Flashy lights =/= effects

Pyle · Post by **Pyle** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:59 pm

If you disagree, post why.

I do not believe that flashy lights and epileptic moments are effects because they are just simple edits instead of actual overlay and transparency usage.

x_rex30 · Post by **x_rex30** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:01 pm

or fades.. someone told me that they are effects.. and plain white flashes are not much of an effect I would saaaaaaaaaay! O_O

Pyle · Post by **Pyle** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:06 pm

Another thing I'd like to ask is why most of the creators that can do AE and overlays vastly beyond my ability tend to have the grammar of a 3rd grader.

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:16 pm

Pyle wrote:Another thing I'd like to ask is why most of the creators that can do AE and overlays vastly beyond my ability tend to have the grammar of a 3rd grader.

I think it has to do with using the other side of the brain. Technically inclined people (engineers for example) write some of the worst reports imaginable. It's not a lack of intelligence, they just have very poor communication skills. Generalization for people as a whole, but it was true of every Engineering student at USI (university of southern Indiana) from 2000 to 2003, males and females, especially the professors. There's something there.

As for flashes and fades...I don't know. I've been told that overlays aren't effects because they're so common and as simple (in some programs) to do as fades are. Then again, I know people who don't consider 'cutting out characters' to be effects, or blurs or transitions, either. As basic effects get more complicated, the bar seems to be raising to the point where only things done in an outside program are considered effects, while anything done in the main editing program are just...editing tricks.

For me, anything that can't be done in windows movie maker 1.0 is an effect. I use it as my standard for the most basic editing program. Even 2.0 has packaged 'effects' and transitions to use. So...a fade is not an effect because you can do that with wmm1.0, and white/color flashes are not effects because you can fade to and from them in wmm1.0. Anything beyond that is an effect.

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:20 pm

The org defines effects as anything that can't be done in traditional non-digital video editing.

I don't really care what you call an effect or not. The video itself is what speaks about what was put into it.

*inverse* · Post by ***inverse*** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:35 pm

I've always considered fades, overlays, and flashes effects because they alter the original footage in some way. If they're not effects, what are they?

HorrorPhD · Post by **HorrorPhD** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:43 pm

Well, my video editor classifies even the simple crossfade as an "effect." Depends entirely on what your personal definition of the term is.

I'm with Zarxrax...it's the project as a whole that determines for me whether or not the effects were properly used or "too much."

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:03 am

Is this line of discussion at all motivated by the concept of standards of a "no-effects" AMV?

requiett · Post by **requiett** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:10 am

*inverse* wrote:I've always considered fades, overlays, and flashes effects because they alter the original footage in some way. If they're not effects, what are they?

By your definition, a "cut" would be an effect. It alters the original footage.

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:32 am

requiett wrote:
*inverse* wrote:I've always considered fades, overlays, and flashes effects because they alter the original footage in some way. If they're not effects, what are they?
By your definition, a "cut" would be an effect. It alters the original footage.

How about "something that alters the contents of the original frames, not just their relative order"?