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.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.
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".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.
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)
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.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.
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.I was mostly trying to argue his ability to like anything based on quality of editing alone. LIKE it, not appreciate.jaddziadax wrote: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.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?
I GET IT! you can see past liking a video, he said he could like anything that was "well edited"JaddziaDax wrote: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.gotegenks wrote: I was mostly trying to argue his ability to like anything based on quality of editing alone. LIKE it, not appreciate.
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.
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.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.
Mastamind wrote:This is getting pointless.
I for one think that this is a good idea. Not that I support it, but I can see where both sides are coming from. The only reason I can't see this happening is because tiers are only useful where you have a very complex competition, where the competition is so tight that the tiers are what determine the difference between success and failure. AFAIK, Iron chefs are not that complex, or at all much of a head-on, direct competition (at least to the point where the competitors actually play to win). However gotegenks has a valid point, and arguing with that point will never get you anywhere. It's been established that many people honestly don't care about the sources used, but I'm of the same mindset as gotegenks as of this point.
THANK YOU!gotegenks wrote: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.
