Give me HD or give me death?

[Mako]

But if someone makes use of deleted scenes, most of which aren't high quality in comparison, and they're inserted into the movie, it would probably be more beneficial to use a DVD source rather than Blu-ray to make it seem more homogenous as a whole.

https://ifdb.fanedit.org/planes-trains-and-automobiles-the-extended-journey/

For example, Bobson iirc used a VHS source for his extended edition of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, since the deleted scenes in question were pretty much VHS quality. It would've only looked worse if he used a Blu-ray since the quality shifts would have been way too sudden. Plus, how it's compressed is more important than merely quality tbh, since 480p that has little to no compression will look much better than heavily-compressed 1080p.

 

[unfair]

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.

I'm not suggesting the highest quality is necessary, merely that using an SD source if there isn't any edit-specific justification for it is something the Academy should absolutely be shooting down. All the talk about IFDB quality control is silly if people are just randomly posting DVD edits because they can't be bothered to get a current-era version of the source. I could lossy encode a bluray several times and still have better quality, it's not really excusable when the barrier to that particular minimum standard is so low. We're talking about nearly two decades old discount technology and discs now.

Not really sure why several people are so adamant about taking the contrary side to this discussion since there's really no reason to promote poor quality source usage. And I didn't make a blanket statement either, if there's an edit-specific justification for it then fine, but the vast majority of media has available bluray releases. If someone submits a 480p edit for no reason I absolutely think it should be okay to ding them points for it. (And for the Academy to tell people they're doing it wrong if they encounter it)

But if someone makes use of deleted scenes, most of which aren't high quality in comparison, that are inserted into the movie, it would probably be beneficial to use a DVD source rather than Blu-ray to make it seem more homogenous as a whole.

That's one option, and one of the caveats I was leaving room for, although I'd argue upscaling those few scenes is the superior choice to shredding the picture quality of the rest of the film.

 

[addiesin]

I'm not suggesting the highest quality is necessary, merely that using an SD source if there isn't any edit-specific justification for it is something the Academy should absolutely be shooting down. All the talk about IFDB quality control is silly if people are just randomly posting DVD edits because they can't be bothered to get a current-era version of the source. I could lossy encode a bluray several times and still have better quality, it's not really excusable when the barrier to that particular minimum standard is so low. We're talking about nearly two decades old discount technology and discs now.

Not really sure why several people are so adamant about taking the contrary side to this discussion since there's really no reason to promote poor quality source usage. And I didn't make a blanket statement either, if there's an edit-specific justification for it then fine, but the vast majority of media has available bluray releases. If someone submits a 480p edit for no reason I absolutely think it should be okay to ding them points for it. (And for the Academy to tell people they're doing it wrong if they encounter it)



That's one option, and one of the caveats I was leaving room for, although I'd argue upscaling those few scenes is the superior choice to shredding the picture quality of the rest of the film.

You are conflating low quality with low resolution.

 

[unfair]

You are conflating low quality with low resolution.

The topic is A/V quality. Low resolution for no reason is low quality A/V and poor editing technique/workflow/standards.

 

[korach1921]

because they can't be bothered to get a current-era version of the source.

There's a vast library of audio-visual media made before the late 2000's that hasn't gotten a 1080p/lossless audio release yet. Even then, lots of streaming content doesn't even have any physical release, so you're stuck with the lossy audio/heavily compressed version. You're severely restricting what people can edit if you do this.

 

[Mako]

That's one option, and one of the caveats I was leaving room for, although I'd argue upscaling those few scenes is the superior choice to shredding the picture quality of the rest of the film.

I see your point on upscaling the deleted scenes, which can definitely work in a lot of cases, but for those few cases where the deleted scenes that are have an extremely horrible VHS quality to them, there's only so much the AI can do.

 

[addiesin]

The topic is A/V quality. Low resolution for no reason is low quality A/V and poor editing technique/workflow/standards.

