Would you consider Lipsync to be an Effect?

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:21 am

I know basic lipsync can be done with simple cuts, edits, and lots of looping footage. But I know that technically a lot of lipsync is done with masks and overlays and a bunch of slowing or speeding up footage. Since good lipsync seems to take a good deal of work, at what point does it transcend "no-effects"?

requiett · Post by **requiett** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:46 am

When the footage is altered in any way other than cuts, it should be an "effect." For more information, consult this simple formula.

BunofGovt · Post by **BunofGovt** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:42 pm

So that's why my lipsync sucks! Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Sir_Lagsalot · Post by **Sir_Lagsalot** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:00 pm

Lipsync by itself is not an effect, hence why there is a separate category for it on opinions. Basicly, even the most complex lip sync techniques aim to make the lip sync look completely natural - eg it looks like the video has not been edited. Effects on the other hand are designed to be noticed.

Fall_Child42 · Post by **Fall_Child42** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:54 pm

Sir_Lagsalot wrote:Effects on the other hand are designed to be noticed.

I don't know about that, I find many effects should not be noticed, rotoscoping for one, if it is done well it should look pretty seemless.

Sir_Lagsalot · Post by **Sir_Lagsalot** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:31 am

Even well done rotoscoping is generally quite noticable to the experienced AMVer (or at least to me anyway). Even in the best cases, the edges never blend flawlessly with the background, and usually just the differences in the footage are enough to tell (eg different lighting, angle, or even series). Even if you argue that some effects are meant to not be noticed, this is generally not the case, and a video with only unnociable effects would be hard pressed to be recognized as an effects video. Stuff like cleaning up and enhancing video using advanced case-by-case filtering and photoshop can require just as much skill as rotoscoping, yet are still not effects. Basicly, to pariody zen riddles: if an effect happens, and nobody sees it, was there ever really an effect?

Org Profile · Post by **Vlad G Pohnert** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:14 am

Sir_Lagsalot wrote:Even well done rotoscoping is generally quite noticable to the experienced AMVer (or at least to me anyway). Even in the best cases, the edges never blend flawlessly with the background, and usually just the differences in the footage are enough to tell (eg different lighting, angle, or even series). Even if you argue that some effects are meant to not be noticed, this is generally not the case, and a video with only unnociable effects would be hard pressed to be recognized as an effects video. Stuff like cleaning up and enhancing video using advanced case-by-case filtering and photoshop can require just as much skill as rotoscoping, yet are still not effects. Basicly, to pariody zen riddles: if an effect happens, and nobody sees it, was there ever really an effect?

Yes, that is the true nature of visual effects... Look at movies, the best effects are those you don't notice. Frankly, people has gotten this for idea in AMVs that good effects are those you only see.

Vlad

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:36 am

Sir_Lagsalot wrote:Lipsync by itself is not an effect, hence why there is a separate category for it on opinions. Basicly, even the most complex lip sync techniques aim to make the lip sync look completely natural - eg it looks like the video has not been edited. Effects on the other hand are designed to be noticed.

Isn't kinda contradictory that the best lipsync looks completely natural so you shouldn't notice it was edited, BUT the best lipsync is noticed to the point that there is a separate category in opinions and a separate category for VCAs.

I think we humans are made in such a way that when we hear (or for hearing impaired folks, see) someone speaking, we also look at lip movements. So you biologically cannot help but notice lipsyncing. The best example is when you get "unintentional" lipsyncing on some videos. It looks perfectly natural BUT you immediately notice that it happened, just like the fancy effects people put in their videos.

So I guess that lipsync is some kind of uber-editing and not some kind of effect applied to the video, which may also require uber-editing but a different kind.

Sir_Lagsalot · Post by **Sir_Lagsalot** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:43 pm

Vlad G Pohnert wrote: Yes, that is the true nature of visual effects... Look at movies, the best effects are those you don't notice. Frankly, people has gotten this for idea in AMVs that good effects are those you only see.
Vlad

I would like examples of what good visual effects in movies we don't notice. No matter how well it is done, stuff like explosions, bullet time, huge monsters, and space battles are instantly realized as effects.

The Wired Knight · Post by **The Wired Knight** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:55 pm

Sir_Lagsalot wrote:Lipsync by itself is not an effect.

But what if the characters didn't have lips and you used an effect to put some in?