. Mixed thoughts brought up from the commentary in "Reading Material", and really attached it in an emotional way to the anime. That emotional resonance is significant, to me, as there aren't many AMVs that really connect with me on that level.
The fall at 0:49 felt rather out of place; that was the only scene that felt jarring to the overall flow.
[Scoob] Good Days
Unlike a previous round, where the repetitiveness of the song practically begged for multiple sources, this song seems to work best when focused on a single source, since it's largely a story in song form. "Good Days" is the unfortunate one that went the multiple-source route out of the four entries of this group.
The multiple sources caused a lot of lack of coherency. Individual elements generally worked OK, but didn't blend well together because the characters and art styles kept changing, and it lacked a central theme other than generally going along with the tone of the song.
Sync and editing was generally pretty solid, but without a solid core to hold it together it ends up lagging behind the others. I bring up the comparison mostly because of how strongly that weakness stood out after watching the other three (this one being the fourth, alphabetically). Taken on its own it's still a pretty decent video.
Too literal presentation of "numbers", the scene showing the number 3, when it's clear the song is referring to phone numbers.
Top picks:
[HaydenST] Time for Life
[GuntherAMVs] Average, Slightly Annoying Life
[Copycat] Reading Material (The Readening)
Despite what I said in the previous round, about trying to force myself to pick just 2, I'm going to have to fall back on the "I'm not a judge" excuse again. All three of these were excellent, and there aren't any easy-to-point-to technicalities that I can use to justify dropping one of them. The primary distinctions are just the 'type' of video each is, and that hardly rates an excuse for removing one.
If anyone wants a more detailed critique, just ask and I'll see what I can do.