Give me HD or give me death?

[mnkykungfu]

I've noticed the past few months where I'm seeing a lot of reviews knock points off the A/V Quality score. There's nothing "wrong" with the quality of these edits, they just don't look awesome by current standards. They were great 5 years ago, but now TVs are bigger, HD is more common, and people are even AI-upscaling deleted or old footage so that it looks like 1080p.

So I'm wondering if there is some kind of community expectation about this now. Is A/V Quality a kind of subjective reading, like "this made my jaw drop....or it didn't"? Or is it unfair to knock an edit just because it's not in HD (and not intended to be)? I sometimes think that reviewers might just knock a point off here or there just because they didn't love the edit, but there's not anything actually wrong with the "Quality" or the "Visual Editing"...

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

The quality should be compared to the source. If it's the same as the source, that would result in a 10.

The ratings guidelines are found here in our rules and guidelines.

https://forums.fanedit.org/threads/fe-org-rules-guidelines.28797/post-422438

 

[mnkykungfu]

And yet, I'm seeing so many reviews from even well-experienced faneditors that do not follow that scoring... hence me asking if a new expectation is developing (regardless of what the rules are telling people)...

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

And yet, I'm seeing so many reviews from even well-experienced faneditors that do not follow that scoring... hence me asking if a new expectation is developing (regardless of what the rules are telling people)...

The expectation will remain the same. Users need to review and follow the guidelines. Simple as that.

 

[M4_]

It's hard to enforce, there will always be people who don't read the rules and the recommended guide for how to use the stars ranking. I got dinged a couple stars for my 1080p quality instead of 4k and found that odd.

I know the staff have been getting a lot of suggestions so don't mean to sound nitpicky- but perhaps it could be helpful if hovering over the little (i) logo showed a unique message for each category and the URL to the guide, instead of just the URL. For example, A/V would say "Was quality up to par? How does it it compare to the source? See full guide here" with a hyperlink that's easier to click

 

[Adabisi]

The quality should be compared to the source. If it's the same as the source, that would result in a 10.

The ratings guidelines are found here in our rules and guidelines.

https://forums.fanedit.org/threads/fe-org-rules-guidelines.28797/post-422438

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.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

It's hard to enforce, there will always be people who don't read the rules and the recommended guide for how to use the stars ranking. I got dinged a couple stars for my 1080p quality instead of 4k and found that odd.

I know the staff have been getting a lot of suggestions so don't mean to sound nitpicky- but perhaps it could be helpful if hovering over the little (i) logo showed a unique message for each category and the URL to the guide, instead of just the URL. For example, A/V would say "Was quality up to par? How does it it compare to the source? See full guide here" with a hyperlink that's easier to click

It's clearly stated in blue text at the top of each review page. It's pretty much a choice to not follow it now.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

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.

Please see my post here.

 

[unfair]

I mean, if you're editing off a DVD when a BluRay is available then I'd say that's unacceptably low quality, but if there isn't a higher quality available then that isn't your fault. Not sure I'd say the same about BluRay vs 4k, since 4k isn't ubiquitous at this point, and 4k color is hard to work with and not particularly well supported in a standard way across NLEs. So while reviewers should compare to "the source", I would argue that there's a reasonable expectation the source be of a current standard quality if possible. I wouldn't expect to be comparing to DVD quality when reviewing a modern movie fanedit.

 

[tremault]

I wish it were that simple, I've reported reviews that knocked points off because it wasn't in 4k. The review stated that explicitly and it's completely against the review guidelines. my reports went largely unseen and when I talked to staff, it didn't seem as though they took action. As far as I could tell, they talked to the reviewer, but the reviews remained. you could see it in their review history too, giving mostly 9s and 10s then after a certain point it was 8 or less to ever edit that wasn't in 4k. as far as I know nothing was done about that, so I think maybe the system is not fit for purpose, as we know the ratings system needs to be overhauled. the AV quality needs to remove any ambiguity. I don't know if it's possible, but numbers should not be there, it should just have text options so there's no mistake.

 

[Adabisi]

Please see my post here.

If it wasn't obvious, I'm disagreeing with the guidelines.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

If it wasn't obvious, I'm disagreeing with the guidelines.

The guidelines are not currently up for discussion. If you don't agree, please PM Reave.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

I wish it were that simple, I've reported reviews that knocked points off because it wasn't in 4k. The review stated that explicitly and it's completely against the review guidelines. my reports went largely unseen and when I talked to staff, it didn't seem as though they took action. As far as I could tell, they talked to the reviewer, but the reviews remained. you could see it in their review history too, giving mostly 9s and 10s then after a certain point it was 8 or less to ever edit that wasn't in 4k. as far as I know nothing was done about that, so I think maybe the system is not fit for purpose, as we know the ratings system needs to be overhauled. the AV quality needs to remove any ambiguity. I don't know if it's possible, but numbers should not be there, it should just have text options so there's no mistake.

Feel free to send another PM. I'll look into it.

 

[tremault]

I mean, if you're editing off a DVD when a BluRay is available then I'd say that's unacceptably low quality, but if there isn't a higher quality available then that isn't your fault. Not sure I'd say the same about BluRay vs 4k, since 4k isn't ubiquitous at this point, and 4k color is hard to work with and not particularly well supported in a standard way across NLEs. So while reviewers should compare to "the source", I would argue that there's a reasonable expectation the source be of a current standard quality if possible. I wouldn't expect to be comparing to DVD quality when reviewing a modern movie fanedit.

there are many films where the HD version has been tampered with, so there is legitimate and logical reasons to use an SD source. 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. It's necessary for the reader to know if it's SD or HD but that information is on the fanedit listing so it's not necessary to ding them on a review. the review is to rate their skills, not their bank balance etc.