I disagree.

Messing with the colors to the extent that artifacts are introduced, badly handled slow-mo or other framerate no-no's, a too-low bit rate; these are examples of bad quality that have nothing to do with resolution. Bad quality video and low resolution can happen at the same time but are not the same concept.

Also you added the qualifier 'for no reason', but it seems like you feel that way regardless of whether there is or isn't a reason. Many reasons have been given as to why someone may choose a lower resolution source.

Edit: to clarify, my point is, when admins say iFDB needs to have the highest quality edits, they don't secretly mean highest resolution.

 

[tremault]

excuse me if I am misunderstanding, but is 'no reason' code for 'just because they are poor'?

 

[unfair]

Also you added the qualifier 'for no reason', but it seems like you feel that way regardless of whether there is or isn't a reason.

Feel free to go back to the very first page and look at my post, I didn't just randomly add any new qualifiers, and the only specific reason I've disagreed with is that "it's too expensive". I think it shows a level of disregard to make an edit off a low-quality source for no reason, and doesn't really have a place in a fanedit community that notoriously gatekeeps a higher level of quality, care, and technique.

On reddit I've seen people ask if they can edit on their phone - and here we'd say no that isn't an acceptable release quality or workflow - I don't see how this is any different if a small cost is the factor we're going to base editing on rather than quality. Same thing applies to tools for getting streaming content, or owning the physical discs, there's a small outlay for any method and Blurays aren't some exponential leap - 4k is the more expensive hotness and I'm not arguing for that being required, but 720p/1080p is absolutely basic for the vast majority of sources, especially given that most submissions here are far from obscure.

So if someone puts out a DVD quality release and can't justify why, I don't see the problem with calling that out either in a review or score. And no I don't think "I didn't feel like rebuying the source" is really a valid justification that shows the expected level of care.

 

[addiesin]

Feel free to go back to the very first page and look at my post, I didn't just randomly add any new qualifiers, and the only specific reason I've disagreed with is that "it's too expensive". I think it shows a level of disregard to make an edit off a low-quality source for no reason, and doesn't really have a place in a fanedit community that notoriously gatekeeps a higher level of quality, care, and technique.

On reddit I've seen people ask if they can edit on their phone - and here we'd say no that isn't an acceptable release quality or workflow - I don't see how this is any different if a small cost is the factor we're going to base editing on rather than quality. Same thing applies to tools for getting streaming content, or owning the physical discs, there's a small outlay for any method and Blurays aren't some exponential leap - 4k is the more expensive hotness and I'm not arguing for that being required, but 720p/1080p is absolutely basic for the vast majority of sources, especially given that most submissions here are far from obscure.

So if someone puts out a DVD quality release and can't justify why, I don't see the problem with calling that out either in a review or score. And no I don't think "I didn't feel like rebuying the source" is really a valid justification that shows the expected level of care.

I don't see a problem with that being your opinion or mentioning resolution in reviews, as long as you understand that's not what the staff means when they say high quality.

 

[Slade Harrison]

The fanedit that I’m working on is from a 480p DVD the reason for this is because it’s the only version of the movie I can find that is open matte so it shows more of the full picture that was filmed in camera. Sometimes they don’t have open matte versions on the Blu-ray so I have to work what I got if I want to have more of the picture showing.

 

[mnkykungfu]

promote poor quality source usage

This seems like a disengenuous framing of the argument. I provided a poll at the top of this topic for people to have their say. There's no need to try to reframe the argument to disparage the judgment or intentions of those we disagree with.

People have stated a variety of reasons that they see this different than you. You have found those reasons unconvincing, clearly, so maybe we can leave it at that? It doesn't feel like the further comments are discussing more aspects so much as getting into a contest to be "right"...

 

[tremault]

Just thinking about different film stock. There's only so much information different film stock can hold. The frame is a certain size and there's only so many light sensitive particles that cna fit on it. Many films, we can see the grain in the video. Having a higher resolution file wouldn't add anything extra.

