Give me HD or give me death?

[DigModiFicaTion]

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.

That's fine. You'll just want to make sure that the edit is at that quality level. Upscaling works sometimes, but upscaling a movie for the sake of making it HD doesn't always come out well. You'll want to make sure the payoff in terms of picture quality and file size are worth it.

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.

Perhaps we could add a portion that asks what the source was? Eg. DVD, SD digital, HD digital, Blu Ray, 4K as well as any description that says what year it might have been released. That could possibly help with people comparing it to the source.

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.

The baseline quality expectation for A/V quality is in relation to the source file. The other quality is based on an editor's editing skills. I've seen some pretty amazing musicians who play instruments made of literal trash. They're perhaps better skill wise than many musicians who have high quality instruments. Just because someone doesn't have access to the highest quality sources (mind you they still need a legally owned source) that shouldn't bar them from being able to enjoy this hobby.

 

[MightyAttackTribble]

Perhaps we could add a portion that asks what the source was? Eg. DVD, SD digital, HD digital, Blu Ray, 4K. That could possibly help with people comparing it to the source.

But even with that, are people who only own a Blu-ray necessarily going to be able to fairly judge an edit made from a DVD that used a different transfer? Not to mention the fact that we're now at a point where a great many of the movies made pre-2010 have multiple varying releases in each format (for example, there are four different commercially-released HD transfers of one of my current edits, Transformers: The Movie, and five different DVD transfers).

Even some movies made since then have had "remastered" releases as the Blu-ray industry standards were finally decided on.

I'm going to assume we can't simply remove the "quality compared to source" metric without breaking the scoring system?

The only real solution I can think of is to have the editor give a short write-up of what inherent issues are present – if any – with their source as part of their IFDb entry.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

But even with that, are people who only own a Blu-ray necessarily going to be able to fairly judge an edit made from a DVD that used a different transfer? Not to mention the fact that we're now at a point where a great many of the movies made pre-2010 have multiple varying releases in each format (for example, there are four different commercially-released HD transfers of one of my current edits, Transformers: The Movie, and five different DVD transfers).

I think most people can make a fair judgement call when thinking about sources. If it's a DVD, they should think of what a DVD is most likely like quality wise and use that judgement. Same for HD and 4K. If an editor puts that specific info in their listing, it will help a user. Bluray.com has many reviews of different releases with pictures for those who want to be specific. An editor can also reply to a review if they feel it is unjustly critiquing the source quality.

I'm going to assume we can't simply remove the "quality compared to source" metric without breaking the scoring system?

The metric score would remain exactly as it is if we called it something different or assigned a different focus. The scores would be invalid at that point, but they'd still exist.

The only real solution I can think of is to have the editor give a short write-up of what inherent issues are present – if any – with their source as part of their IFDb entry.

Agreed. I always put if my source is an iTunes file so people know the edit will attempt to match that bit rate (~5-6mbps). My latest edit had to be sourced from a DVD. I wrote up something that essentially said that the scaling done in VLC looked bad so I did an upscale with VODCoder to at least help with the file not losing too much information with the scaling, but made a note of such procedures. It's basically a SD edit as a result. The upscaled file is roughly the same size as a DVD at 4gb so it seemed like it was worth it. I think something along those lines is what you're referring to and would help?

 

[MightyAttackTribble]

I think something along those lines is what you're referring to and would help?

Absolutely. Getting people to post reviews is hard enough without asking them to do homework on which version was used in the edit, thus I believe the onus should be on the editor to ensure the reviewer has all the information they need to make a fair judgment of their work, and since the editor will have presumably spent plenty of time familiarising themselves with their source over the course of the edit they should be relatively knowledgeable about any baked-in issues that their edit did not intend to address.

 

[mnkykungfu]

Dig said people aren't even allowed to vote the way your poll suggests

That is not what he said, as many comments here tried to clarify for you. This is the kind of "reframing" I was talking about. You are disagreeing with the staff's definitions on principle, but as you don't run the site, that's not an option. I'm not talking about changing the definition of what A/V Quality means, I'm talking about people's subjective expectations affecting how they rate edits (and indeed, perhaps improperly and, ironically, unfairly rate some edits.)

