Best No-Effects Video

[Otohiko]

I agree that in fact not just this category, but several of the categories need to be better-defined. However the REAL problem here is that neither the editors nor the viewer-voters actually read the definitions, let alone agree with them. So maybe a better name for the category would be more appropriate, but then that's also tricky to categorize. Something like "best montage" or "best internal sync" or "best use of straight cuts" - they all sound dumb and, in some sense, I think the voters will either not get or not agree with what all those things are.

Any suggestions?

[Ileia]

I've seen some cons that have "Best Simple" or "Best Simplistic" or something to that effect.


Edit: ahaha, I see what I did there.

[ngsilver]

But isn't the category basically culled based on who doesn't select 'effects' when they enter their video? I'm sure there is SOME quality check being done but in the end with the contest being switched to opt-out this year there were tons of videos in the category in the end that are there simply because the user failed to categorize their video properly. This is a problem with the way the contest is handled as a whole, since it relies heavily on how a user categorize their own videos. At least that is how I understand the process.

The fact that we have videos that have effects in the category and in the final round is a testament to both the current mindset of viewers (effect = good video) and how the VCA system works.

[Fall_Child42]

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

Ladies and gentlemen, I now present to you the next George Lucas.

[Koopiskeva]

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

No. I really hope you're just joking because this is a foolish thing to say.

[Gaurry]

In a category "best effects" we estimate efforts. What to estimate in a category "best no-effects"?

[Koopiskeva]

In a category "best effects" we estimate efforts. What to estimate in a category "best no-effects"?

That's not true. That's why it's called "Best Use of Effects," not simply "Best Effects." The measurement is how well and effective effects are used to make the video that much more rewarding/satisfying to watch. How much "effort" somebody puts into a video is something entirely different.

In "Best No-Effects," the measurement is how effective a video is in it's purpose regardless of that lack of effects.

Same coin, different sides.

[Kireblue]

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.

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.

In a category "best effects" we estimate efforts. What to estimate in a category "best no-effects"?

That's not true. That's why it's called "Best Use of Effects," not simply "Best Effects." The measurement is how well and effective effects are used to make the video that much more rewarding/satisfying to watch. How much "effort" somebody puts into a video is something entirely different.

In "Best No-Effects," the measurement is how effective a video is in it's purpose regardless of that lack of effects.

Same coin, different sides.

I agree with the above statements. In a contest that is decided by "viewers", it can be hard to stand out without effects. But this doesn't necessarily mean that the videos don't deserve to be recognized. (Even when you go to cons, you see that the audience is less likely to clap for a video without effects)

And also, the "no effects" category is just as relevant as the "best use of effects" category. Many people don't realize that "no effects" videos can actually be more time consuming and require even more effort than videos with effects. This is because not using effects forces "non effect editors" to choose their scene selection much more carefully than "effect editors". For many of my AMVs, I spent days tinkering with a measly 10 seconds of video. A lot of times, it can be hard for a viewer to see and understand just how much effort can go into "no effect" videos. So with this in mind, I feel that this category is a nice way for them to get some spotlight.

I agree that in fact not just this category, but several of the categories need to be better-defined. However the REAL problem here is that neither the editors nor the viewer-voters actually read the definitions, let alone agree with them. So maybe a better name for the category would be more appropriate, but then that's also tricky to categorize. Something like "best montage" or "best internal sync" or "best use of straight cuts" - they all sound dumb and, in some sense, I think the voters will either not get or not agree with what all those things are.

Any suggestions?

I think that the "no effects category" should have a few special rules for determining if it is a "no effect" video. It should then be filtered after the initial nomination process. Once the top 20 list is determined, someone should skim through them and remove (x) number of videos that definitely shouldn't be classified as "no effects". Then a (x) number of videos should be added to the list in order to replace the removed ones.

[Kyssifur]

The only thing that may be responsible for the current situation, would be the ignorance and negligence?

I expected coming to the finals with Number 1, everybody has believed in it, but... according to these facts (above), the problem is not with the popularity or the experience/quality of my video, but with the other vids in Best No-Effects category, because they are better in all respects than mine, apart from that those AMVs have effects or not?

wow... I understand what I've written lol

[Bauzi]

I think that the "no effects category" should have a few special rules for determining if it is a "no effect" video. It should then be filtered after the initial nomination process. Once the top 20 list is determined, someone should skim through them and remove (x) number of videos that definitely shouldn't be classified as "no effects". Then a (x) number of videos should be added to the list in order to replace the removed ones.

In 2005 I labeled one of my videos with "using Special Fx". This got removed/unchecked by some mod or other staff. It was striked out so I couldn't recheck it again (it's still striked out). As far as I remember I didn't even got a PM or email that notified me about it. I wasn't even really active in the forums in 2005 so it really made me wonder why a mod came across my vid (the forum response to the announcement was more or less not existing because I was new).

I just wanted to tell this story, because I think that a mod should go through the VCA semi nominations for non-fx and check them. Maybe the aboth handling should come back, but just with notifying the editor of course. It takes time and effort, but shouldn't this be worth some days?

I expected coming to the finals with Number 1

It just came to my mind that this is very sad. A excellent non-fx video didn't came into the finals because of some bullshit. That's tragic.