20:51 <godix> Ok. I talked quadir into doing a discussion about reviews tonight. The reason is I think we've been focusing on the wrong thing in reviews recently
20:51 <Driftroot> Ohhhhh?
20:52 <quadir> godix: could be a result of people doing the "wrong" things in ops in the first place
20:52 <godix> So this is to talk about why and how to critique a video. My biggest concern is that recently we've been staring at a forest and picking out a single tree to bitch about for 20 minutes
20:52 <godix> and of all the times for my wife to call... I'll be back
20:52 <Kalium> I've noticed that most substantive reviews tend to be focused on the technical aspects.
20:52 <quadir> it is what people know best
20:52 <Arkada> agreed
20:53 <Driftroot> It's also the easiest thing to come to some sort of consensus about.
20:53 <Kalium> there's a problem there, though
20:53 <PaperIsland> It is the least matter of opinion and the easiest to fix with a little effort
20:53 <Kalium> it doesn't help artistic development
20:53 <quadir> so maybe in your op it helps the person fix their encode next time, but the real content of their video never improves that way
20:54 <quadir> nor does it tell them anything about what you felt about the video past "ugh, wrong aspect ratio"
20:54 <PaperIsland> Well, are we talking purely visual quality or precision synching as well?
20:54 <Driftroot> Speaking of which, I thought Howling's note that their entire post was focused on feedback, not constructive criticism, kind of threw a wrench into things, if we're talking about how to op AMVs.
20:55 <quadir> PaperIsland: precision synching is a technique, a means to an end
20:55 <quadir> PaperIsland: instead of talking about the technique was done, why not talk about the end result you got out of it?
20:55 <Kalium> Driftroot just said something very important
20:55 <godix> Sorry about that. She's off to bed now so Is houldn't be interupted again
20:55 <Driftroot> I do try to do that, now and then.
20:56 <Arkada> The main problem I see with bitching bout tech and editing, is that, yeah there were problems but its not like the editor is going to go and remake the Video.
20:56 <Kalium> as a whole, we tend to be more concerned with how to improve than just the warm fuzzies
20:56 <Kalium> Arkada, I disagree.
20:56 <Arkada> Kalium: how so?
20:56 <Kalium> Those who would build castles in the sky must have both feet solidly on the ground.
20:56 <quadir> Arkada: v2
20:56 <Kalium> The technical stuff is the tools.
20:56 <godix> And yeah, you guys are getting what my concern is at least. We, and this is a general 'people on the org' we, tend to bitch about stuff that is honestly rather trivial.
20:56 <Kalium> When you have mastered your tools, then you can make them do what you want.
20:57 <Driftroot> Getting back to my point: I get annoyed with warm fuzzy ops, and I get annoyed with people who expect them. The op system is not for warm fuzzies, it's for constructive criticism, warm fuzzies are not really going to help people get better.
20:57 <PaperIsland> Sometimes editors do remake videos
20:57 <Arkada> Im not saying that we shoulden't bitch about Techs
20:57 <Arkada> PaperIsland: true as well
20:57 <quadir> Driftroot: so warm fuzzies is star comment?
20:57 <Panky> first you get the concept and then you get to master the editing technics, that's why my first amv was far the best of all the ones I did, I think I focused more in effects and other stupid things
20:57 <Kalium> "warm fuzzies" are "It was nice", "I liked it", etc.
20:57 <godix> Visual quality doesn't amtter as long as you can see the damned thing. Citizen Kane is still citizen kane regardless if it's 70 year old film stock or brand new updated 1080p HD.
20:57 <Driftroot> mmm, kind of, if it's a good comment.
20:58 <Kalium> warm fuzzies, as a rule, lack any kind of substance
20:58 <Driftroot> Warm fuzzies are "Nice/like" without an explanation.
20:58 <Arkada> becides just "I liked it"
20:58 <Kalium> in terms of what we want, they're useless
20:58 <Servo> warm fuzzies? og god!
20:58 <Driftroot> "I like it because you handled the synch well at X" is constructive, positive, feedback...it tells the editor what they did right and encourages them to do more of it.
20:58 <Arkada> thats better
20:58 <godix> I think when reviewing a video we should first try to see what the editor is going for. Sometimes it's as simple as punching to the beat but there are some really complex videos out there
20:59 <Kalium> yeah
20:59 <Kalium> understanding the concept is really important to offering useful criticism
20:59 <Driftroot> "I like X because X but it might have been better if you did X" is getting away from warm fuzzy, but what one of these LJers terms as a bad thing...
20:59 <Panky> actually i rarely show them what's ok on the video, i tell them what's wrong or bad supposing they understand the rest is ok
20:59 <Driftroot> That kind of tripped me up.
20:59 <quadir> Arkada: I'm thinking the "the editor won't remake the vid" is an argument that really doesn't stand up to the test. You don't replay the exact same chess game, or go game. And yet reviewing your game and seeing how your actions effected the whole is a huge part of developping your game
20:59 <godix> I do know one thing, if I ever got a review for Conet that was 'The visual quality at 1:20 was...' that's a review I'd almost instantly discard
20:59 <PaperIsland> I wonder if the org's focus on dividing things up into categories - sound, video, editing sync - contributes to these overly narrow opinions sometimes
20:59 <Kalium> and if you miss the concept, that too says something about the video
21:00 <Kalium> I doubt it.
21:00 <godix> PaperIsland: Yes. I think it does. It's one of the reasons I don't like the op system much
21:00 <Kalium> The op system decomposes where it can
21:00 <Arkada> quadir: well as paper said, some people do remake, but the majority of the time they don't
21:00 <Kalium> and it's easier to decompose the technical angles
21:00 <Driftroot> We also can't, a lot of times, doing an AMV over and over just to "fix" small things people don't like is discouraged.
21:00 <Arkada> quadir: but you are right
21:01 <Panky> the only comments that are being used are the general, or as far as i remember it was like that
21:01 <Panky> i even did that
21:01 <godix> It is easier. But here in this channel we set ourselves up to be reviewers. Not just people commenting at random, but actually sitting down and reviewing a video. As such we shouldn't take the easy way out.
21:01 <Arkada> agreed
21:01 <KioAtWork> Howdy folks, my responses will be limited, obviously.
21:02 <Driftroot> How-D
21:02 <Panky> hu
21:02 <PaperIsland> Hey
21:02 <Arkada> yo
21:02 <Kalium> hey, Kio
21:02 <KioAtWork> 'm on my schop; computer
21:02 <G_Q> Evening, Kio
21:02 <Driftroot> So godix, what do YOU recommend we do here in #Review, to distances ourselves from op-style reviews?