 

[M4_]

It's clearly stated in blue text at the top of each review page now. It's pretty much a choice to not follow it now.

The blue text at the top is a good addition and it applies to all categories, my suggestion was about bringing category-specific tips into the review page. For example, you mentioned earlier the A/V quality should be a 10 if it matches the source, but only the forum thread specifies that https://forums.fanedit.org/threads/fe-org-rules-guidelines.28797/#post-422438 all this info is very useful, we just know there have/will be people who never find this page.

But yeah, I still agree with all those guideline. @Adabisi one thing you should consider is that often times new releases have creative changes, it's hardly ever a 1:1 re-release in higher quality. I notice 4k have different color grading and different levels of noise/grain making it sometimes preferrable to stick to 1080p. Also, it's more expensive to work with 4k not everyone has the hardware and software for editing/properly viewing it.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

Here are the guidelines. It's very clearly stated that the A/V technical quality score is compared to the source it was derived from.

IV. Rating Fanedits
All ratings/reviews on The Internet Fanedit Database (IFDb) are moderated to ensure quality control. Faneditors are not allowed to rate their own fanedits, however they may comment on reviews if they feel the need to. Ratings need to be fair and include a comment explaining how a score was ascertained. Lengthy or detailed reviews are typically not a requirement but are highly encouraged. Detailed reviews are required when giving a low rating (see below). When rating, please consider ALL the following criteria:

• Technical quality: Were the video and sound quality up to par? Is the quality at or near the quality of the source material?
• Editing quality: Did you notice any jarring video or audio cuts? Did the fanedit flow well?
• Narrative: How well did the editor achieve his/her goals? Were there plot-holes created (or resolved?) Does it work?
• Enjoyment: Were you entertained by the fanedit?

Rating Score Guide
10 = flawless (same quality as source)
9 = a couple noticeable edits but doesn't ruin the enjoyment
8 = a few distracting edits of an otherwise enjoyable fanedit
7 = distracting edits that should be corrected
6 = very distracting edits that ruined the enjoyment
5 or below = This edit suffers from numerous problems and should be re-evaluated.

Please be honest with your rating/review. If you've been solicited to leave a positive rating/review contact an administrator with details. Use your judgment on rating fanedits, but here is a general guide:

Any rating of 5 stars or lower requires a clear and detailed explanation of the reasoning for such a low score because ratings this low suggest the quality may be insufficient for our community. Ratings below 5 stars and lacking a sufficient comment will be rejected. Likewise any reviews that have straight 10's without citing why such are given will be reviewed. Be fair when rating and reviewing edits. Don’t abuse the ratings system to get back at someone who rated your fanedit or your friend’s fanedit lower than you expected.

The weighting of each category is as follows:

A/V Quality 23.75
Visual Editing 23.75
Audio Editing 23.75
Narrative 23.75
Enjoyment 5

The scores are what percentage weight each section has when calculating the overall score. With equal weighting, the total scores can be added and divided by the total possible score (50) to find the overall calculated score.

Do not use the review feature to request download links or where to find fanedits.

 

[unfair]

The guidelines are not currently up for discussion. If you don't agree, please PM Reave.

I'd argue the current guidelines are compatible with requiring editors to use a decent quality source, it's something that an Academy member should be rejecting an edit for if someone is submitting low video quality when it isn't necessary. The mantra is that IFDB is a place for quality edits, and that behavior definitely steps outside those levels of quality unless a better source isn't available or it's done intentionally for a specific purpose.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

The blue text at the top is a good addition and it applies to all categories, my suggestion was about bringing category-specific tips into the review page. For example, you mentioned earlier the A/V quality should be a 10 if it matches the source, but only the forum thread specifies that https://forums.fanedit.org/threads/fe-org-rules-guidelines.28797/#post-422438 all this info is very useful, we just know there have/will be people who never find this page.

It's hot linked at the top of every page in the forums. The red text that says rules and guidelines. It is more a matter of someone choosing to not read the rules. Perhaps we could put a hyperlink in the blue text? The hover window idea unfortunately won't work as the software doesn't appear to allow this.

 

[M4_]

It's hot linked at the top of every page in the forums. The red text that says rules and guidelines. It is more a matter of someone choosing to not read the rules. Perhaps we could put a hyperlink in the blue text? The hover window idea unfortunately won't work as the software doesn't aooear go allow this.

Ah okay, and true it is on every page that is helpful, probably not necessary to add another link in the blue text. I guess the only applicable suggestion from my original post is if the software allows it, when you hover over the five little (i)s it could show a 'click here' instead of the URL, not that it would make a huge difference just something I noticed.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

I'd argue the current guidelines are compatible with requiring editors to use a decent quality source, it's something that an Academy member should be rejecting an edit for if someone is submitting low video quality when it isn't necessary. The mantra is that IFDB is a place for quality edits, and that behavior definitely steps outside those levels of quality unless a better source isn't available or it's done intentionally for a specific purpose.

I personally agree. I always think of this quote from the President of the United Federation of Planets when thinking of possibilities in fanediting.