It's glaringly missing any reference to year of release

This is a fair issue to bring up, and I did consider complicating the poll by including some reference to different quality releases being available over time. However, I decided to intentionally leave it off in order to frame the argument as Dig has reminded everyone that the standard is: same quality as source. There is no caveat there that it has to be the best quality source available at the time. This is why the poll option says "if labelled as", meaning that the viewer knows what quality of source to expect as the baseline.

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 would completely understand this point of view, and it seems like a good way to "let the market speak", as it were. If the community starts to demonstrate an active disinterest in watching anything that doesn't look sharp enough, I'm sure faneditors would increasingly want to work with higher quality sources. That is however, very different than knowing something is in SD (or 1080p), watching it anyway, and then taking points off on the rating because there is a higher quality source available and the viewer wished that one was used instead.

 

[Slade Harrison]

That is not what he said, as many comments here tried to clarify for you. This is the kind of "reframing" I was talking about. You are disagreeing with the staff's definitions on principle, but as you don't run the site, that's not an option. I'm not talking about changing the definition of what A/V Quality means, I'm talking about people's subjective expectations affecting how they rate edits (and indeed, perhaps improperly and, ironically, unfairly rate some edits.)


This is a fair issue to bring up, and I did consider complicating the poll by including some reference to different quality releases being available over time. However, I decided to intentionally leave it off in order to frame the argument as Dig has reminded everyone that the standard is: same quality as source. There is no caveat there that it has to be the best quality source available at the time. This is why the poll option says "if labelled as", meaning that the viewer knows what quality of source to expect as the baseline.


I would completely understand this point of view, and it seems like a good way to "let the market speak", as it were. If the community starts to demonstrate an active disinterest in watching anything that doesn't look sharp enough, I'm sure faneditors would increasingly want to work with higher quality sources. That is however, very different than knowing something is in SD (or 1080p), watching it anyway, and then taking points off on the rating because there is a higher quality source available and the viewer wished that one was used instead.

I graduated from film school with a degree in television and film production. I will tell you what my professor said. He says video quality does not matter. He says as long as the video has decent audio, it can be the blurriest and most pixelated picture in the world, as long as you have decent audio where you can make out what’s going on with the combination of blurry pixelated video and your enjoying the story and the content then that’s all that matters. That’s my professor says. He did an experiment where he tricked us by showing us the same video and asked us which one was higher-quality. The only difference in the video was the audio one had a good stereo track and the other one was muffled and sounded terrible. Everyone in the classroom thought they were two different videos until he played them back on mute. So HD doesn’t matter.

 

[unfair]

You asked a question and Dig said people aren't even allowed to vote the way your poll suggests making the entire point moot

That is not what he said, as many comments here tried to clarify for you. This is the kind of "reframing" I was talking about. You are disagreeing with the staff's definitions on principle, but as you don't run the site, that's not an option. I'm not talking about changing the definition of what A/V Quality means, I'm talking about people's subjective expectations affecting how they rate edits (and indeed, perhaps improperly and, ironically, unfairly rate some edits.)

"The quality should be compared to the source. If it's the same as the source, that would result in a 10."
"The expectation will remain the same. Users need to review and follow the guidelines. Simple as that."

Seems to me that makes poll option B (deducting points) an invalid choice, and this entire discussion moot unless you want to argue with the mods. Not entirely sure what you think is "reframing" about that train of thought, since your reply seems to conflate two entirely separate topics of discussion.

In short, you took issue with me arguing with the standards in defense of poll option B being a valid choice. And in retort I pointed out that without arguing against the standards this thread was over by post 4 - mods gave you a definite answer that poll option one - no point deductions - is the only currently acceptable action. Honestly not sure why this is confusing, seems very simple and straightforward to me.