21:02 <KioAtWork> I have class in ten minutes.
21:02 <godix> And I'm not saying the technical aspects should be ignored. But I think the technical aspects should be viewed and discussed as they relate to the video. Does this effect further the editors overall theme. Does that cut work to keep the flow going. That type of thing
21:02 <PaperIsland> So, is it unreasonable to imagine the org will change its overall review focus?
21:02 <Driftroot> Hrm
21:02 <Kalium> One thing I've noticed is that there's some form of vague social disapproval to discussing the concept or story of a video.
21:03 <PaperIsland> I think driftroot is getting at the same thing as me, should we be developing a different type of criteria
21:03 <Arkada> Kalium: Yeah Ive seen that as well
21:03 <quadir> Kalium: well the big danger is that you'll get it wrong, or the editor will go "I just made it in 2 evenings"
21:03 * Driftroot agrees with Kalium
21:03 <PaperIsland> in the amv-review as opposed to the org as a whole
21:03 <Kalium> I think part of that is a background issue
21:03 <Servo> PaperIsland: it's not so much the org, as it is Internet Users in general
21:03 <godix> Focus on the whole rather than the parts. Editing, effects, visual quality, etc. Those all are aspects that we tend to focus on as if they were the ONLY thing in the video. They're not, they're all related
21:03 <quadir> Servo: keep your scope under control please.
21:04 <Kalium> How many of us have any kind of formal background (beyond high schol) in literary analysis?
21:04 <Kalium> The same ideas, I find, apply.
21:04 <Driftroot> Me...
21:04 <Arkada> not me unfortunetly
21:04 <PaperIsland> Is that a rhetorical question?
21:04 <Driftroot> But that was about seven years ago.
21:04 <Kalium> I as well.
21:04 <PaperIsland> I do...
21:04 <Kalium> No, it's not.
21:04 <KioAtWork> I do.
21:04 <KioAtWork> My degreeis in it.
21:04 <PaperIsland> As is mine.
21:04 <Rathisponge> So would you think the overall score would be best thing to focus on when submitting an opinion on a-m-v.org, godix?
21:04 <Panky> what's that of formal background?
21:04 <quadir> Kalium: I don't think that's the problem
21:04 <Servo> I don't in terms of degrees, or literary or college
21:04 <Driftroot> I was a history major with an almost minor in philosophy, I analyzed the hell out of anything and everything.
21:05 <godix> Kalium: Not me but I don't think it's needed. All that's needed is some intelligence to think about what you're watching
21:05 <quadir> Kalium: the problem is getting people to realize that's what is acceptable, and that's what is wanted
21:05 <Kalium> Actually, I think it's part of the problem.
21:05 <Kalium> Lack of vocabulary.
21:05 <Kalium> People don't know _HOW_ to talk about these things.
21:05 <PaperIsland> Experience with the org can give you most of the vocabulary you need for talking about amvs
21:05 <Kalium> In a technical sense
21:05 <godix> Rathisponge: Yes. Exactly. How the whole thing gels together overall. If visual quality was so bad that you can't see what's going on then obviously that's bad. But if we're bitching about a slight bit of noise on an otherwise crystal clear picture, we're being too nitpicky on the wrong things
21:05 <Arkada> Kalium: People know how they THINK they should talk about things
21:05 <quadir> did anyone check out the sub-link of 'visual vocabularies'?
http://www.livejournal.com/users/gwyn_r/129995.html
21:05 <Servo> I echo godix, Interpretation does not come from a background in rhetorical analysis
21:05 <Panky> yeah for me it's sometimes kind of hard to give a comment if I don't even really speak english here
21:05 <Panky> as*
21:06 <Panky> it's hard to express some things
21:06 <PaperIsland> That's true
21:06 <Driftroot> I think another part of the problem is taking an AMV too seriously vs. taking the review of an AMV seriously. A comedy video isn't a tower of deep meaning, necessarily, but one can discuss its accomplishments in a meaningful way.
21:06 <KioAtWork> My senior thesiswason The Pearl and its role as a religios primer
21:06 <Kalium> I think Panky just made my point for me.
21:06 <Rathisponge> Ah, I agree godix.
21:06 <PaperIsland> I think most people with video experience get the general idea of what's right and wrong, just some can't put words to it
21:07 <KioAtWork> I'm barely able to keep up
21:07 <Arkada> Kio: I feel your pain
21:07 <Kalium> that, right there, is a substantive problem
21:07 <KioAtWork> quadir, please log this and post it so I can read it later.
21:07 <quadir> KioAtWork: it's always done
21:07 <godix> Driftroot: In general the review chooses videos that are meant to be taken seriously
21:07 <KioAtWork> Arkada: two students have aslready arrived so that's why
21:07 <Driftroot> Oh?
21:07 <KioAtWork> my attention is dived
21:07 <KioAtWork> and so obviouslymy students takepriority.
21:07 <Arkada> Kio: of course
21:07 <godix> But yes, genre does play a role in how discussion should be done. Which is why I think the FIRST point we reviewers should start with was 'what was the editor trying to do'.
21:08 <PaperIsland> That's fine, post a reply in the thread if you want to add something kio
21:08 <Panky> I generally mark specific errors, any flash that appeared, something that SURELY doesn't fits the video, but I feel I can't say it sucks because I don't really know the concept the creator was looking for
21:08 <Arkada> If they were trying to do anything
21:08 <godix> If they were trying to be funny then focus your attention to is the video funny. If they were trying for a certain mood focus on that. If they were being effect whores focus on the effects.
21:08 <Kalium> godix: I agree.
21:08 <Driftroot> godix: That's how I approach my ops, I consider what the editor (or what I think the editor) was trying to do and evaluate their success from there.
21:08 <KioAtWork> which is too bad. I wish we had waited until nextmonth to dothis when my schedule changes
21:08 <quadir> godix: the technical only applies insofar as how it helps to accomplish that end
21:08 <PaperIsland> I think the first point an editor should start with is not what was the editor trying to do, but what was my reaction to the video
21:08 <Kalium> godix: However, it's not always clear what the video is up to.
21:08 <KioAtWork> I'd have likedto be involved i this
21:08 <godix> Follow what the editor wanted to present instead of selecting preset categories to judge
21:08 <KioAtWork> I agree with godix
21:08 <KioAtWork> and Kalium
21:08 <PaperIsland> first point a reviewer*
21:09 <KioAtWork> story needs to addressed
21:09 <KioAtWork> It's the main facotr inmyvideos.
21:09 <Arkada> Kio: assumeing there is one
21:09 <Servo> That suggestion is not a bad idea actually, because it is focusing on the main idea of the vid
21:09 <KioAtWork> I stress internal continuity,.
21:09 <Kalium> If I can't immediately tell what the video is centered around, I have to guess. That can get messy.
21:09 * G_Q agrees with Kio.
21:09 <KioAtWork> for editorsthat do stress internal continuity, it should be paidattentiontoandconsidered
21:09 <KioAtWork> editing has contextandshould be looked at that way
21:09 <Driftroot> Yeah, if the story isn't there, in some form, that's not an AMV, it's a bunch of flashy images.
21:10 <G_Q> It's hard to place consistency and story into some category.
21:10 <Arkada> with music
21:10 <godix> PaperIsland: Perhaps. I'd put reaction as the second step actually. Step 1: what did the editor want to do Step 2: What was my reaction Step 3: Is the answer for step 1 & 2 the same and if not why
21:10 <quadir> godix: your comment about comedy videos deserves the most credit I think
21:10 <PaperIsland> I think I'd go, Reaction > intention > elements > unity
21:10 <godix> Kalium: And in cases where you can't tell what the goal was then that's a problem with the video that should be addressed.
21:10 <Kalium> Again, agreed.
21:10 <Driftroot> But our idea about what the editor was trying to do can be influenced by our reaction to it...
21:10 <PaperIsland> If I start with intention I feel like it's sometimes hard to get back to how I really felt about it watching it
21:11 <quadir> Driftroot: I think one of godix' point is you have to recognize that. If the video is about flashy images, then you can look at how well it accomplishes that goal
21:11 <PaperIsland> I guess as long as you reach both steps the order isn't so important
21:11 <G_Q> Driftroot: However, not everything has a story.
21:11 <Kalium> I think the priorities is dependant upon whether you're providing feedback, or constructive criticism.
21:11 <Driftroot> No?
21:11 <quadir> Driftroot: and that's not a count++ exercise, you can do it and leave your audience breathless or they can close their eyes, plug their ears until the video is done
21:11 <G_Q> I wouldn't quite consider Skittles & Attack of the Otaku story-driven. Lyric-driven, yes, but not story driven per se.
21:11 <Kalium> Driftroot: Exhibit A - Jihaku
21:12 <Driftroot> I'd say that has a story.
21:12 <PaperIsland> Kio would disagree, but ha, he's distracted and can't fight back
21:12 <quadir> godix: yeah, "story driven" is just one of the ways a video could focus, and it's not the only valid one
21:12 <Arkada> G_Q: agreed
21:12 <quadir> errr
21:12 <quadir> last one was to g_q
21:12 <godix> Story is perhaps the wrong word for it. I think 'focus' describes it better.
21:12 <Kalium> focus, subject, concept
21:12 <Servo> Idea is a better word
21:12 <Kalium> why the video exists
21:12 <Kalium> its raison detre
21:12 <Arkada> and what the video is trying to do
21:12 <Driftroot> I suppose my interpretation of "Story" is that you get something out of the video other than images burned in your brain. There's some meaning that was communicated.
21:13 <godix> Some videos focus on effects, Decoy is well known for that style. Others focus on story like Kio's usually do. Mine focus on humor usually.
21:13 <Servo> Yet all of them revolve around one central idea
21:13 <Driftroot> If you finish watching an AMV and you have no idea what its point was, or failed to get anything out of the experience, I'd say the AMV was lacking story...meaning...
21:13 <godix> So under that example with Decoy we'd discuss his use of effects, with kio it'd be more appropriate to go over scene choice and story, with me it'd be a simple did you laugh
21:13 <quadir> Driftroot: people appreciate different focus' more
21:13 <Arkada> Personally, I want to do more then watch an AMV, I want to be able to fell an AMV, and the meaning of it
21:14 <Driftroot> Yah, but most people appreciate focus, period.
21:14 <PaperIsland> But the problem I have with that godix, is sometimes intentions are not necessarily worthwhile to the viewer
21:14 <Kalium> So how you go about reviewing should vary with the focus of the video, then.
21:14 <G_Q> I've seen quite a few vids without focus.
21:14 <PaperIsland> They could intend to do something that we find to be meaningless regardless of success
21:14 <Arkada> Driftroot: or could you just be lacking understanding? a high school student could read "War and Peace" and not get anyting out of it
21:14 <godix> And drift, and earlier Kalium, are right. If you finish watching the video and you have no idea what the editors were trying to do then that's a valid issue with the video and deserves discussing as well
21:14 <quadir> Kalium: yeah, each AMV deserves it's own focus of discussion, tailor made to the product it is delivering
21:15 <godix> Althoguh sometimes 'wtf' is the point as well
21:15 <Driftroot> You could be, but a student reading war and peace probably would have a pretty good idea that it was good stuff, even if it went over their head.
21:15 <Arkada> or even "Meh"
21:15 <Kalium> Driftroot: Maybe.
21:15 <Kalium> I have an example there
21:15 <Kalium> I friend of mine read 'Killer Angels' at 15. Had no clue what he'd read.
21:15 <Driftroot> I mean, there's a certain level of cognition we're assuming viewers have...we can't make exceptions the rule.
21:15 <Kalium> Came back six or seven years later, and it blew him away.
21:16 <godix> My real concern here is that if you look at what we discuss there's no difference in how we treat a TJ sync video, a kio drama, etc. We tend to focus on the same points regardless of video. Sometimes we go broader but usually not
21:16 <Panky> wha
21:16 <Panky> ?
21:16 <Arkada> Kalium: Its like watching an old movie over again years later, when you understand more.
21:16 <Servo> Confusion is still an audiences' reaction never the less
21:16 <Driftroot> So, obviously the meaning was there, he just didn't have the experience to grasp it. I'd say the vasy majority of AMVs are within 99% of our grasp.
21:16 <quadir> G_Q: maybe they were worth making, but aren't worth op/review past a quick comment saying "I like watching your vid and spacing out of my worries in life, thanks!"
21:16 <Driftroot> Also, an AMV's meaning can change, depending on what the viewer brings to the experience...we've discussed this before, I think.
21:17 <Driftroot> An editor only has so much control over how their work is interpreted.
21:17 <Kalium> True.
