I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WENT WRONG

Radical_Yue · Post by **Radical_Yue** » Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:47 pm

The Official "I found an error/problem" thread. Please post any errors or problems you find so a member of the administration can correct it as soon as possible.

YouTube · Post by **l33tmeatwad** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:21 am

This sub-forum is not showing up in the tapatalk app.

Kyssifur · Post by **Kyssifur** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:24 pm

I found an error. There is no "Best No-Effects Video" category.

Radical_Yue · Post by **Radical_Yue** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:36 pm

l33tmeatwad wrote:This sub-forum is not showing up in the tapatalk app.

I personally don't know anything about tapatalk but I'll forward it on to the others.

Kyssifur wrote:I found an error. There is no "Best No-Effects Video" category.

Starting this year there is no longer a Best No-Effects category.

After personally going through and checking the No-Effects category (consisting over 2,000 videos) before it went public last year, I found well over 70% of the videos that originally qualified had blatant effects work in them and had to be removed. This award has become more and more obscure every year and has been the subject of much debate over the years (what qualifies as no-effects, videos that won/were nominated that had obvious effects, etc.) so we've elected to drop the category.

As a type of trade off we've brought back Best Short Video.

Sorry for any confusion this caused. I should have made it clear right off the bat.

Kyssifur · Post by **Kyssifur** » Thu Jan 16, 2014 11:35 am

I really do understand what you have written above but what is the exact reason? We just have to remove all those videos with FXs, don't we? Or is it something more complicated?

Radical_Yue · Post by **Radical_Yue** » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:11 pm

Kyssifur wrote:I really do understand what you have written above but what is the exact reason? We just have to remove all those videos with FXs, don't we? Or is it something more complicated?

Yes, we do have to remove all of those videos but in order to do that, someone has to sit there and watch all the videos and then each video has to be manually corrected by dokidoki. Last year it took me a over a week just to check that single category on my own before anything could be corrected. There were even big name editors that are known for nothing but effects listed with every single one of their videos that they had released that year. There have been multiple winners throughout the years that have taken "Best No-Effects" because they simply chose not to or forgot to check the "Special Effects" box when entering their videos into the catalog. Because most voters just select videos they recognize on the list as opposed to selecting videos based on if they actually think it should win the category or not, it's lead to some results causing arguments on both sides.

The number of videos that can be considered "No Effects" is getting smaller and smaller every year and even editors that consider themselves to be "*Raw" use a decent amount of effects.
For example, most people consider me to be a raw editor yet in the last 10 videos I've released, every single one of them has blatant effects that disqualify it from being in the category.

What with the changing definition and amount of time and work that goes into it, it's become way too much trouble to keep it around.

*Raw: No effects work. Only edits with raw footage and nothing more.

Org Profile · Post by **Kireblue** » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:38 pm

I agree with Yue. The amount of work necessary to keep that category in existence is just too great. And even then, the definition of a no effect video is too subjective. Many people (including myself) feel that crossfades don't really qualify as effects, but not everyone agrees. And some people feel that minor color corrections or cretin speed adjustments don't count either, but once again, not everyone agrees. And if you go the super strict "absolutely no effects or transitions" route, it would become very difficult to properly enforce since effects can be very subtle.

ngsilver · Post by **ngsilver** » Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:56 pm

I'm sad to see the cat go since it is one of my fav cats since I love watching raw videos I can see the points and tbh I don't believe there was a single video in last years list that actually qualified for the award.

I pretty much consider myself a raw or effectess editor but even I do lip sync, lip flap removal, speed changes, ect that while the effects are subtle they're still effects.

Good bye old friend.

Kyssifur · Post by **Kyssifur** » Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:02 pm

Fair enough, but I am still disappointed.

Thanks for the explanation.

YouTube · Post by **Rider4Z** » Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:15 am

would it be practical to create a new category that recognizes subtle uses of effects? meaning videos that disguise their use of effects giving the illusion of raw footage - as opposed to the obviously altered special effects videos, examples being compared to

there are so many videos where effects were intentionally inconspicuous and got overlooked

i mean, that's the sign of a good editor, right? when you don't even notice they changed something right away? i don't think these should fall under the same category as shiny AMVs where special effects are more the star of the video than the animation itself.

or is this an even more subjective can of worms?

AnimeMusicVideos.org