Give me HD or give me death?

[Adabisi]

OP asked if there were expectations. The guidelines were then shared along with clarification for those who are not following them or who do not understand them. We do not have plans to change such guidelines. Discussion would naturally pivot to asking for clarity on the guidelines, not whether or not one agrees with them.

There is a lot of discussion here, and in many other threads, on how reviews should be written, without explicit reference to the guidelines.

For clarity, it appears we are not free to say:

"I disagree with the guidelines. If there is a superior audio or video format available and the editor consciously chooses to release it in an inferior format, it should definitely not be given perfect ratings for audio and video quality."

But we are free to say:

"If there is a superior audio or video format available and the editor consciously chooses to release it in an inferior format, it should definitely not be given perfect ratings for audio and video quality."

Is that correct?

 

[reave]

Doesn't this mean it is a completely redundant score, when we really think about it?

No

Can't we assume someone who poors weeks of effort into audio and visual editing knows how to encode something that isn't 10 Kb/sec?

No. Not at all. Tons of people don't know how to properly encode video, and the NLE doesn't automatically know how to best do it, and automatic settings often diminish quality. There are many ways to screw up video from ripping to final render. Setting the bitrate high at the end doesn't fix any issues created along the way.

 

[reave]

I know guidelines say 10/10 if it's the same as the source. But in that case it needs to not have a scoring at all.

The scoring shown when you look at the ratings is: Audio/video quality. The scoring isn't Audio/Video quality compared to the source.

If the scoring is compared to the souce, then there is no need for a scorecard at all.

It should simply be a box that can be ticked: 'Is the video quality the same as the source used?' yes/no

Just like we have a checkbox for 'Do you recommend this edit?'

Having a 10/10 score is simply a confusing score for a scanned 200kB/sec VCR video. I mean how low must the quality be to be less than a 10/10 when someone uses an objectively ugly source?

TLDR: Remove the A/V score, and simply make it a checkbox. I like to think that we can all agree on that. We have a visual editing catagory to give the editor props for their visual prowess,

There are degrees of quality in a rendered file, that can range from looking exactly like the source, or looking like a low res gif. 1-10 seems like a fairly easily understood way of rating that.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

Limitations should also be considered. Whether that's due to inexperience (where community support/constructive critique should apply prior to release) or simply a lack of budget for larger drives to contain 4k sources, proper monitors to display/edit HD sources, the capability to use better/larger video codecs, processing power, etc. The list goes on and on. If we are not careful, then standards of quality become barriers for entry. Which highlights how fine of a line there is to walk when some standard of quality is the aim of this site.

This is a hobby where individuals who have interests in a similar topic come together. Fanedit.org is specifically the place where editors choose to access the community because it has a baseline of acceptable quality. That should be clear to all users. Anyone is able to share an Ideas, In The Works or Workprints and Previews thread. The information to become an approved editor is freely given. The setting of the forums and our discord server are the supportive location to obtain that standard through critique. The only barrier we set is listing on IFDb which should equate to a baseline of quality. That is the purpose of this site. No one is forced to submit their edits to the academy and to have it listed on IFDb. That is a choice that users can make if they want the opportunity to be recognized as an approved IFDb faneditor. The standards will not change though as that would nullify the whole purpose of this site.

An interesting bit of film history is the artistic style of b&w photography. Whereas color film has always been more expensive in terms of production and possession (see any multi strip technicolor process), it therefore has usually been the medium of choice for the wealthy or the financially incentivised and entrenched studios. The low barrier for b&w meant that more people used it and at the time it was looked down upon, considered low class, and viewed stylistically as inferiror to shoot on b&w. But over time the people forced to work under those artistic limitations/barriers eventually developed the visual medium in ways that, after they became popular, were emulated by the wealthy and the larger studios. Coming full circle to be considered as something classy, artistic, and even snobby. Appropriating the creative output of the lower clasess and turning it into a luxury they once again couldn't afford and were therefore called upon to think their way out of yet again. But thats another discussion.

Yes, I'd agree that is a different discussion that doesn't really apply to this discussion.

What I'm saying is that everything is subjective.

Unless clear objective guidelines are established and followed. Yes, there will always be personal interpretation, but the likelihood of consistency across interpretation is best found through clear and consistent guidelines and definitions.

I've brought up the importance of the editor's intention,

This is important and why it's one of the first things someone reads in a listing

I've brought up the importance of the editor's intention, but the intention of the viewer matters as well.