21:17 <Servo> But does that matter for the editor's side
21:17 <godix> True but most of us have similar shared background. So interpretation isn't going to be hugely different in the average viewers.
21:17 <Arkada> Driftroot: True, I feel that some people relate more with certin concepts and therefore enjoy the experences more
21:17 <Driftroot> This is why it bugs me when people tell me my reaction to their work is wrong...um, what? How can my reaction be wrong? It may not be what you were expecting/intending, but it's still an honest-to-goodness reaction.
21:18 <quadir> Driftroot: of course, bringing something else to the table is one of the things that should make ops and the review interesting
21:18 <PaperIsland> I don't think the intention is the only point, you could look at a comedy or dance video and say, "yes, this was the intention, but what is the comedy saying beyond it's original intention?"
21:18 <Arkada> quadir: hence #AMV-review?
21:18 <Driftroot> PaperIsland: yes, one of the LJ's touched on that point, and I think it's an excellent one.
21:19 <quadir> Arkada: yes. I was doing this IRL long before amv-review, for years. I figured I'd try to share it.
21:19 <godix> And, speaking as an editor, if I was trying to convey a message and a reviewer mentioned picking up something totally different then that's valuable feedback. It'd let me know I need to focus on my message better in the future. If the reviewer gave specifics of why they picked up the 'wrong' message that's even better since then I'd know what i did 'wrong'.
21:19 <Driftroot> godix: and you have insight into a facet of your AMV you may never have considered...it may not be "wrong" it may be an unexpected, nice, discovery.
21:19 <quadir> maybe as an EDITOR you have to fight against your first reaction? which is to nitpick on how you would of done a particular cut, or picked a different scene
21:20 <quadir> whereas a viewer doesn't think about that, all they can think of is how the product conveyed an idea at the end
21:20 <PaperIsland> Well I think that's where other people's opinions can help you out as well, with betas
21:20 <quadir> and as Godix said recently, I may go "wow that transition there was really a moment in the video where ____ hit home for me"
21:20 <Arkada> Betas can make a pile of shit look like gold
21:21 <quadir> and yet godix will chuckle and go "that's a stock effect, it took 5 seconds to make"
21:21 <quadir> but the whole experience wasn't trivial
21:21 <Servo> hey if the effect works it works
21:21 <Driftroot> quadir: my experience as an editor makes me more nitpicky, perhaps, but it also makes me appreciate how difficult certain things can be that non editors may never even dream of.
21:21 <Servo> if it doesn't then its shit
21:21 <godix> quadir: That's probably part of it. Most of us here are editors so there's always that little background voice going 'why's he do that cut? I could do that effect better. What would *I* do if I were editing' and that's something we should be aware of.
21:21 <quadir> Driftroot: right, so you'll like a vid for it's technique, rather than it's content
21:22 <quadir> Driftroot: whereas a viewer non-editor never has a conflict of interest
21:22 <quadir> or as godix says, an influence from another sphere
21:22 <Arkada> Quadir: sort of how people can like a berserk AMV even if they hate Berserk?
21:22 <godix> Not neccasarily fight though. That feedback is useful as well. Provides different views of how to achieve an overall message by people who are experienced at what they're talking about. As long as we don't slip from 'I think it would work better if you cut here' to 'YOu didn't cut here so obviously you suck since you didn't do things like I would'
21:23 <Servo> godix: btw, are you suggesting as "we" a review, critique an AMV as if we're a 'regular' audience, and not nippicky editors
21:23 <PaperIsland> Yeah, god forbid we should be impolite godix...
21:23 <quadir> Servo: yes, exacly.
21:23 <Driftroot> No, you have, as an editor, probably a better appreciation for both technique and content than a non-editor. You understand where it comes from better than the average viewer (hopefully). I can't say I op videos for content differently than when I hadn't made an AMV, but I do comment more on the technical aspects because I know (somewhat) what I'm talking about.
21:23 <godix> Servo: Just in general. Anyone who is interested enough in critique to actually be in a review room or read a log of a review room
21:24 <Kalium> being an editor is both a strength and a weakness
21:24 <Kalium> on the one hand, you have a far superior understanding of production
21:24 <Driftroot> Yeap, and we can't go back, I don't think so, anyways...
21:24 <Kalium> and probably more insight of the mindset of the ediot
21:24 <Arkada> I find that sometimes nitpickey is good, a vid or so back I got nitpicked to hell by my beta and it made me watch for those mistakes in my later vids
21:25 <godix> PaperIsland brings up a point I was expecting. I am the most impolite bastard around critiquing something. Which brings to mind two things, A) we're talking serious critiques not joking critiques and B) you don't have to be nice to be helpful
21:25 <Kalium> at the same time, it damages your ability to study a video in a holitistic manner
21:25 <quadir> (Kalium: ouch that typo hurts)
21:25 <Driftroot> ^_^
21:25 <Kalium> >.>
21:25 * Kalium pages Dr. Freud
21:25 <Driftroot> Hence down with warm fuzzy critiques.
21:25 <PaperIsland> It's interesting to note that in film, generally the title of filmmaker and film critic do not belong to the same person, so maybe as editors we need to think about more than just our own reactions because they are so biased
21:26 <Arkada> more with the "I like this vid, not let me tell you why..."
21:26 <Arkada> crap
21:26 <Driftroot> Warm fuzzies boost morale, but...well, unless something totally sucks I wouldn't want to give an op that completely depressed the editor (not on purpose, anyways).
21:26 <PaperIsland> And if you're not an editor, maybe you should tell editors when they're being biased
21:26 <Arkada> that came out wrong
21:26 <godix> I also find we have to keep in mind what we're doing. If we're looking at a beta then yeah, nitpick on all the technical aspects because you're at a point where the editor needs to hear technically what their problems are. A finished video, well we can tone down on the technical things some
21:26 <PaperIsland> I guess that's where a discussion can help
21:26 <Driftroot> But if we don't touch on the technical, as I think someone said, isn't it assumed the reviewer thinks it was all ok?
21:27 <Arkada> *nods*
21:27 <godix> I never said don't touch on the technical. I said don't focus on JUST the technical.
21:27 <Servo> godix: of course, the editors and draft testers have been too 'in' to the technical
21:27 <quadir> Driftroot: don't touch on the technical for itself
21:27 <godix> If someone has bad video quality then yeah, mention it and suggest how they can get better quality next time. Then drop it. Move on to something else.
21:28 <Kalium> the key to artistic improvement is understanding
21:28 <Servo> Basically, it's important for the Review to keep a good balance between content review and technical review
21:28 <Driftroot> No, not JUST the technical, a good op/review should be detailed where needed, if it needs technical constructive criticism, then give it. If not, don't.
21:28 <quadir> Servo: to be honest it almost isn't worth even doing a technical review
21:28 <Arkada> This log should become required reading
21:28 <quadir> Servo: we write ops prior to discussion, do it there if you want
21:28 <godix> Because honestly, this entire hobby is so focused on technical and so unfocused on artistic design/merit that people are getting the idea that all we want to see are naruto fight videos in high definition.
21:28 <quadir> Arkada: don't get ahead of yourself
21:29 <Servo> you might be right quadir, never the less it is a review
21:29 * Driftroot seconds godix
21:29 <Arkada> quadir: too late
21:29 <quadir> HD! HD! HD!
21:29 <Arkada> HD? bah
21:29 <Servo> ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK OTAKU!
21:29 <Arkada> Blu-ray AMV's are the future
21:29 <godix> I agree with quadir. Technical aspects should be a simple 'Here's a problem. Here's the solution.' and we're done with that. That's op material not discussion material
21:30 <Servo> sorry, for going off topic :(
21:30 <Driftroot> Imagine all the Advent Children Director's Cut AMVs that are going to come out when THAT gets released. :O
21:30 <Kalium> No thanks.
21:30 <Arkada> haha
21:30 <quadir> I recently saw a video in .mp4, the editor was obviously not up there in technical prowess, they had a .mpg but on the org they didn't even bother posting it. They ran it through a converted that slapped a huge 'buy our product' to spit out a .mp4 and locally uploaded that
21:30 <quadir> that gives you a peek at the mindset people think when they think of the people on the org
21:31 <Driftroot> Or the mindset of "newest THANG is best THANG."
21:31 <quadir> "these people will refuse to talk about the video until I make a mp4"
21:31 <Servo> In the film industry, whenever we're reviewing or commenting something, we always say "The technical will always be fixed." So that we can focus soley on the content
21:31 <Servo> The editor knows whats wrong technically
21:31 <Kalium> Servo's right on, here.
21:31 <quadir> "they will just bitch about a .mpg"
21:31 <Arkada> Quadir: in the same way, it is possible to have good quality in wmv format
21:31 <Servo> what he might not know is what content works or doesn't
21:31 <Driftroot> I'd rather see a competent, interesting AMV in low-def than a boring, uninspired HD AMV.
21:31 <godix> Also lets keep in mind we don't need to write a dissertation here. "I thought the video was going after setting a mood and it failed because of X,Y,Z' is fine. No need to write 20 paragraphs on it
21:31 <Arkada> Driftroot: aggred
21:32 <Servo> Basically Review should focus A LOT on content now
21:32 <quadir> Arkada: scope. my point was we're so focussed on the technical for it's own sake we're not loosing sight of the rest
21:32 <Kalium> godix: All the same, details are very helpful.
21:32 <PaperIsland> quadir: I think part of the reason people become so focused on technical is that time is a premium with so many AMVs being uploaded every day. I'm not going to waste my time on an AMV when the editor won't even bother fixing x about it.
21:32 <Driftroot> Ah, but some people can't help but expound upon their ideas. They get a kick out of it. I know, I do it all the time.
21:32 <Arkada> quadir: exactly, just because its in wmv, doesen't make it bad, yes?
21:32 <Kalium> The better you can identify problematic elements, the better the editor can figure out how to avoid them in the future.
21:32 <quadir> Arkada: we're not talking about format wars. I want to steer clear of that
21:32 <godix> Kalium: Yes but my point is not everything needs in depth details. A doki comedy for example is 'I laughed at spot X'. No need to go into indepth scene choice discussion or the like
21:33 <quadir> Arkada: maybe my example was bad
21:33 <Arkada> quadir: fair enough
21:33 <Kalium> godix: Or perhaps more valuabe, "Spot Y isn't funny."
21:33 <Servo> Driftroot: I agree with you on that comment of preferring a "good" low quality AMV over an HD effects AMV
21:33 <godix> Kalium: That too.
21:33 <Servo> for example: Kamoc's :"Broken Psalm
21:33 <Driftroot> Anyone can use HD, not everyone can make a good AMV.
21:34 <quadir> okay, so my concept for the amv-review was, "you just saw a movie with 4 of your friends, and as you're leaving the theater you start talking about it semi-seriously. What do you say?"
21:34 <Servo> that vid has horrible quality, but it's one of the best i've ever seen
21:34 <godix> But I want to keep us from going too far the other direction where people who just want to join and say 'Hey, the thing made me laugh' are discouraged and think we expect them to write War and Peace about the video
21:34 <Driftroot> What movie is it?
21:34 <quadir> I certainly won't say "oh man that reel change black mark 30 mins in really ruined that shot for me"
21:35 <Kalium> I would critique things like dialogue
21:35 <Kalium> story points
21:35 <Servo> godix: keep it simple in other words
21:35 <Arkada> I would go on about the flow of the movie
21:35 <Kalium> how gimmicks and humor attempts damaged my suspension of disbelief
21:35 <Driftroot> Depends on our background, I guess, if we were all crazed film students (apologies to such individuals, I'm just using this as an example) we MIGHt say "Oh man, that reel change..." but most of us probably wouldn't. We're editors though, and we're reviewing AMVs...so...we're going to get more "into" it than the average viewer.
21:35 <PaperIsland> But how often do theatrical movies have glaring technical defects?
21:35 <quadir> Kalium: so back again to the focus of the video, talk about different content depending on the focus
21:35 <Kalium> (Looking at YOU, Pirates of the Carribbean!)
21:35 <Driftroot> lol
21:35 <PaperIsland> After watching a movie with special effects, I usually say those were really nice or those sucked
21:36 <godix> Servo: Well that's up to each person. I'd like us to not get so pretentious that people who do keep it simple feel like they're not welcome. If you want to go on a two hour discussion of dude, where's my car then go for it.
21:36 <Arkada> PaperIsland: deopends on of you are watching a new movie or an old one that was reccently released on a new format
21:36 <quadir> Driftroot: _you_ are an editor. the discussion is not editors only.
21:36 <Servo> Let's take "The Matrix" for example. When I first saw that, yeah I was impressed by the effects, but jeez I never saw a Hollywood movie with that story before
21:36 <Kalium> Cheesy or badly done SFX will damage my suspension of disbelief.
21:36 <Driftroot> I know, but up until very recently I was NOT considerd an editor...
21:36 <Servo> godix: it's up to 3 hours now
21:36 <godix> servo: Pretentious prick.
21:37 <godix> Although, and I hate to admit it, you're probably the least likely to do what made me complain about critiques to begin with
21:37 <Servo> godix: godless fuck
21:37 <godix> I have a god, it just happens to be myself
21:37 <quadir> gentlemen
21:37 <Servo> quadir
21:37 <Servo> :)
21:38 <quadir> thank you
21:38 <Arkada> anyways...
21:38 <Servo> I think we're lost here
21:38 <godix> Anyway, back to the point. Servo is right. The Matrix had a lot of technical things to it. Enough so that was part of the discussion of the movie. But even so, what made it a well liked movie wasn't the technical parts and I don't thinkw eshould focus on just that.
21:39 <PaperIsland> I think part of what leads to technical discussions is discussions of technique as opposed to just overall intention
21:39 <Kalium> it's how the technical parts contributed
21:39 <Driftroot> It would be nice to be able to watch AMVs without fussing over their technical aspects. Most of us don't have to worry about this, walking out of the movie theater. If all we watched were technically competant AMVs...we might be more willing to focus on content.
21:39 <Kalium> bullettime contributed to the unreality of The Matrix within the movies
21:39 <quadir> so what it seems to come down to, is that you really need to stop seeing the technical as an end untu itself. See the content, see where it directs you, and bring up the technical only as it relates to that, if you bring it up _at all_
21:39 <PaperIsland> Technique is very important in editing because you don't have the freedom of original footage
21:39 <godix> And part of that is half of us are editors. We do tend to view things as 'That effect took 5 minutes to do, max' rather than 'that effect helped the overall mood of the video'
21:40 <Servo> BTW, with this review of AMVs, what do we hope to learn as editors ourselves
21:40 <quadir> Driftroot: rent some DVDs, or old VHS tapes, or see a movie where certain scenes go pixelated. it happens, I notice it. I still manage to walk away with a movie, not a review of a compression job
21:40 <Arkada> So one day in the future we should gather some money rent a movie theater and watch AMV's there.
21:40 <Driftroot> Is there some kind of...ego thing, too? Like, theoretically, we think we could do better...whereas watching a movie, most of us would never dream of accomplishing such a feat?
21:41 <Kalium> as I said before, our editing backgrounds damage our ability to look at a video as a whole
21:41 <godix> I think it we bring up technical things at all we should be discussing the technical as it applies to the whole. How did this effect help/hurt the video. Did hard cuts to accept that beat hurt the flow or help it. That type of thing.
21:41 <Kalium> We get caught up in the details.
21:41 <PaperIsland> I think the same thing about movies all the time...
21:41 <Driftroot> Hrm...
21:41 <Servo> Kalium touches on a good note of 'looking at the vid as a whole'
21:41 <Servo> hence the overall
21:42 <Driftroot> Yes, technical as it applies to the whole, helps it or hurts it...it should not hurt it.
21:42 <Kalium> Servo: But it's really, really hard for us to do.
21:42 <Kalium> We spend so much time down in the details, we lose sight of the whole.
21:42 <Driftroot> Damn our eyes! (Always wanted to say that)
21:42 <quadir> PaperIsland: there's other remix culture, that doesn't focus on technique nearly as much. look at audio
21:42 <Arkada> Another problem I think is that the OP form itself is set up for people to talk about the tech parts of a video. there is no 10/10 for story or whatnot
21:43 <Driftroot> We should do a review that was completely nontechnical.
21:43 <Arkada> Correction
21:43 <Arkada> anything but tech parts
21:43 <Kalium> How do you rate a story?
21:43 <quadir> Driftroot: even if it does, it may not be worth mentioning
21:43 <Kalium> "1 point - denuoument"?
21:43 <Driftroot> Well, originality and overall can incorporate story, as well as reviewability.
21:43 <godix> Yes, I think ops contribute to the issue in that they force people to think about visual quality and overanalyse it.
21:43 <quadir> Driftroot: that would be missing the point
21:44 <Driftroot> :/
21:44 <Servo> however originality and story are not the same
21:44 <Arkada> Kalium: mabye not story but I was useing it as an example
21:44 <quadir> Arkada: yeah, the op form does deconstruct the video technically
21:44 <Kalium> Arkada: The point stands.
21:44 <godix> I mean if I watch a video and the quality wasn't great enough to make me go 'Damn that's good quality' and not bad enough to make me go 'Damn that looks like shit' then why should the op form focus my attention on visual quality at all?
21:44 <Kalium> Arkada: How do you evaluate the quality of the concept?
21:44 <PaperIsland> Getting back to the original reading, the first topic mentions creating a "project" of reviewing as a way of getting better at it and enforcing a systematic approach, should we start beginning our reviews with "Perceived intention: " and "Personal reaction:"
21:44 <quadir> and it's true I made the 'op it first' with the review thinking it would get it out of your system, you can settle your "learn2encode" stuff there
21:44 <PaperIsland> Using a modified org approach basically
21:44 <quadir> but maybe it just put people in the wrong mindset to begin with
21:45 <Arkada> Kalium: on reflection I guess you can't really, everyone would have their own way of doing so and there would be no set standard
21:45 <Servo> no, i don't think its that quadir
21:45 <Driftroot> Yeah....we wouldn't have our nitpick categories all picked out.
21:45 <Servo> I'm sure op first is fine
21:45 <Kalium> Arkada: Better, then, to avoid the whole issue.
21:45 <godix> PaperIsland: I intend to write up a short guide that I personally will use. Nothing major, just A) what did the editor mean to do B) what did I think of it on first viewing C) If A&B matched what helped that and if they don't why not
21:45 <Driftroot> hehe, Trillian keeps putting a smiley face in the middle of that...
21:46 <PaperIsland> As a review, I feell like we have the power to request a certain style from attendees
21:46 <godix> But I wouldn't encourage others to use my format. Make up your own, even if it's not written down. Just ask yourself 'when I look at a video what should I look for?'
