What EXACTLY is no-effects?

[Melanchthon]

Personally, I generally define an effect as anything that is in a video that is not footage.

So basically, any video that can't be made with two VCRs and/or a pair of scissors would be disqualified? I think that's a little harsh for the entire 'no effects' category, but you certainly can't argue with it.

My personal definition for 'no effects' is 'cuts, fades, and fades to/from black only', but it's not a very logical one. If I allows fades to and from black, why not the other colours? The answer is: 'because the effects listed above aren't intrusive', which is a concept that varies from person to person and from video to video.

however, there is one scene using three segments that I cropped so each fills 1/3 of the space and then they are blended in first yellow, green and finally red according to the drums.

but after all, these are just 2 secs. just give me a recommendation wether to hit 'effects' in the vid information or not.

Yes.

"This is how well the digital effects (if any) are USED, not the amount used or how elaborate they were. Score high if the effects are well-placed and well-executed. Score low if the effects were detracting or cheesy. If there are no effects used, score n/a."

That's from the scoring guidelines. Using an effect for only a couple of seconds doesn't make it any less well-placed (or not).

[slackergirl]

I tend to agree with Melanchthon. Historically those are the same things I'd allow as non-effects, with the possible addition of fade-to-white as well. I also concede that those choices aren't exactly logical, and could let color changes in the door.

Also, bakadeshi makes a compelling argument for including masks in that list, but I remain unconvinced. I certainly agree with the effort part! (I admit I've only started working with masks, so I have little experience. So far, man, is it tedious!) But it still changes the footage too significantly in my book. I guess in my view, moving frames around is not an effect, but moving PARTS of frames around is (or any in-frame manipulation).

[Isenfolme]

Please forgive the newbie for butting in. I've been lurking on the boards for a long while in an effort to learn more about the art of amv making before I take the plunge myself. However, this was too good a discussion to pass up.

Perhaps one way to look at the effects debate is on the grounds of fairness. Let's say you're an amv maker who only has the minimum of equipment, and has neither the kit nor the skills to do any kind of effects. Out of necessity, all this person has in their arsenal is raw footage. That's obviously pretty limiting, and our hypothetical creator isn't going to be able to produced as polished an amv as someone who has the ability to have more useful transitions, or masks, or any of the other wonderful stuff that can create a truly "simple" vid. On the grounds of fairness then, surely we shouldn't judge an absolutely "no effects" vid on a level with something that puts subtle effects to good use?

At the same time, shouldn't we be recognising the talent of the people who expend vast amounts of time and effort in creating those same subtle effects? If I had spent the best part of two weeks putting together something that will be all but invisible to the uninformed viewer, I'd find it hard not to shout about it in my vid notes. How else will anyone know just how darn hard I'd worked? As a pure viewer myself, I'd love to know exactly where people have altered the raw footage in their vids so I could learn something from it: similarly I'd like to be able to applaud someone for their skillful use of "invisible" effects.

[slackergirl]

Well, that scenario's not hypothetical at all! There are plenty of people who don't have premiere or other powerful editors and thus have limited capabilities for "effects". (I had a trial version editor for my first vid, and couldn't even do crossfades!)

I think what you're suggesting is that we have 2 categories: Best No-effects for those who qualify in our previous Aristotelean definition of "effect"; and Best Use of Simplicity for those that technically have what one might call effects, but is not effects based, as also previously discussed.

This is a GREAT idea, in theory. I just think its implementation would be very difficult. If it were to have any chance of being successful, I think there has to be another button to select when you upload your vid for absolutely no-effects. Then, only those that the creator admits having nothing but a predetermined set of allowed manpulations is considered (i.e. crossfades and fade to blacks, maybe white flashes, I don't know). If no button is selected, then you in essence admit that there are subtle effects in your vid, but it is not significant or noticable enough to be considered effects based. Call me cynical, but I somehow doubt this will happen.

Heck, I'd also like to see a button to select for alternate storyline and/or crossover vids, for things like bakadeshi's zetsumo. That would make a great category too! But that's a separate topic.