 

[Slade Harrison]

My next edit will be VHS quality. I’m not even kidding. I’m being serious.

 

[mnkykungfu]

"The quality should be compared to the source. If it's the same as the source, that would result in a 10."
"The expectation will remain the same. Users need to review and follow the guidelines. Simple as that."

Seems to me that makes poll option B (deducting points) an invalid choice, and this entire discussion moot unless you want to argue with the mods. Not entirely sure what you think is "reframing" about that train of thought, since your reply seems to conflate two entirely separate topics of discussion.

In short, you took issue with me arguing with the standards in defense of poll option B being a valid choice. And in retort I pointed out that without arguing against the standards this thread was over by post 4 - mods gave you a definite answer that poll option one - no point deductions - is the only currently acceptable action. Honestly not sure why this is confusing, seems very simple and straightforward to me.

You are cherrypicking and disregarding literal pages of explanation and follow-up on this, which was already clarified in literally the first couple of posts, which I know you read. This discussion seems highly pedantic at this point. No hard feelings, but I'm not going to keep responding to try to focus or clarify what people are saying on here, as it simply seems not to be clicking with you.

 

[bionicbob]

My next edit will be VHS quality. I’m not even kidding. I’m being serious.

Sign me up! One the fan edits I had to the most fun making was my Buckaroo Banzai VHS TV Edition.

 

[Slade Harrison]

Sign me up! One the fan edits I had to the most fun making was my Buckaroo Banzai VHS TV Edition.

I might need to ask you for some tips on the look.

 

[destined spaghetti]

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.

Both can be true for sure. I think it's a valid criticism of the vile nature of "convenience" as a whole. That as we grow accustomed to higher standards of quality it oddly bothers us more than it should when they are absent or removed. Hence someone having a bigger problem over something less consequential than they perceive.

In many disciplines and areas, I have noticed we (as a species) all have this odd and noticeably intense indignation when it comes to the, quite frankly, futuristic and highly technological state of this hobby/etc, and any throttling back on the higher reaches of it's capabilities. The ceiling for quality has the possibility to be extremely high, but is not always feasible or even necessary. Which brings up the validity of guidelines vs hardlined rules. Having any standard of quality, even in it's low, means that there is a hard yes or no choice to be made, where some are included and some are excluded. Just the way it is.

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.

This right here. This site has been around for a while by now. And there are plenty of older edits that might not meet a modern audience's set of standards. I have definitely watched lower source quality edits in my time and of course I prefer anything else in HD.

But what is lost creatively when those valid older attempts at fixing a film (at least when it comes to fanfixes) are ignored and therefore lost to the changing expectations of quality? Does that lead to a glut of incrementally different cuts that basically do the same thing but in superieor definition? And what is gained with this preference of standard?

Some people re-release their fanedits in HD or touch them up as their skills improve if such an option becomes available to them. Which is great but also makes room for some grey area. I know I have gone back to alter my review of an edit when the editor has notified me of a newer version. Valid.

Other people though, have been transparent in their edit intention where they have redone another inactive/busy editor's older cut in HD for a communal quality of life improvement. What standards of quality assessment are valid in that circumstance when it comes to how that edit is ranked and who gets the proper credit? I haven't seen any gross indiscretions regarding a review score discrpancy where the HD recreation is ranked higher than the original edit, but I think this brings up an interesting facet of the standards. Just me spitballing philosophically here.

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.

I really do respect your preference of a baseline of 1080 as I have a hard time going back to SD myself. And I think your method of enjoying a commercially released bluray over a commercial dvd is extremely valid.

But when it comes to the statements you have provided here concerning someone's entry into the hobby, you have tried to wrap your words in nice sounding qualifiers of non judgement, but those statements still come off as judegmental, privileged, and gatekeepy (not to mention the choice between commercial bluray vs commercial dvd is different to the preference between HD or SD fanedits). I don't think you or anyone should be telling people what hobby they are allowed to engage in especially when it comes to the mountainous, mulit-disciplinary, technological, economical, and educational barriers one needs to study/research/overcome to be able to compete even on a basic level.