21:46 <Servo> I think it's because we're all so focused with all these AMVers in org who are "technical beat" this and "Hi Def" that
21:46 <PaperIsland> Just as we ask for people to stay on certain subjects
21:46 <PaperIsland> godix: what about new amv-review attendees? they won't know about our focus here
21:46 <PaperIsland> And we can't ask everyone on the org to approach amvs that way
21:46 <Servo> I agree with godix, they're guidelines not rules, but writing them down and posting them somewhere for the community to look at is not a bad idea
21:47 <quadir> PaperIsland: indeed, the "moderated" part is supposed to keep us in a certain directly, and a certain style
21:47 <godix> PaperIsland: That's why we're having a discussion tonight and posting the thread on the forum. So we all are at least aware of the issue even if we still don't view videos/critiques the same way.
21:47 <quadir> PaperIsland: but this isn't a 10 step program, the point is intereacting with others, but if you're on the wrong topic, and people willingly let themselves be derailed, we go nowhere
21:47 <Servo> BTW, not everyones going to read the entire log
21:48 <quadir> Servo: it's not meant that way
21:48 <Servo> I suggest all of us agree on a small criteria for critique
21:48 <godix> Also to keep in mind, we're talking -review here. What I want to see on monday nights in review is different than what I want to see in opinions or the announcement forum.
21:48 <Servo> for public viewing i mean
21:48 <PaperIsland> but we must have some style which separates the amv-review from the general amv chat
21:48 <Driftroot> Would it be worth asking the editors of the selected videos to answer godix's type of questions? It's hard to evaluate someone's accomplishments if we're not even sure whey they themselves were trying to accomplish, and the comments section doesn't always help out.
21:48 <quadir> Servo: it's meant to flesh out ideas
21:48 <quadir> godix: this is a good place to start IMO
21:49 <KioAtWork> The annoucement forum is e-peening, that's it.
21:49 <quadir> Driftroot: that comes back to the "if I need a description card to understand the video, it failed"
21:49 <Arkada> PaperIsland: agreed, if we don't we might as well just hog a thread in the forum every night
21:49 <godix> Driftroot: That may not be a bad idea. I know in the past I've recommended doing reviews with the editors present, and we have once or twice, for precisely this reason. So they can explain what they were going after
21:49 <KioAtWork> With annoucements Ilook toguage general interest, not recieve feedback really. That's whatops and review are for.
21:49 <quadir> KioAtWork: go back to work, we're not talking about the announcement forum
21:49 <KioAtWork> quadir: No kids right now.
21:49 <Driftroot> Mebbe, but if we ASSUME an editor did X and then run off with that idea, we could be going in a completely wrong direction and never realize it.
21:50 <Kalium> Driftroot, that's valuable too
21:50 <quadir> Driftroot: is it wrong?
21:50 <quadir> Driftroot: how can YOU say it's WRONG?
21:50 <Kalium> quadir, then it means it wasn't done right
21:50 <Servo> yeah, remember its still our interpretation
21:50 <Driftroot> lol
21:50 <quadir> Kalium: or it can just be interpreted differently?
21:50 <Kalium> quadir: Yes
21:50 <godix> Personally I view the review as discussion on the overall video. Ops as nitpicking on trivial shit that the editor can easily fix in the future (video quality and the like) and the announcement forum as a place for one or two lines 'I liked it because of X,Y,Z' and that's it
21:50 <Kalium> Such is the nature of interpretation
21:51 <Driftroot> I mean, we could be discussing what we think the editor did or what they think they did, there could be a difference.
21:51 <godix> That's when I treat it seriously. When I don't treat it seriously all three are just chances to compare a video to cat puke. But that's not what we're talking about tonight
21:51 <quadir> Driftroot: I think godix hit it on the money, the review is the content, what the _viewer_ got
21:51 <Kalium> One should always view the piece before reading the authors commentary on such.
21:51 <Arkada> godix: so you basicly want things like "The way he did X really moved me" correct?
21:51 <Kalium> The commentary will always taint your interpretation.
21:51 <Arkada> or something to that effect
21:52 <Servo> Arkada: I think it is spot on
21:52 <Servo> that's how I view it too
21:52 <Driftroot> And reference technical aspects that helped/hindered what we "get" out of an AMV.
21:52 <godix> Arkada: If you were moved by a video I think it's fair game to discuss that and what moved you.
21:52 <Servo> what did "I" the viewer get
21:53 <Driftroot> But not reference the technical so much that it becomes the end-all and be-all of the AMV experience.
21:53 <Driftroot> Which is what the op system tends to do.
21:53 <godix> Exactly. I've noticed many new people to the forums, and others I've talked to outside the org, think AMVs are all about technical aspects.
21:54 <Servo> pfffsh
21:54 <quadir> Kit|lolregged: ETA = Edited To Add
21:54 <Kit> oho
21:54 <Driftroot> Which is a shame, because new editors are quite likely to bungle the technical while creating nice nontechnical stuff.
21:54 <Arkada> what would we do in the case of, "Editor creates AMV with no concept, no story, but just one action sequence after another", would we just assume that there is a story or concept?
21:54 <godix> Hell, quadir's first link almost flat out says that. He talks about why he didn't give feedback to amv editors, because after reading the org op guidlines he thought we wanted more than he as a commentor was willing to provide
21:54 <Kit> and Edited Again and Edited Once Again, I assume
21:54 <Servo> godix: a lot of "experienced" still think it's about technical today
21:54 <Kit> cool beans
21:55 <Driftroot> Arkada: no way, not me.
21:55 <Servo> which is unfortunate
21:55 <godix> servo: True but honestly none of the 'experienced' people who think it's all about technical are people I think are good editors.
21:55 <quadir> godix: yeah I noticed that
21:55 <godix> Hell, it's pretty well known what exactly my opinion of wondertwin videos are. The reason for that opinion is I think they're all technical with no artistic merit.
21:56 <Servo> sorry if I applied that they were bad editors, I wasn't trying to say that, and if I did whoops
21:56 <G_Q> Think of it this way, then.
21:56 <Driftroot> I wonder if some people focus so much on the technical because they can't achieve what they want on the artistic side of things.
21:56 <G_Q> A magazine can look as glossy and have lots of great pictures in high quality.
21:56 <quadir> godix: let's not go there
21:56 <godix> Servo: You didn't say that. I did. And I've said it loudly and frequently in the past. Been banned over it even
21:56 <G_Q> Most people will read a magazine that catches the eye from cover to page.
21:57 <quadir> Driftroot: in AMV land are they even looking or aknowledging it?
21:57 <godix> But as quadir says, lets not go there. The point is I think amvs are more than technical and I think the org as a whole, and the review as well, focus on technical too much
21:57 <G_Q> However, suddenly you realize you're reading a tabloid.
21:57 <Driftroot> Acknowledging what?
