• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

Should formal reviews reflect an HD bias?

geminigod

geminigod

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
1
Trophy Points
46
So I have been on a roll today watching and reviewing edits. On my last review I stumbled into a mental quandary. Should I deduct a star from A/V quality due to the lack of an HD version? I never have in the past. On the one hand it isn't fair to compare HD to SD in terms of overall quality, and some editors are not yet equipped to work in HD. On the other hand, clearly it is higher quality. HD editing is now pretty commonplace now within our circle here. Perhaps those who take the extra time to release HD versions should be rewarded for their effort?
 
Short answer. No, go to hell.

Longer answer. When I rate an edit's A/V quality I compare it to other edits in that format. If I'm watching an xvid AVI I'll compare how it looks to other AVIs I've seen. Obviously HD based edits are going to be higher quality than DVD based edits, but you can still screw up the quality on an HD edit.

I'm very big on Quality of Story and Overall Enjoyment trumping picture and sound.
 
geminigod said:
So I have been on a roll today watching and reviewing edits. On my last review I stumbled into a mental quandary. Should I deduct a star from A/V quality due to the lack of an HD version? I never have in the past. On the one hand it isn't fair to compare HD to SD in terms of overall quality, and some editors are not yet equipped to work in HD. On the other hand, clearly it is higher quality. HD editing is now pretty commonplace now within our circle here. Perhaps those who take the extra time to release HD versions should be rewarded for their effort?
Click to expand...

Short answer: no. As you said some people are not equipped to work in HD. Some people love HD and want everything in that format. I am actually not one of those people, an SD DVD5 (or DVD9) is fine by me and I'm happy with the picture.

And I suppose the same argument could be made for everything from 2.0 versus surround sound audio, and menu designs (static vs motion, chapter menus vs none).

Of course this is just one man's opinion.
 
I agree with Neg, in that we know going in that HD will be higher quality than DVD (unless there is a tech problem). I think it should be understood that if I give a DVD a 10/10 for video quality, that's in relation to other DVDs, not to HD.
 
Some edits aren't possible in HD (No BD available), and others are intended for SD (eg. Scream Giallo). But if a film is released in SD when HD is available and would potentially improve the release, I think a 9/10 is ok (assuming everything else is in order). These days I try to save the 10/10's for edits where the quality could not be better in that category. And HD is the best it can get...
 
Well at least one person didn't tell me to go to hell! I have mixed feelings on the matter, but I knew it would stir up a lively debate.:eek:
 
Perhaps that information should be a part of the review, like they do at Amazon. When people post reviews for the same title in different formats they specify which format is being reviewed.
 
I say rate the video quality on how far it strays from the source, regardless of SD or HD. Plain and simple.
 
I also think the quality should reflect the maximum of the medium and the source material. However, if the original movie is released in poor quality, I'm not sure the a/v rating should be a 10. The purpose of the rating is so people know what they are getting before they download, not just to pat an editor on the back.

For example. http://www.fanedit.org/ifdb/component/content/article/79-fanedit-listings/fanfix/684-wolf-dancer Wolf Dancer is ripped from the blu-ray but released on DVD. It ends up looking much better than the original released dvd, BECAUSE the original DVD was of poor quality. Wolf Dancer ends up being 151 minutes on a DVD5 and looks spectacular. It earned a 10/10. Should it have also earned a 10/10 had he used the original DVD? Personally, I don't think so. Maybe an 8 or 9. I think the quality of the source should play into the A/V rating of an edit, even if the editor is not at fault.

I'm very big on Quality of Story and Overall Enjoyment trumping picture and sound.
Click to expand...

I think if editors edit a great movie and then over-compress it or don't triple check the final output quality before releasing, they should lose A/V points. The audio/video quality rating should be independent from story/enjoyment. That is why the rating category exists.
 
I agree with Neg: the quality of a release should be judged with reference to the format.
 
Captain Khajiit said:
I agree with Neg: the quality of a release should be judged with reference to the format.
Click to expand...

Well I guess this is what I will go with, and as Reave mentioned, I'll try to make a habit at the beginning of the review of stating which version I watched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom