Best No-Effects Video (The Not Very Effective Award)

[Rider4Z]

well another example would be to use a crop effect to cut out lip flap. i wouldn't consider that a "use of effects" video.

And those are covered in the category description.

well there ya go then.

on the reverse side tho i think it's silly for a video that uses minimal effects simply to add flow to be considered a "special effects" video. when i think special effects i picture videos like Auriga or Rah Hey!, videos that clearly take advantage of difficult and artistic editing techniques. 'course i'm technically in the wrong thread to talk about this subject but i'm merely trying to make the same point but backwards.

this is still just me but i'll bet there are others who feel the same.

[Kitsuner]

on the reverse side tho i think it's silly for a video that uses minimal effects simply to add flow to be considered a "special effects" video. when i think special effects i picture videos like Auriga or Rah-Hey, videos that clearly take advantage of difficult and artistic editing techniques. 'course i'm technically in the wrong thread to talk about this subject but i'm merely trying to make the same point but backwards.

this is still just me but i'll bet there are others who feel the same.

Are you arguing in favor of labeling these videos with "minimal effects simply to add flow" (let's call it MESTAF) as effectsless then? Or are you saying they are unable to (or shouldn't have to) compete in the same category as videos that use effects in a more obvious way? What specific videos are you thinking about when you say MESTAF?

[Rider4Z]

on the reverse side tho i think it's silly for a video that uses minimal effects simply to add flow to be considered a "special effects" video. when i think special effects i picture videos like Auriga or Rah-Hey, videos that clearly take advantage of difficult and artistic editing techniques. 'course i'm technically in the wrong thread to talk about this subject but i'm merely trying to make the same point but backwards.

this is still just me but i'll bet there are others who feel the same.

Are you arguing in favor of labeling these videos with "minimal effects simply to add flow" (let's call it MESTAF) as effectsless then? Or are you saying they are unable to (or shouldn't have to) compete in the same category as videos that use effects in a more obvious way? What specific videos are you thinking about when you say MESTAF?

well i wasn't really attempting a hostile takeover or anything, just a general opinion i have about what defines "special effects" videos and "no-effects" videos.

my examples of what qualifies as a "SE" video are , , and . now these videos clearly show advanced skills in editing and purposefully show them off well in these projects.

examples of a "NE" video are more obvious, , , and . straight cuts and crossfades.

and then you have the middle ground area that uses a combination of the two styles to one extreme or another. i'll use 2 of my vids for this example, i used a lot of blending techniques and transitional blurs whatnot. now granted i used effects for the artistic design, but when i think "SE" video my mind always comes to what Koop or Nostromo come up with: and blatant use of special effects. i'm not saying i think Fairytale belongs in the "no-effects" category, just simply that the effects weren't the focus of the video. >>>Now on the other hand, the minimal amount of effects i used on this video were simply used for illusions to create flow. Being nominated for "best use of special effects" is just silly in my opinion. i mean it's appreciated but are we really that hard up for special effect videos this year or something?

but again this is just my opinion. others may feel differently. i guess what would be ideal in my mind would be a third category that i only thought of now. "Best NO-Effects", "Best Special Effects" and "Best Use of Effects", the latter meant for the middle ground.

[BasharOfTheAges]

Just because a video is good or entertaining doesn't nessisarily mean it should qualify for an award. There are some types of videos that just don't hit those categories. They're still good, but they're not covered. There's a tipping point where this all just becomes kindergarden "gold stars for everyone" territory.

[Rider4Z]

eh, true enough. but that just means i'll continue to vote/judge as i see fit.

[NS]

Da beat didn't even get in past nominations. I'm dying slowly.

[Kitsuner]

but again this is just my opinion. others may feel differently. i guess what would be ideal in my mind would be a third category that i only thought of now. "Best NO-Effects", "Best Special Effects" and "Best Use of Effects", the latter meant for the middle ground.

I guarantee you that both of those last two categories would have the same winner.

The only point to giving an award to a video that barely doesn't qualify for the Not Very Effective Award would be that the winning video gets one more award. There is no intrinsic value to effects in any amount. It all depends on their usage, and we already have an award for that.

I agree with you about videos being nominated purely through name recognition is silly. Hell, maybe half the current nominees were chosen that way. Adding new (particularly overlapping) categories doesn't solve that problem though. If anything, it just makes it worse.

[Ileia]

when i think "SE" video my mind always comes to what Koop or Ileia or Nostromo come up with: and blatant use of special effects.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you haven't seen many of my videos. There's maybe a handful out of a hundred of my AMVs that use anything other than fades/zooms.

And since you used RAH HEY! as an example, I'd like to point out that that's just screen-captured footage with box overlays. Nowhere near "advanced".

[Kitsuner]

when i think "SE" video my mind always comes to what Koop or Ileia or Nostromo come up with: and blatant use of special effects.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you haven't seen many of my videos. There's maybe a handful out of a hundred of my AMVs that use anything other than fades/zooms.

And since you used RAH HEY! as an example, I'd like to point out that that's just screen-captured footage with box overlays. Nowhere near "advanced".

To be fair, you use Magix. That means all of your videos are automatically effects.

[Rider4Z]

I guarantee you that both of those last two categories would have the same winner.

The only point to giving an award to a video that barely doesn't qualify for the Not Very Effective Award would be that the winning video gets one more award. There is no intrinsic value to effects in any amount. It all depends on their usage, and we already have an award for that.

I agree with you about videos being nominated purely through name recognition is silly. Hell, maybe half the current nominees were chosen that way. Adding new (particularly overlapping) categories doesn't solve that problem though. If anything, it just makes it worse.

you'd probably be right about the majority of people not voting "correctly" or making the proper distinction between the two.

Maybe it's a category that would be more appropriate for the JCAs since they actually put a little more effort into choosing appropriate winners...

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you haven't seen many of my videos. There's maybe a handful out of a hundred of my AMVs that use anything other than fades/zooms.

And since you used RAH HEY! as an example, I'd like to point out that that's just screen-captured footage with box overlays. Nowhere near "advanced".

oh you