What EXACTLY is no-effects?

slackergirl · Post by **slackergirl** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:24 pm

It was my understanding that an effect was anything other than a simple cut or crossfade. However, looking through the VCA semifinalists, I'm finding a good portion of them use SOME effects, although admittedly usually pretty simple ones in very small amounts.
For example:
1. Overlays - are these effects? I think they're kissin' cousins to crossfades, but I reluctantly consider them effects by the definition. "Angels & Demons" uses tons of overlays.
2. Slide transitions - "Azumanga or DIE-oh" uses them, and they work, but I suppose it makes it an effects vid (i.e. not a no-effect vid).
3. Greyscale - A lot of vids marked no effects use this (Run, Otaku Anthem, Halos Beneath Us). And do other sorts of color alteration fit in here? Is making the scene grey ok, but yellow or sepia-toned not-so-much? I may be wrong, but I think "Waking Hour" has 1 spot of color changing, and "The Plot Thickens" several spots.
4. Cropping - "Ramen, Feel Great" zoomed in on Naruto for 1 shot (so it was a moving "effect" to boot!) BTW, I just happened to see that episode the other day; I'm not freakishly checking sources to see how much they altered the footage or anything.
5. Boarders - "Run" has those fuzzy white edges on its greyscaled scenes, and I KNOW that wasn't in the original footage! You can't lie to me Kusoyaro! (Or maybe it was... maybe I'd better freakishly check the source to see how much he altered the footage...)
6. Text and other drawings - "Rock Your Body In Time" overlayed some text, but it doesn't really seem fair to call that an effect... And do you really think in "Quid Pro Quo" he found an actual picture of Einstein drawing stick figures of him hacking off a foot? Again, LIES! ALL OF IT!

Such small use of effects might not be a big deal when you're uploading your vid. I can see why people don't mark the effects box when they use 1 freakin' effect, or risk having people give them a 3 or something in the "effects" box for the vid opinion (thus decreasing it's overall score).

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?

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:31 pm

By the site's definition, anything more complicated than a cut or cross dissolve does indeed count as a special effect. So that's what I stick to when listing my own videos, even if I don't agree with it.

Actually, never mind. I don't think I count speed changes, probably because those don't affect the actual content of the frames, just which frames get displayed (and how many times).

As for other people's videos and the VCAs, I try not to think too much about the whole effects problem. The site's definition of what constitutes a special effect seems to be a somewhat anachronistic holdover from the era when a significant fraction of editors still did things non-digitally... however, if an attempt was made to update it, there'd surely be endless arguing over just where the line should be drawn.

badmartialarts · Post by **badmartialarts** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:50 pm

I go by a Supreme Court-esque test of reasonableness. If at any time any reasonable person with a good knowledge of the basics of AMV making watches a video and thinks to themself, "Wow, neat effect" then it's an effects video.

slackergirl · Post by **slackergirl** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:08 pm

Scintilla wrote:I don't think I count speed changes, probably because those don't affect the actual content of the frames, just which frames get displayed (and how many times).

I agree on that point too. I guess that's why I consider overlays not really an effect, as long as you're not altering the overlayed frame at all. The editor is basically just showing 2 frames at once, like a crossfade, sorta.

Bakadeshi · Post by **Bakadeshi** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:29 pm

If I can;t tell its an effect, then its not an effect. If the effect stands out as an effect, then its an effect ;p

How do you guys view masking as far as being an effect?

I don't normally count masking footage to create nonexisting footage to look like it is existing footage as an effect. (like how I put Hinata in some scenes in zetsumo for the purpose of story, or the altering of the picture with Haku in it in whisper of the beast) but if the masking was done to make it look like an effect to go with the music, then I'd call it an effect. (Like the characters that fuzz out with noise to the beat at the end of Whisper of the beast)

slackergirl · Post by **slackergirl** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:10 am

I disagree. Adding a character in to a scene they are not normally in is TOTALLY an effect. If you can't tell that there was a change, then it is an very well done effect, but you are still altering the original footage significantly.

A parallel can be made in the movie effects industry. For example, in Return of the King, there were a bunch of computer generated horses in the battle scenes. Now, I am a horse person, and I had a hard time telling the real ones from the CG ones, but the CG houses still consider those effects shots, and I'm sure billed Mr. Jackson for them accordingly.

Infinity Squared · Post by **Infinity Squared** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:15 am

Ha!

I thought "Dedication" was going to survive the culling there

Anyway, from a creators point of view, or at least in mind, I've always made it so that when I started making a video, I would make a decision right there and then whether it was gonna be effects based or not. But then, this doesn't hold up for anyone elses creation because unless it's written in their video info page, one will never know if the creator decided it was to be effects based or not.

Well... I guess in the end the way I see it, it's about subtlety. Just like others, I base it off of whether or not I noticed it was there.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:18 am

slackergirl wrote:I disagree. Adding a character in to a scene they are not normally in is TOTALLY an effect. If you can't tell that there was a change, then it is an very well done effect, but you are still altering the original footage significantly.

If you, the viewer:

(1) cannot discern the alterations made,
(2) have no documentation from the creator on what is and what is not an effects shot,
(3) have not seen the original sources, and
(4) are trying to determine whether or not a shot is an effects shot or not,

what criteria do you plan to use?

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:27 am

trythil wrote:what criteria do you plan to use?

Just to answer this question for myself:

If I notice an alteration via some means -- watching the product, creator's notes, prior knowledge, whatever -- it's an effect. Obviously, that's a pretty large set; speed changes, crossfades, and cuts can and sometimes do fall in this category. For example, inconsistent clip speed across scenes with otherwise consistent content is a damn good indicator that the creator was careless with clip speed changes, and the most obvious signs of a cut or crossfade that doesn't belong are popped frames. (Yes, that sometimes happens in professional productions, but not nearly as often.)

If I don't notice it, then what's the difference between what I saw and the nebulous "original" material (whatever that is) to me in the role of the viewer? None, of course.

Hence, not an effects shot.

slackergirl · Post by **slackergirl** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:40 am

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!"

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

)

Didn't there used to be a Best Use of Simplicity category? I guess it got nixed as too vague or redundant with no-effects.