What EXACTLY is no-effects?

[trythil]

I agree with you on that account trythil, that if I don't know the source material, there's no way I'd know if it was an effects shot. Indeed, I showed evilspider's Revenge to my sister the other day, and, not having seen Cowboy Bebop, she had no idea it wasn't the original story until I told her. (She hasn't seen zetsumo yet bakadeshi, since she's watching subs of Naruto and doesn't want any spoilers!)
However, me not knowing it's an effect does not alter the fact that it is one. It would be up to the creator to tell me so. Then I could say "Wow! What a well done effect! That editor is super talented, or really patient, or both!"

...and there's the problem. You're trying to figure out what is a "no-effects" video for the VCAs, i.e.

But how much of a stickler should we be for the VCAs?

so all you really have access to is the video itself.

In such ambiguous situations, you might be able to get in touch with the creator(s) for video V and ask "hey, is the sequence from X to Y an effects shot?" for all ambiguous videos V and sequences X..Y, but

(1) good luck doing that; that can be quite involved, depending on how sharp your eyes and memory are
(2) some creators just don't give a shit and won't talk about a video in detail because they feel that it just doesn't matter (well, I know I wouldn't; maybe I'm just weird)

(1) can make the process imprecise and inaccurate; (2) can make the process arduous.

Oh, and you'd have to repeat that procedure for all people who care about the VCAs to get any sort of accurate sample, which, unfortunately, seems to be an increasing number.

For the VCAs, it does not matter what something is in an absolute sense. What does matter is what the masses think that something is.

[slackergirl]

Hence, not an effects shot.

No, I think it IS an effects shot, but you just don't know it is. Hence it is a GOOD effects shot, if its purpose is not to be noticed.

Just because I don't know a dog is Norfolk Terrier, that doesn't mean it isn't one.

I'm off to sleep, work in the morning. I'll pick up the debate tomorrow. Mmmm.... debate....



(no, wait, not debate. I was thinking of ham....)

[trythil]

Hence, not an effects shot.

No, I think it IS an effects shot, but you just don't know it is.

(more absolute vs. relative argument)

You are either missing or intentionally ignoring the frame of reference I established. Please re-read all three of my posts.

[slackergirl]

...and there's the problem. You're trying to figure out what is a "no-effects" video for the VCAs, i.e.

But how much of a stickler should we be for the VCAs?

For the VCAs, it does not matter what something is in an absolute sense. What does matter is what the masses think that something is.

Question answered. I think I'll just treat them as "simplicity" videos instead, since they all fall in that category. And now, good night for real.


Mmmm.... Ham....


no, wait, I don't like ham....

[Infinity Squared]

Infinity: Sorry man, but that one transition near the end, that was totally an effect. But herein lies the big debate. I agree that "Dedication" is not and effects BASED video, but given the narrow definition, you must concede that it is not strictly a NO-effects video. (Unless that footage is original to the source; I sadly admit I have not yet seen Place Promised )

No need to apologise... I agree with you there. I just never listed it as effects because it wasn't my intention, yet I believed I required to include those few seconds of overlay because I couldn't see those scenes in any other way. Heck, I never thought I'd be up in this category to start with. But yeah, I never intended for an effects video upon the creation of Dedication.

[trythil]

Hence, not an effects shot.

No, I think it IS an effects shot, but you just don't know it is.

(more absolute vs. relative argument)

You are either missing or intentionally ignoring the frame of reference I established. Please re-read all three of my posts.

Well, just to expand on this:

Yes. An effects shot is an effects shot from a good old-fashioned Aristotelian "A is A" perspective.

However, as the viewer with no foreknowledge and no other way to tell what is and what is not an effects shot, what may actually be an effects shot (call it S for further reference) will not be perceived as such. Therefore that viewer will say that S is not an effects shot, regardless of its actual nature.

That is what matters for the VCAs and for viewer judgment of effects vs. no-effects shots, which I'm pretty sure is what your original post was about.

I get the feeling that this is about to slide into the "what is reality" discussion.

[Corran]

To illustrate Trythil's point further. >_>


This was a digital effect that I panned across in one of my vids. Can even the most crazed Love Hina fan tell what I did to make this scene different from the original, let alone someone who has not seen the series? Does such a change warrant a check mark in the digital effects box even though it is technically a digital effect? I don't think so...

[Jnzk]

I don't buy into the logic that if the viewer cannot recognize an effect, it doesn't count. Best effects go unnoticed. I go by the a-m-v.org guideline about effects in my own videos, and wish others would do the same to avoid confusion. (Yes, I get many "where were the FX" comments. )

[FoxJones]

For the VCAs, it does not matter what something is in an absolute sense. What does matter is what the masses think that something is.

Question answered. I think I'll just treat them as "simplicity" videos instead, since they all fall in that category. And now, good night for real.

I still think that "best use of simplicity" would be much better description than "no-effect". Nowadays everyone uses a helluva lot of effects anyway, even though they doesn't want to admit it (Like Bakadeshi.. come on! If that's not an effect I don't know what the **ck is!).
Actually.. if you think of a simple thing like flashing scenes (the few frames stuff) and white/black screen to give people epileptic seizures. It requires some extra effort to create stuff like that, and just think of the effect (in the other meaning of the word) it creates for your AMV

[trythil]

I don't buy into the logic that if the viewer cannot recognize an effect, it doesn't count.

Why not? How else can one tell what is and what is not an effect and for something like viewer-given opinions or the VCAs?

Creator's notes? Yeah, fine, I've conceded that point a few times. What if, say, you don't have access to those?

In absolute terms, an effect is obviously an effect regardless of whether or not some entity perceives it as such. But I don't think that's the point.

But how much of a stickler should we be for the VCAs? I mean, "Dedication" used cropping, overlays, and I think 2 instances of color changing, but for a total of maybe 4 seconds of a nearly 5 minute vid. That is clearly an effect, but should it be barred from consideration given that the remaining 4:42 were only crossfades and simple cuts? It starts becoming a slippery slope of where to draw the line; are 2 effects ok, but 4 not? I don't know. That's why I'm asking. It may seem like I'm being nit-picky, but I really am confused by this. How do you all approach this dilemma?

If we had some bullet-proof way of generally applying that absolute judgment to a contest that is otherwise entirely determined by what reality is perceived by the masses, I don't think this topic would exist.