Perhaps users should follow the purpose of IFDb and review based on skills and quality rather than enjoyment, which only acconts for 5% of the total score btw.

How to do that? DON'T ASK ME!

LThis is a conversation on how to grade subjective merits. Someone brought up that change isn't off the table,

Who was that? If you are referring to my statement, it was a theoretical reply to a question.

 

[Ray Danger]

Fanedit.org is specifically the place where editors choose to access the community because it has a baseline of acceptable quality

This, right here, is why I put the FE.ORG logo right upfront in each of my edits.
It implies a certain level of quality that I'm proud to be a part of.

 

[daedal]

This, right here, is why I put the FE.ORG logo right upfront in each of my edits.
It implies a certain level of quality that I'm proud to be a part of.

Wait! Isn't that mandatory?

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

Wait! Isn't that mandatory?

Nope. The disclaimer is the only mandatory thing to satisfy the OTS rule.

 

[unfair]

Wait! Isn't that mandatory?

I think that idea probably came from Art, he tried to get me to add the IFDB fanedit warning title card to my already completed edits too.

 

[destined spaghetti]

First off, thanks for reading my wall of text. Sometimes I have trouble articulating my thoughts so they just come out in large chunks. That said, I don't take anything here too seriously and am fine with the way things are run here. So you don't need to make your case. I also don't have any skin in the game when it comes to reviews and how they are done so I leave that up to ya'll to hash out the nitty gritty.

I have no real criticisms and my intent is not to question the validity of why certain rules are in place. Just wanted to bring up a few things to make sure all aspects are considered. Generally I feel like everyone acts as ethical as they can in any situation, its just that sometimes certain perspectives are forgotten or overlooked due to how our brains work to process the daily glut of information presented by the internet.

This is a hobby where individuals who have interests in a similar topic come together. Fanedit.org is specifically the place where editors choose to access the community because it has a baseline of acceptable quality.

Which is why I chose to come here as well. This wasn't an attack on the systems in place or their reasons for existing. I always try to look up any cut I have my eye on here for that very reason. I don't think any desire for a standard of quality is in question. I was merely pointing out that it is a line to walk and keeping that balance must be difficult.

I feel its been said here that once a film is submitted and there are "problems", what follows is a constructive dialog about how to improve those faults. Which I love. My reason for bringing up barriers was only to keep in the back of everyone's mind that people enter this hobby from all different backgrounds and walks of life. And when that is forgotten as things end up becoming, you get people dinging points off someone's hard work because it was 1080 and not 4k. Which is ridiculous.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

I think that idea probably came from Art, he tried to get me to add the IFDB fanedit warning title card to my already completed edits too.

We ask that a disclaimer is present, but it certainly doesn't have to say anything about fanedit.org or have our logo anywhere in the edit.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

I feel its been said here that once a film is submitted and there are "problems", what follows is a constructive dialog about how to improve those faults. Which I love.

We'd love to find ways to make that more common in the forums. Hopefully calibrating the quality ratings can help us all give such feedback going forward.

My reason for bringing up barriers was only to keep in the back of everyone's mind that people enter this hobby from all different backgrounds and walks of life. And when that is forgotten as things end up becoming, you get people dinging points off someone's hard work because it was 1080 and not 4k. Which is ridiculous.

I don't know if it's that people forget that we all have different paths as much as it's that people don't use the guidelines to review edits by, especially in the situation you cite there.

 

[WilliamRedRobin]

To be honest, until I saw this thread I wasn't sure how A/V Quality was supposed to be separated from A/V Editing.
For example, in my review for Batman Forever: Redbook Edition, I mentioned that I thought the film grain effect was overdone. I marked it down on A/V Quality, but reading this thread it seems like that should be a Video Editing fault because it was an intentional choice that I disagree with rather than being a result of bad practice. I think the name of the category is a little ambiguous.

It might be more clear to rename the category to "Encoding" and have it focus solely on issues like blocking, colour banding and file size.
If the reviewer thinks that the editor's stylistic choices don't look very good it would clearly fit in Video Editing and not in Encoding. And people wouldn't have to worry about comparing it to the source to get an objective assessment. They could just rate it based on whether they personally had an issue with it.

As for HD vs SD, that's made clear on the IFDB entry, so I don't think it should be factored into the review, other than mentioning "I would prefer a HD version".

