Judging AMV's

genestarwind21122 · Post by **genestarwind21122** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:30 am

Oh right heres another topic I like to bring up. Its about judging amv's. I'm trying to judge some videos right now and my thing is I'm judging on what video is technically better. For example if a video has 7 on capture, 9 on sound, 9 on action sync, n/a lip sync, and an 8 on digital effects. And the other video has a 9 on capture, 9 on sound, 6 on action sync, n/a lip sync and an 8 on digital effects. Which one in your opinion is technically better. I mean I think the first video is technically better, eventhough the capture isn't as good as the second video, it has better actionsync than the other video. So if the capture quality is liveable and the action sync is better would that video be technically better than the other one. This is where I've gotten into some debates with some of my friends. Because is one thing more important than the other. This is a breakdown when I judge videos for a contest in order.

1. Action Sync (is the up most importantce. The lyrical sync, beat sync and the flow of the video.)

2. Lip Sync/ Digital Effects - These two are group together because all videos don't have them, but if they are done/ used properly and executed well that's were the determining factor in most cases. So lets just say if there was one video with special effects and the other had none. If the special effects in the one video helps the video out by focusing on the story or enhances the video so it isn't eye candy then yes the special effect one will win because it is technically better than a video that has just action sync eventhough it may be executed perfectly. But if the special effects are just thrown in there and have no meaning then the video with no effects will win because it was done technically better.

3 and 4. Capture Quality - The capture quality if it is liveable (7.5/10 or higher) and you executed everything else then this may not effect your video even if the other video has a 9 in capture quality because you executed everything else very well and the other video may not have. But if both videos were executed well then it may come down to capture and sound quality. Same goes for sound quality.

Well what do you guys think about this judging system. Does this seem fair?

Let me know what you think.

Gene Starwind 21122

staces · Post by **staces** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 9:07 am

Personally, the thing that matters the most to me in AMVs in action synch. I'm a beat synch nazi! So as long as the capture is fairly clear and subtitle free, then I'm a happy camper with good action synch. I've seen beautiful quality and beautiful effects in crappily synched vids and the things going for it didn't make up for the timing. =/ I mean, the heart of AMVs is the clips we put in and the way that we time them.

Keeper of Hellfire · Post by **Keeper of Hellfire** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 9:58 am

Why don't you work with weighted averages? You give every category a percent weight depending on how important you think it is. That way it comes automatic in the right order according to your preference. If it comes to a tie, check the categories in descending order of the weight until you find a difference, and the vid with the higher value of course is the winner. Difficult is it always if one vid has a category N/A while the other has.

The thing is that everyones perception of good AMV is different. So there exists not really a fair system to judge on them. The only thing you can make sure is that during a contest all AMV are judged with the same criteria.

anneke · Post by **anneke** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:29 am

I think video quality means little via the internet, because to get a video to be small enough for the internet, you have to lose quality. I hate it when I get knocked for the 'video quality' that is posted on-line, when I have a beautiful video, but which would be huge if I kept it at the quality for which I send it to competitions (Usually on DVD).

Action synch is important but also pacing. Are they just meeting the beats for no reason. I also don't like it when a video is very linear. Telling the anime from

The other thing to consider is are the Effects needed? A big trend has been to throw in a bunch of effects to make the video look flashy. Does the effect really have meaning and purpose to the video. Was it needed, or did they throw it in to look cool. Could a simpler effect been just as good? I'm very big on trying to keep to the original feel of the anime. (Other then comedy videos). Alot of effects will clutter up a video and you lose the anime.

I highly believe: If the video is strong enough it shouldn't need a bunch of effects.

-Anneke

Knowname · Post by **Knowname** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:48 am

genestarwind21122 wrote:Oh right heres another topic I like to bring up. Its about judging amv's. I'm trying to judge some videos right now and my thing is I'm judging on what video is technically better. For example if a video has 7 on capture, 9 on sound, 9 on action sync, n/a lip sync, and an 8 on digital effects. And the other video has a 9 on capture, 9 on sound, 6 on action sync, n/a lip sync and an 8 on digital effects. Which one in your opinion is technically better. I mean I think the first video is technically better, eventhough the capture isn't as good as the second video, it has better actionsync than the other video. So if the capture quality is liveable and the action sync is better would that video be technically better than the other one. This is where I've gotten into some debates with some of my friends. Because is one thing more important than the other.