21:57 <G_Q> It has lots of great pictures and a great design, but there's little interesting content.
21:57 <Servo> agreed godix
21:57 <G_Q> You read it, you pitch it, end of story usually.
21:58 <quadir> Driftroot: I notice one response to the review was "I just did this overnight" or "I didnt really try", if people don't at least sometimes look at AMVs seriously, you're not going to expect people to
21:58 <Kalium> Driftroot, godix, it's like eating Skittles
21:58 <Kalium> all sugar and color
21:58 <quadir> G_Q: I really like that analogy
21:58 <Kalium> but no substance
21:58 <Arkada> I remember in an early -review back in may where there was a whole discussion about the story of eva and how it related to the AMV we were reviewing at the time
21:58 <G_Q> However, a magazine with memorable articles will be one you keep in your shelf for a while.
21:58 <G_Q> Thanks.
21:58 <G_Q> :)
21:58 <Servo> I also won't think of it either too
21:58 <Servo> the same for an AMV
21:58 <Driftroot> But there's a danger in taking them too seriously, too.
21:59 <Servo> as you said G_Q, see it, pitch it for about 2 secs, and then go back to playing video games
21:59 <Driftroot> Like eating too many Skittles. They aren't actually nutritious.
21:59 <godix> Well it's worth keeping in mind not all AMVs are Mona Lisas. Sometimes the editors focus is 'Gee naruto is cool' and it's kinda hard to discuss that. However that's generally not the type of video picked for review either
21:59 <Servo> Yeah, but we don't want to see Mona Lisas either. We want to see something "stand alone"
22:00 <Rathisponge> Good night ladies and gentlemen, thanks for the interesting discussion, sweet dreams :)
22:00 <Driftroot> Night!
22:00 <Arkada> night
22:00 <Kalium> g'night, 'sponge
22:00 <PaperIsland> night
22:00 <Servo> Sweet dreams are made of these Rath
22:00 <Kit> we don't just want stand alone though
22:00 <Kit> we want it to be.. complex
22:00 <Kit> :x
22:01 <Driftroot> So do the AMVs picked for review merit a different kind of consideration than we would give other AMVs? Should we be critiquing them differently because they are intended to represent a different kind of AMV than "naruto is cool?"
22:01 <godix> Sometimes. Personally I like a nice simple well done dance video. But it ain't something I'm gonna discuss for half an hour to an hour either.
22:01 <Servo> Kit: go back to Seinfeld
22:01 <Driftroot> Or should the way we critique them be considered something to aim for with ALL AMVs? (At one level or another)
22:01 <Kalium> godix: I don't know.
22:01 <PaperIsland> Maybe we should though godix. See dance videos do something beyond what they've learned to do
22:01 <Kit> ?
22:01 <Kalium> There's important and subtle elements to a good dance video.
22:02 <Kit> Serfo: wut you mean?
22:02 <Kalium> A good dance video requires high energy
22:02 <Kalium> and evokes certain emotions
22:02 <Kalium> how this is done is worth examining
22:02 <Servo> nevermind
22:02 <Arkada> Kalium: agreed
22:02 <godix> Well I could discuss dance videos in general for awhile, but probably not a specific video.
22:02 * Kit|lolregged never watched much seinfeld
22:02 <Kit> :|
22:02 <PaperIsland> I think we could do a review on skittles
22:02 <PaperIsland> There's enough to say there
22:03 <Arkada> godix: so you woulen't be able to do a review on something like skittles then?
22:03 <PaperIsland> Or cartoon heroes
22:03 <godix> I don't think I could come up with much to say about skittles. Not an entire review worth of comments at least.
22:03 <PaperIsland> Using an individual video to get at a meta issue isn't necessarily a bad thing anyway
22:03 <Servo> the problem with skittles is that we already know pretty much everything that's been said about it
22:03 <Kalium> godix: Feel the Mambo?
22:04 <Arkada> then wahat bou AOTOtaku?
22:04 <godix> But that might be my biases, I view dance videos as simpler. What was the editors goal? To make something upbeat. Did they do that? Yes/No. end of discussion.
22:04 <Kalium> devil's in the details
22:04 <Kalium> as usual
22:04 <quadir> you're getting off topic again, but maybe we've exausted our material
22:04 <PaperIsland> Godix: Maybe you like them so much you've become complacent. You don't NEED more.
22:04 <Driftroot> What about Hall Om Mig? Now there's a "dance" video with a lot more than upbeat energy...
22:04 <Servo> godix: which is probably the reason why I don't like dance videos that much
22:04 <Arkada> quadir: so should we sum up and call it a night?
22:04 <quadir> I'll be posting a log of this, and hopefully people (us and others) can join in then
22:04 <godix> Like I said, it may be my biases and that I generally view dance as lighthearted and fun. And to be honest, I don't want to overthink lighthearted and fun. I want to be entertained and tha'ts it
22:05 <Kalium> I can respect that.
22:05 <quadir> where hopefully on the forums we can try to apply what we've discussed
22:06 <godix> I think arkada is right. It's probably time to wrap up. My overall point is that I think we focus on technical aspects too much, usually ignore what the editor meant to do, and rarely discuss artistic merit in videos. That's the org as a whole. Here in review I think we should change that.
22:06 <Driftroot> I agree, I would like to focus less on the technical
22:07 <PaperIsland> I agree, but then again, it's not like we've ever shot down questions of content?
22:07 <quadir> I'm thinking editors think edit, and when talking about a video in general, like with non-editors present, it might be worth going pure content and only bring up technical as it applies towards that
22:07 <PaperIsland> That seems fair enough
22:08 <Driftroot> I think I said that already, so yeah, I agree.
22:08 <Servo> It's also important to know what 'we' can learn from the review and how to make better future vids
22:08 <godix> PaperIsland: It's an inbuilt bias of the org and how the org does critiques as a whole. Unless we conciously go 'wait a minute, we don't have to be like this' none of us is likely to look at different aspects than the org focuses on
22:09 <PaperIsland> godix: Yeah... I feel like I've always been doing that though. I'm not a complete expert on the technical anyway.
22:09 <Driftroot> Plus, I think we have a good overall representation of very experienced editors, new editors and noneditors around here, it's not like it's all pros discussing things.
22:09 <godix> PaperIsland: I'm not critizing you, or anyone specifically. I'm just saying in general we look at certain things when viewing a video and I think we look at the wrong things.
22:10 <PaperIsland> driftroot: agreed