All hobbies have a barrier for entry. Unforuntuate but true. There has even been some discussion here about the price of this barrier. Which is important but not necessarilly needed to be explored in elaborated detail outside of "sometimes I ain't got the money for that!". And whether or not you agree or disagree, having some standard of quality creates a line in the sand with people left on both sides. Which is fine. I love this site because it does have a set of standards.

I think HD sources/presentation/distribution should be adequately encouraged and made as accessible as possible in terms of how to rip/demux/edit/share. (which is a group responsibility of any hobbyist community). But I believe that standard is a little too high at this point in the affordable proliferation of the resources necessary to fanedit. Its come a long way and will probably get there at some point, but even then it will never be a universal standard to expect. Then again, there is a place on the internet for every standard of quality assessment and this site shouldn't be required to represent them all.



There is a lot of talk here about justification of source quality. Someone mentioned that the usage of VHS quality deleted scenes dictated that the quality of the theatrically released scenes be made to prioritize a seamless experience by being presenting the remainder in VHS quality. That right there, is what makes me love fanedits. These weird little creative justifications that consider experience rather than quality standards. I definitley appreciate and salute those who put the extra effort into maintaining a HD standard all through their workflow. But I don't think that people should necessarily be knocked points for choosing SD.

End of the day I am here for the creativty, cateloging, and sharing of fan edits. Not technical qualifications. To each their own though.

 

[Possessed]

But when it comes to the statements you have provided here concerning someone's entry into the hobby, you have tried to wrap your words in nice sounding qualifiers of non judgement, but those statements still come off as judegmental, privileged, and gatekeepy

Well then I guess next time I just won't be as nice and qualifying and just say I don't care that you read it that way. Also I didn't know buying a Blu-ray drive with money I earned at a job I got myself right out of high school was privileged. I live a bit below the poverty line and still managed to scrape together $40 for a Blu-ray drive and when I want to fanedit can find a used copy on eBay for pretty cheap. So you can take the notion that I'm "privileged and just shove it straight up your ass.

And You're confusing judgement with being interested and thinking the work is up to standard.

Fanedit in SD when there's a good HD source as a hobby if you want, but if you want any kind of serious release you can't really expect people to take it seriously. I'm not gatekeeping, I'm expressing the baseline of expectation of quality. So if somebody wants to put on let's say a concert with nothing but a 5 watt practice amp and an out of tune guitar with a messed up neck, is it "gatekeeping" for a venue not to want to book them? Sorry bud that's how the world works. They could be extremely talented but if they can't convey it up to quality standards then no they aren't going to get booked anymore.

As far as judgement, no I'm really not judgement. I'm just telling you the facts about baseline expectations. I guess I'll just be more mean about it next time so you don't think I'm hiding.

 

[tremault]

So if somebody wants to put on let's say a concert with nothing but a 5 watt practice amp and an out of tune guitar with a messed up neck, is it "gatekeeping" for a venue not to want to book them?

why do you think this is a fair comparison?
There are plenty of people who are perfectly happy watching DVDs, people actuall buy them, and there are lots of films and tv series that were only ever made in SD. Your comparisons is not in good faith at all.
If you want to make a comparison, then it's like comparing a concert in a 5000 seat arena with a full light show, versus an opera in an opera house with basic lights.
I'm really sorry but this is just coming across as snobbery now. Do you really want to be that guy?
Yeah you managed to get a job, that is a privilege. There are people who have struggled for years to get into work and there are people with health issues who can't work, and there are minors who are not old enough to work, and there are people who work, but maybe they live in san jose where rent is through the roof? please try and consider the world beyond your doorstep, not everything is so easy as you seem to think.

 

[Possessed]

It's a working class job, and I probably make much less than many here, so again you can take this 'privileged' bullshit and fuck yourself with it.

