Most fanedits by decently skilled editors should be 10/10. at least in terms of video quality and audio/video editing. If you're watching the movie and you don't notice the cut then in your case, it is perfect, right? I think there could be room for other scores. Maybe to reflect creativity, innovation? Maybe a score to reflect how much the editor did to differentiate it? an edit that has 1000 cuts and removed a ton and added in extra stuff, is very different from an edit that cut out one scene.
I've rarely ever watched an edit that had a true flawless level of editing. The categories are based on the review process to ensure the same level of quality. Edits on IFDb should be of a higher quality than edits that aren't vetted for such quality, but that doesn't mean that they are perfect 10's.
This might be splitting hairs, but could we make 10 an "above and beyond" rating for things that are either incredible accomplishments that you wouldn't have thought possible, or great changes that no one else has thought of/managed to do.
For example, an A/V 10 would be an edit that manages to be super high quality with a tiny filesize or restoring deleted scenes to finished quality.
An audio editing 10 would be something like the flawless music replacement in Mathilda, or DonkeyKonga rejoicing an entire character.
A video 10 would be impressive vfx work or flawless integration of new footage.
And a narrative 10 would be reserved for edits that completely change the story, combine two or more movies, or condense entire seasons into one movie (and do it well).
Enjoyment 10s would obviously just be viewer's discretion, but would generally indicate that its an improvement over the original.
This would be difficult and cause confusion. If an editor does a ton of additional work, that shouldn't increase their editing score, especially if the additional work is not flawless. I can understand how that would feel unfair when compared to a movie that is an extended edition with a few additions, but again, we are looking at the quality of the editing, not the quantity of the editing.
Ratings are supposed to be versus the source though. If an edit is released in HD, then the source to compare against would be standard bluray.
I've seen people rating things down because they are not 4k, but that's against the guidelines I think. If you are editing from a bluray and can't afford those expensive HDblurays, why should you be penalised? You can't make it look better than the source you have.
Hard disagree. Not everyone has a 6 speaker system. If the viewer has a stereo system and the audio sounds the same quality as the bluray they own, then they absolutely can score it a 10. Each reviewer can make their own decision on that of course, but it's not fair to say stereo can never get a 10.
This is true. The quality is based on the source. If it's 4k, the quality score should reflect how close it is to the source. Same for Blu Ray or digital. Editors can help that process by clearly stating in their information sections what source they used.
5.1 is NOT required for edits. If a flawless 2.0 or 2.1 audio is produced for an edit from a 5.1 source, it would be disingenuous to score any lower than a 9. That acknowledges that it's not the same as the source, but superbly done.
By that logic a dvd should get the same rating for video quality as a 4k HDR edit. So yeah agree to disagree there.
And that would be accurate. If it's a DVD source and it matches that quality perfectly, there is no reason it couldn't receive a flawless 10, if it truly is flawless. You can't compare apples and oranges, especially when the editor didn't have access to such.
There should be the same level of scrutiny and oversight to 10/10 ratings as 5/10. Both ratings should be rare.
This 1000%
I get what you're saying. I'm saying it makes the whole review system meaningless. By that logic I could make a lotr edit with an old VCR and get 10/10s and get upset when someone gives it a 6/10 because it objectively looks shit lol.
It also would give a skewed impression of expectations. It could have 32 10/10s for visual quality but be actually VCR.
Which brings me back to my point: This has turned into the same scoring system the gaming industry utilises where every that's 9 or higher is considered good, and anything lower is considered bad. Basically making the whole system useless.
Why is it meaningless. IFDb is about objective quality edits. If it clearly states that it's available in SD, HD, and/or UHD, no one is being fooled or misguided. Adywan's Star Wars Revisited is perhaps the best looking edit I've ever watched, and it's SD. It is flawless. To give that edit a 6/10 because it's SD quality is inaccurate as the base source it was made from is a DVD. It exceeds the quality of its source, which I've never seen before or since.
The inflation of scores is why we are having this discussion and calibration.
Also with the tools available you definitely can make an image better than the source these days, depending on the source.
The work we collectively produce implies that none of us know about such tools. Perhaps we need to have more tutorials on how to produce such. Even the upscales that people make are far from flawless.
Agree. Only visual editing and audio editing and enjoyment should realistically get consistent 10/10s.
If they truly are flawless, but this is more often than not not the case.
Would we have individuals who would be willing to share clips that we can collectively calibrate scores for? I think that approach would be the best to help us talk about a specific edit. I'm willing to put mine in to the ring to pick a part. Anyone else willing?
If you are willing, please make one or more videos that highlight some edited areas, set them to non downloadable (or upload to youtube, vimeo, odysee, etc.) and share them here. If possible, upload an original flow of the scene(s) and an edited flow of the scene(s).