[Isenfolme]

Well, adding a whole extra button when uploading does seem to be going rather overboard... *g*

Actually, what I was getting at was that if a creator uses effects other than the traditional cross fades and fades to black (and any others that can be done with the minimum of equipment - not being a creator myself, I'm not sure what should go in this list), they should tick the "effects" box, but then explain in the video notes what those effects are. It takes extra time, sure, but it means credit where credit is due, and amv-illiterate folk like me can learn a thing or two.

In the case of the VCAs- Surely all the vids in the categories that include effects aren't necessarily effects-based? With adequate information about where effects were utilised, wouldn't that be enough to put them on an equal footing with any of the competition? Still, on reflection, perhaps having a category to themselves would fit the "subtle effects" vids better. It would certainly provide a tighter focus for viewer votes. Of course, it's not going to happen this time round, but it might be a thought for the future.

Generally then, I think the crux of the matter is how much people reveal about their use of effects in their video notes. It's not something that the org can regulate, I know, but if creators could be <i>encouraged</i> to talk about what they used and where then people could be a lot more useful in judging points scores when leaving opinions. It's really down to the creators though.

As ever, practicality and way the real world works put paid to the world of ideals. *g* Ah well, the thought was there, and that's what counts... Right?

[slackergirl]

Generally then, I think the crux of the matter is how much people reveal about their use of effects in their video notes. It's not something that the org can regulate, I know, but if creators could be <i>encouraged</i> to talk about what they used and where then people could be a lot more useful in judging points scores when leaving opinions. It's really down to the creators though.

I think that is the general consensus reached. But I tell ya, listing every effect made could be pretty tedious. I'm sure some do it, but I won't be one of them. I don't like to talk (or type) that much. (though that might be hard to tell from these posts... ) I also don't like to read that much. I guess a few general statements like "I used a lot of masks" would be better than nothing. But it's always down to the creators. Hell, it's your decision whether or not to even check the little box.

[Willen]

The problem being that if someone use real subtle effects really well, only the people intimately familiar with the source will be able to pick them out if the creator lists down where they are. Even then, most people will still be unable to see the "effect".

At what point should one check that option box? If you used a bunch of little effects? One big effect? One little effect? What about color manipulation? I know changing color to black-and-white is pretty noticeable, but what about desaturation? Or what about adjusting saturation of a clip in pre-processing? I know that many editors don't check the effects box if they only use 1 or 2 little effects.

Seems to me that the category should be more accurately called "Best Use of Simplicity", but that phrase seems kinda awkward to me.

[bluetrain]

Well, obviously mainly you've got the evidence to back you up slackergirl.
And you obviously feel for this subject.
I believe you're right.

but.
I've just made a "NO-effects" video.
I used: Brightness and contrast, luminosity, minute masking, cropping, scaling, overlays and fades.

Do i count them as effects?
Technically yes: - mentally: no

I think you physically need to change the image to be a full-effect - but u may say brightness & contrast and luminosity does this - well yes it does - but these are things the image already had - and you're just adjusting them - for a better picture - an effect? technically yes - but for me, not quite enough.

i think colour changing is tho. very much so.

I'm probably certainly wrong - but its just an opinion thing to me - if its no-effects to yourself and you feel you haven't made enough to count as effect-work - then thats just your feelings on the matter - others may disagree - and you can learn from this - or simply ignore and thank them for their comment politely. it depends on you.

But for your sake slackergirl - i'll tick the box for my latest release - how nice of me hehe ^^

[requiett]

Anymore openly ambigous questions you want to throw out there?

[slackergirl]

But for your sake slackergirl - i'll tick the box for my latest release - how nice of me hehe ^^

Thanks bluetrain! What a nice guy!
But if you really feel that your effects don't warrant the effects box check, I won't be mad or anything. It honestly might only be an issue if you get into the VCAs, and that's probably not why you made it. If you're like me, you make vids for yourself, because it's fun and rewarding. The VCAs are meant to be fun, aren't they? Heck, I nominated some of the vids I pointed out as having "effects"! I just think it's an interesting debate, and I like to hear people's opinions on it.

But anyway, I don't think I'd consider color correction changes that improve overall video quality an effect, especially if done in pre- or post-production.