somniloquence

<<I feel a HUGE rant coming on about the enormous tech proficiencies being demanded of vidders these days, but I'm pretty sure no one would want to hear it, especially from an old-timer like me who has never quite fitted herself into the computer vidding world.>>

Perhaps this has to do with your percieved LJ audience (because there's no such thing as writing without an audience, even if the audience is you).

To me, LJ is a giant flea-market of ideas. My LJ is *my* soapbox, and I post what I think is important and interesting and if somebody wants my wares they'll stop in.

So, if you think you've got a "rantifesto", it's *your* soapbox.

I mean, as I start dipping my toe into things vidding related, I think of the fact that, meep!, there's a huge technical leap to be a Lum or a Killa and how the hell am I ever going to be that good?

But then I think about the response that your vid got, about the response that Smutcutter's PoTC vid got, or how much I loved Janis Cortese's vid for 2001. None of those vids are super technical.

They're good because they display all the fundamentals of good vidding. Song choice, clip choice, clip timing -- the proper marriage of song/music to image.

Now, Killa and Hafital's use of color variation and filters add the extra "oomph!" to that video. Really brings out the mood of melencholy, alienation, pain, and regret, BUT, they do not make the vid.

Without "nice choice of clips" you've got nothing.

Or in writing, it can be a real joy to see flowery language from the person who really knows how to use it for style and panache, but at the same time, a well written piece that does not have the "special effects" can be just as incredible.

What it boils down to is style is not content, and I know that when I <i>finally</i> get my shit together and teach myself vidding, I'm not going to sink or swim on the virtue of crossfades and layers and color timing. I'm going to sink or swim on the basis of do I know what the heck I'm doing.