To me, originality is all there is. I don't think originality is JUST something unexpected, I DON'T not in a million years think originality means rare song/ anime. My favorite example is you don't see Shaquil O'Neal shooting 3 pointers or Barry Bonds bunting the ball, those are unexpected, those are rare, but they wouldn't be original, they'd just be stupid. If you want a video that's not stupid (ie does well in what it does) you want a video that's original. Technical merit can only take you so far, even a TOTAL IMBACIL can make a technical masterpeice (making those ugly video creators COMPLETE, INFERNAL ASSTARDS deserveing NO SYMPATHY!), a video must FIRST have a good idea to get an above 7 from me, a BRILLIANT idea to get an above 8 ;p. So as you can see everything revolves around it's concept or originality. My overall reflects little else.

rogueintellectproductions · Post by **rogueintellectproductions** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:26 pm

First off, if I were comparing two videos, I wouldn't focus solely on the technical side. A technically brilliant video can have no heart, no soul, no emotional impact. I can think of a few videos that were the most incredibly well-edited, synched, technically proficient videos that I'd seen, but I wouldn't watch them again because they utterly lacked emotion.

However, if you are strictly judging on technical merit, I don't think any one aspect should be weighted over any other. I believe you have to step back and take a look at the overall flow of the video. While action-synching goes a long way toward establishing flow, it can't work alone. IMHO, there also has to be a discernible narrative behind the events being flashed on screen - and the pace of the narrative may be more important than the pace of the beat. Sometimes a video works on a "slow-to-fast, fast-to-slow" concept; in other words, an editor will intentionally use slow scenes as a counterpoint to fast music, and vice versa. Digital effects should be used to enhance the video, either by adding to the impact of the narrative, or by creating a cohesive visual style (this is where I give Euphoria a pass - the effects are consistent and cohesive, and flow along with the music).

I do have one technical pet peeve, though, and it's something I've been guilty of - orphan frames. It's just me, but nothing will screw up a video's flow like an orphan frame.

Chris

JaddziaDax · Post by **JaddziaDax** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:01 pm

I think the combination of editing and mood is the best way to go!

I've seen some videos that have GREAT clarity and great capture or whatever, but sucked at mood and editing.... So, to me I could care less if a video is a little fuzzy, especially if the editing is awesome, and the mood is set well

the only thing about visual quality that really buggs me is subtitles... o.0

I donno if its edited well I'd probably go for that one.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:09 pm

anneke wrote:I think video quality means little via the internet, because to get a video to be small enough for the internet, you have to lose quality.

I don't accept that as an excuse, because you can minimize the loss to the point where the human eye has difficulty picking it up.

I don't really judge on that, though. My sole criteria is whether or not I enjoyed the video.

downwithpants · Post by **downwithpants** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:43 pm

here's a point to test a point i'm trying to defend:

there is no way to analyze the "goodness" or value of a video by breaking it down into component categories such as editing, audio/video, or overall. the site shouldn't be ranking videos by some combination of these feedback ratings. instead, the star scale does the best job at measuring the rated "goodness" of the video, and the site should just leave the task of ranking the goodness of videos to the star scale, not the top 10%.

meaning... don't use the top 10% scores to compare which of two videos is better. it's like saying picasso is better than monet because he used more reds. instead, use your intuitive and subjective judgment as an amv viewer.

genestarwind21122 · Post by **genestarwind21122** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:56 pm

No the star scale really doesn't help matters. Its the same thing as ops except no breakdown. People will give high scores or stars to videos they like. Some people will be honest and some will be jerks. It's just a fact. That's why I said when judging the videos in action sync I consider lyrical sync, beat sync, flow (emotion and feel of the video). The clip selection and editing of those clips is what really makes the video. If it has decent quality compared to a video that has perfect quality and no real flow, or either sync (lyrical or beat) Then the better video has to be the video with the decent quality footage and better sync all around. I'm not saying there is a universal way to judge videos, but I'm just trying to come up with a system that is less opinionated. By breaking action sync down into 3-4 different sections it allows you to take a deeper look into the video and see what the creator was actually going after.

Anyways I know that no matter what you do it is still going to be somewhat opinionated because you have to leave it to the judges to interpret the clips with the music.

Gene Starwind 21122

AnimeMusicVideos.org

Judging AMV's

Judging AMV's

Re: Judging AMV's