 

[mnkykungfu]

it was an intentional choice that I disagree with

As I understand it, this actually falls into the Enjoyment category. As long as something is the faneditor's intention, what you would personally prefer is not supposed to be scored anywhere else unless the faneditor executes their intention poorly.

Video Editing is a technical category, where you're marking down if there are rough cuts or awkward transitions, etc. Not 'my taste doesn't match with yours'.

Staff, please correct me if I'm wrong?

 

[VarsityEditor]

The disclaimer is the only mandatory thing to satisfy the OTS rule.

May I ask what exactly is required for the disclaimer, or can you point me to the relevant rule/page?

I didn't know this was a requirement, all the rules/FAQ talk a lot about "own the source" "A/V quality" etc, but I've never noticed the rule stating that a disclaimer is mandatory as part of the edit.

Apologies for having overlooked this.

 

[Possessed]

Even if it has not bee messed with, a person may not have money for a bluray player, so it's not acceptable IMO to penalise them for making a decision to edit from a legitimate source.

I agree with your other points and I don't think an edit should be knocked for being 1080p instead of 4k, but this point I disagree with. You can buy a Blu-ray player at a place like Walmart for like 40 bucks now. If you can't afford that then I'm not sure you can afford an NLE, or the sources for that matter.

Edit: somehow missed that there were three pages of discussion since this comment

 

[tremault]

I agree with your other points and I don't think an edit should be knocked for being 1080p instead of 4k, but this point I disagree with. You can buy a Blu-ray player at a place like Walmart for like 40 bucks now. If you can't afford that then I'm not sure you can afford an NLE, or the sources for that matter.

Edit: somehow missed that there were three pages of discussion since this comment

a NLE costs nothing. Resolve is free. new blurays can be pricey. I spent £15 on Doctor strange, £14 on guardians 3. That's a lot to spend when cost of living is what it is. It's not really our place to judge on what a person can afford.

 

[unfair]

It's not really our place to judge on what a person can afford.

It isn't a judgement, it's just the cost of the hobby. You can't enter PC gaming tournaments on an NES from your grandma. And at the end of the day it doesn't stop someone from editing, merely from submitting to IFDB because there are certain standards and expectations to be listed here, one of which is owning and ripping the source yourself. I don't see any problem mandating that people use an acceptable quality source when it's available, given the aforementioned considerations.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

May I ask what exactly is required for the disclaimer, or can you point me to the relevant rule/page?

I didn't know this was a requirement, all the rules/FAQ talk a lot about "own the source" "A/V quality" etc, but I've never noticed the rule stating that a disclaimer is mandatory as part of the edit.

Apologies for having overlooked this.

You can find our disclaimer screen here. It just needs to be clear that the movie is a fan edit. We suggest the disclaimer as it clearly outlines that the Fanedit is not to be bought or sold and requires the viewer to own the original version of the film.

Templates & Clips – Fanedit.org

ifdb.fanedit.org

 

[tremault]

It isn't a judgement, it's just the cost of the hobby. You can't enter PC gaming tournaments on an NES from your grandma. And at the end of the day it doesn't stop someone from editing, merely from submitting to IFDB because there are certain standards and expectations to be listed here, one of which is owning and ripping the source yourself. I don't see any problem mandating that people use an acceptable quality source when it's available, given the aforementioned considerations.

we don't judge a person's skill on streetfighter, by what graphics card they own. same applies. the judgement is based on the source because what is being rated is how well they preserved the footage quality or how well they encoded it. If a person wants to ensure they are watching a 4k resolution edit they only need to check the edit listing rather than the review.

also, if the game tournament is super mario bros 3 speedruns than yes you can use that NES just fine.

 

[bionicbob]

The rule seem very simple:

• Edits must have a baseline of quality that matches the sources it came from. Example, If ripped from a blu ray it needs to be comparable in quality.

If I want to edit from a SD DVD, then that is MY choice. If you do not want to watch something in SD, then that is YOUR choice.

DVD is still, and by far, the biggest physical media seller over both Blu Ray and 4K. And for those on a budget, it is the more economical choice.

And if I got a perfectly good Blu Ray, I am not going to spend the money on an expensive 4k just for a hobby.

I always thought it was sad that when people will automatically dismiss anything in SD, as there is still a wealth of great tv shows and movies still only available on DVD that are worth watching.

But that the prerogative of the viewer. If you don't like SD, then don't watch it. But do not demand that others have to create HD content to satisfy your preferences.

But if the Site Owners, want to change the Rules, that only the highest video quality available purchased source is allowed, that is of course their choice.