The GENERAL idea of a vid w/ "GOOD" Quality...

[ashiteruSweetSurrender]

describe in your own words what condition a vid has to be in to be considered in the "top marks" of the scale when you give an opinion about a vid... jw... i don't think people really know how clear.. etc. it has to be... i don't even know... i guess that's why i'm asking... heh...*slaps forehead*

[paizuri: Fixed mispellings in the thread subject.]

[dokool]

describe in your own words what condition a vid has to be in to be considered in the "top marks" of the scale when you give an opinion about a vid... jw... i don't think people really know how clear.. etc. it has to be... i don't even know... i guess that's why i'm asking... heh...*slaps forehead*

-No WMV, MOV, or RM

-No interlacing lines

-No blocky or blurry footage

-No pixellation, macroblocking, etc

-No color issues (i.e. nothing that's washed out)

-High resolution, looks good even when maximized (and my resolution is 1680x1050 so I have higher standards than most for this)


So basically, 'anyone who follows the AV Tech Guide and doesn't screw up'.

[Arigatomina]

A list - if it has one of these things, I'd mark it down to a 9. If it has quite a few of these things, the score goes lower. I *do* take into account if it's a very old anime (old anime had worse quality, so it's not the creator's fault - examples include Ranma, Sailormoon, etc).

- fuzz, if it has noisy fuzz in the footage

-blurry hard to see sections - if they've cleaned it to the point where you can't see the lines well, it's as bad as having it fuzzy

-interlacing lines = this is where you can see small horizontal lines breaking the footage, they really show up in scenes with motion, this is easily fixed with a deinterlace filter, or inverse telecine, so I count down for it

-blocky sections, this is where you get blobs in the footage, and is due to overcompression, it really shows up in action scenes

-subtitles, you can remove these very very easily with VirtualDub, so it's an automatic point off for pure laziness if you leave those in

-extreme pixelation, jagged edges, you get this from turning a large video into something small like a 320x240, I don't mind it that much if the file size is small and the rest of the video is clear, but if it makes it hard to see the footage, it's an eyesore

-really screwy aspect ratios - stretching the scenes so they're way too tall or too scrunched looking, but I don't mind this as much as the other problems

[Note, this is just affecting the 'capture quality' score, not the reviewability or whether or not I enjoy watching it.]

[Coffee 54]

As mention above their are lots of things, like interlacing issues, that can take away from the picture quality. I personally, however, have seen no major difference between the star scores on my video moderate video quality video, and my high video quality videos. In fact, I've seen my star scores go down, in some cases by as much a .10 points, after remastering videos. That doesn't mean don't work toward great picture quality, I really like videos with a pretty picture. It just means, star scale wise at least, it won't have a huge impact.

[bum]

The beter the actual editing of the amv, the less chance thier is that people are going to spot, or give a damn about the output quality.

[Sir_Lagsalot]

The beter the actual editing of the amv, the less chance thier is that people are going to spot, or give a damn about the output quality.

I find it more galling when someone makes a good video, but then makes n00bish mistakes with the video ::coughLeavingInterlacingcough::
Getting decent video quality isn't that difficult, and if they are able to put enough effort into editing to make a decent video, then they can afford to put at least a little effort into making the video look good.

[bum]

I find it more galling when someone makes a good video, but then makes n00bish mistakes with the video ::coughLeavingInterlacingcough::
.

Would you like to express that thought in an OP?

[Qyot27]

The technical quality of the vid is the thing I judge harshest on after action/mood sync, but of course the majority of the vids I download don't have those types of glaring problems so most opinions I give have high tech marks.

In any case, things that do get on my nerves and would drive down the score:

No blurry video, such as is common with any sort of codec post-processor, like WMV. I disable post-processing in DivX and XviD, because it lags my computer and I've never really seen much of an improvement while using it on crappy-looking vids, just a bunch of blurs that are harsher to look at than the macroblocking it's supposed to cover up.

No interlacing lines or subtitles, as has been said before. This also includes Premiere's nasty little slow-down issue or jagged edges caused by a bad resizing (in some cases; sometimes I'm able to fix it up a little, but that doesn't change the issue of the file I downloaded)

I guess IMO, if I can adequately reencode the video to VCD-compliant MPEG-1 and make it look a little cleaner or equal in quality (granted the circumstances, of course), to the original file, I don't really mind and would give it a high score. I do make VCDs out of almost all the vids I download, so I'm just simply not limited to using the computer everytime I want to watch some AMVs, and no, I don't have a DVD burner or a DVD player capable of playing back mini-DVD or DivX, so VCD is my only real option. I guess that serves as my standard of quality.