Maybe I am snob. Sorry I'm willing to spend $40 on a Blu-ray drive out of my working class paycheck. I'm sure all the money buying DVDs could have bought one pretty quickly.

 

[tremault]

a working class job is still a job. And if there is enough disposable income to buy a bluray player then clearly rent and bills are not currently an issue. I don't see where the confusion is here, but okay.

yes, some people get dvds as a gift. Maybe we have a 15 yr old member who has been gifted a DVD of lord of the rings from their struggling parents? Maybe they want to edit LOTR from their only copy and release as an SD edit. They work really hard and learn how to encode perfectly. It's impeccable. Why should they be penalised? They released as SD and were pretty clear about it. What did they do wrong?

 

[reave]

Anyone is free to use whatever source type they want. If I watch an edit to review it, and it's in SD when an HD source is available, I'll likely deduct for image quality. 1080p would be a baseline standard for me. Blu-ray media, hardware and software is pretty reasonable these days.

 

[tremault]

Anyone is free to use whatever source type they want. If I watch an edit to review it, and it's in SD when an HD source is available, I'll likely deduct for image quality. 1080p would be a baseline standard for me. Blu-ray media, hardware and software is pretty reasonable these days.

This surprised me.
What if the editor felt that the HD source was inferior due to some reason such as 'remastering' that may add bad sharpening or halo effects or garish colour?
Also, does that mean the guidelines will be changing, because doesn't the current guidelines say 'compared to the source'?
Thanks for any clarification.

 

[unfair]

Maybe we have a 15 yr old member who has been gifted a DVD of lord of the rings from their struggling parents?

Can we just stop with the hypothetical 12 year old destitute orphans should be able to edit too make-believe? Posting the hobby here specifically has certain gates, and you can argue that Bluray shouldn't be one, but given the overall cost of this particular community it's far from out-of-line if it was to be an official standard.

You have to draw a line somewhere and this community has drawn it at certain standards of care for final product, as well as paying for sources, and paying for tools to rip streaming sources (luckily makemkv is free for blurays for those who can't afford to register). So making a big deal about $40-60 for a bluray drive that might even do UHD like my cheap drive does is silly, and I buy blurays used on amazon for less than $10 including shipping, so this argument that it's some huge barrier is absurd. Used sources are cheaper than they've ever been, for better quality disks.

If you don't like the idea of it being a standard here then that's fine, but please let's move on from crying about children with no job who sorely want to edit DVDs for this community, it's a silly fiction to support your preferences on the issue.

 

[tremault]

Can we just stop with the hypothetical 12 year old destitute orphans should be able to edit too make-believe? Posting the hobby here specifically has certain gates, and you can argue that Bluray shouldn't be one, but given the overall cost of this particular community it's far from out-of-line if it was to be an official standard.

You have to draw a line somewhere and this community has drawn it at certain standards of care for final product, as well as paying for sources, and paying for tools to rip streaming sources (luckily makemkv is free for blurays for those who can't afford to register). So making a big deal about $40-60 for a bluray drive that might even do UHD like my cheap drive does is silly, and I buy blurays used on amazon for less than $10 including shipping, so this argument that it's some huge barrier is absurd. Used sources are cheaper than they've ever been, for better quality disks.

If you don't like the idea of it being a standard here then that's fine, but please let's move on from crying about children with no job who sorely want to edit DVDs for this community, it's a silly fiction to support your preferences on the issue.

I have a blueray drive and a pretty good PC and I have a decent collection of blurays.
I'm just trying to recognise that not everyone is in the same position as me. If the staff decide that things should be different, that resolution can be considered as Video quality, then that's the position I'd argue from. I have an interest in fairness and clarity, that's all. I recognise my privilege, we all should, and if the review guidelines say based on the source then it seems pretty mean spirited to ignore that and punish people based on whatever personal bias. I am more than happy to ding people based on resolution if that is what the guidelines say.

Do I watch SD version of a film or edit, when a HD version is available? no, probably not, but if they listed it as SD, then I'm not going to punish them, because they did everything right.