 

[unfair]

There's no need to try to reframe the argument to disparage the judgment or intentions of those we disagree with.

I was intentionally ignoring the aspersions made by two other people, I'm happy to abandon the thread of discussion but let's not rewrite history here, I didn't disparage anyone, and the thread of the conversation was not a reframing of anything; You asked a question and Dig said people aren't even allowed to vote the way your poll suggests making the entire point moot, to which I responded with suggestions on why such an action was indeed fair game and your poll question was valid (given the culture, processes, standards in place for the community).

I'm happy to be civil but I don't like being saddled with some salty "muh poor people" strawman in a community where buying content is mandated and then somehow it's my fault because I was talking about minimum standards of quality relevant to the voting question in the original post and mod response. I'd normally just silently move on but this one isn't my heat to take, and I think it was fair to say so. I won't sully up your thread further though.

 

[Adabisi]

The poll, if it's meant to demonstrate anything, needs more options. It's glaringly missing any reference to year of release and what was considered standard at the time. Should an SD edit released in 2006 be subject the same scrutiny as an SD edit in 2024? Maybe, maybe not. I expect there are various opinions on that.

There's a lot of talk about comparing quality to the source, which may have been a fine guideline 20 years ago when there was only one source. But now that the source options have increased with leaps in quality, the standard, at least for contemporary edits, really should be comparing quality to the minimum that's expected by the current audience.

 

[tremault]

I was intentionally ignoring the aspersions made by two other people, I'm happy to abandon the thread of discussion but let's not rewrite history here, I didn't disparage anyone, and the thread of the conversation was not a reframing of anything; You asked a question and Dig said people aren't even allowed to vote the way your poll suggests making the entire point moot, to which I responded with suggestions on why such an action was indeed fair game and your poll question was valid (given the culture, processes, standards in place for the community).

I'm happy to be civil but I don't like being saddled with some salty "muh poor people" strawman in a community where buying content is mandated and then somehow it's my fault because I was talking about minimum standards of quality relevant to the voting question in the original post and mod response. I'd normally just silently move on but this one isn't my heat to take, and I think it was fair to say so. I won't sully up your thread further though.

I did ask if I was understanding correctly. You're free to tell me that I got it wrong. I'm not trying to strawman anyone, it honestly came across that way and it felt cruel. If I got it wrong, I'll apologise.

 

[tremault]

The poll, if it's meant to demonstrate anything, needs more options. It's glaringly missing any reference to year of release and what was considered standard at the time. Should an SD edit released in 2006 be subject the same scrutiny as an SD edit in 2024? Maybe, maybe not. I expect there are various opinions on that.

There's a lot of talk about comparing quality to the source, which may have been a fine guideline 20 years ago when there was only one source. But now that the source options have increased with leaps in quality, the standard, at least for contemporary edits, really should be comparing quality to the minimum that's expected by the current audience.

I just thinking we're all struggling with a dearth of clarity.
We are all talking from different positions if we don't use the same definitions.
mean would there be an issue if the review option was 'visual clarity'? I think we can all agree that an SD file has les clarity than an HD file. We all need to fundamentally agree on what 'quality' is. The site staff has told us that the meaning here is the quality of the image regardless of resolution. But some people are arguing from a different position. for some people, resolution = quality. I can understand that as a personal point of view, but if we're not talking about that in this topic, we're only going to get frustrated. I think others have said that a disagreement with regards to resolution should be factored into 'enjoyment'. does that not work for some people? if not, why?

