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.