To be honest feel like this has gotten more complicated than it need be. If a file is encoded with skill, why is that not enough to constitute a good quality, no matter what the size of the picture? I'll take back my earlier comments with regards to cost. We all need basic equipment and media, so we do need to spend some money. I think I perhaps contributed to taking it into disingenuous fallaceous territory. so I want to say please forget I said that. I'll always believe that we should just judge it for what it is, regardless of how it got there. whether it's edited on a battleship or one a smartphone or on a 20 yr old pentium with windows 95, if the visual quality is good, if there's no banding, strong colour, etc. then that's good quality, whether it has 320x320 pixels or 8k

Edit: that word doesn't mean what I thought it meant.

 

[MightyAttackTribble]

iThe poll, if it's meant to demonstrate anything, needs more options. It's glaringly missing any reference to year of release and what was considered standard at the time. Should an SD edit released in 2006 be subject the same scrutiny as an SD edit in 2024? Maybe, maybe not. I expect there are various opinions on that.

There's a lot of talk about comparing quality to the source, which may have been a fine guideline 20 years ago when there was only one source. But now that the source options have increased with leaps in quality, the standard, at least for contemporary edits, really should be comparing quality to the minimum that's expected by the current audience.

There's a few edits I've seen now both from here and on Reddit which use older sources that, quite frankly, look like shit because they were produced in the early days of HD when studios rarely bothered with things like rescanning the original negatives and remastering the picture. Quite often editors and reviewers are unaware of the existence of the other sources, so if someone owns a 2020 release of a movie that has been mastered in 4K and the edit is from a far inferior 2006 release (or vice-versa, since studios are quite capable of producing worse picture quality in new releases) there are going to be vastly differing expectations of what is "quality compared to the source", much less a frame of reference for the reviewer. How does one fairly grade something against a source they may not have seen?

Even releases from the same source differ wildly in quality. If I have a Blu-ray or DVD copy of a movie, and the editor makes an edit from a heavily compressed iTunes/Amazon version then there's going to be a substantial difference in quality. Since not every editor makes it clear whether they're working from a disc rip or a digital one there will again be a disconnect. And if I've never seen the digital version and am unaware that the edit was made from a digital version, am I in the wrong for giving the edit a lower score because there's compression artifacts, banding, and soft edges that aren't present in the version I own?

I don't expect people to be putting out 4K HDR releases, nor do I expect a crisp HD picture from an edit which incorporates sources which are not available in HD or are difficult/expensive to obtain, but given the sheer number of sources available these days with different levels of quality even within the same batch of releases I feel like the "quality compared to the source" is becoming increasingly difficult to fairly grade.

 

[Possessed]

If the source is only in SD, then sure I'll watch an edit in HD. But if it's available in HD and the editor still works in SD because they can't afford the HD, I'm not bothering with it. I'm not shaming or judging them for not buying a blu Ray player or the Blu-ray, but if they aren't willing to then maybe they should find a different hobby. I'm not judging them, I'm simply saying maybe fanediting isn't for them, because as has been said there's a baseline quality expectation. If I've got a Blu-ray of a movie sitting on my shelf I'm not going to watch it in DVD or lower quality.

 

[bionicbob]

I don't expect people to be putting out 4K HDR releases, nor do I expect a crisp HD picture from an edit which incorporates sources which are not available in HD or are difficult/expensive to obtain, but given the sheer number of sources available these days with different levels of quality even within the same batch of releases I feel like the "quality compared to the source" is becoming increasingly difficult to fairly grade.

That is a fantastic point.

HD does not automatically mean better video quality. There have been some absolutely atrocious Blu Ray and 4K releases over the years. Many HD releases have been so heavily DNRed with altered Colour Grading, that the only way to see the original vision of the movie is on an older DVD release.

And as @MightyAttackTribble rightly points out, there are a wide variety of HD scans of the same movie available and they are not all created equal.

For example, I have a blu ray Randolph Scott collection from Mill Creek and I absolutely love it. But I am keenly aware that Criterion put out a new Blu Ray scan, and from all accounts it is gorgeous. But it is also twice the price for half the movies. Should I not be allowed to submit a fan edit from an older HD scan because there is a newer, better version?