[AtoZ/NFP] Vividred Operation – 01 (BD)

This post was written by Calyrica. She is not Dark_Sage.

Inside is also a few notes on [Dmon/FFF] Minami-ke Tadaima or whatever it’s called.

This review was almost canceled for the same reason why I canceled the requested Minami-ke Tadaima review. Both of these releases used the same source script, which was JK’s (Evetaku/Gotwoot joint). For Minami-ke, both DmonHiro and FFFpeeps used UTW’s base script, and skimming through it showed that there weren’t any major issues or changes. That’s not the case here.

Because these are both using the same base script, the review has a bit of a different format. I will go through things that are the same, then things that are different. For the screenshots, the first presented will be AtoZ, and the second will be NFP.

Filesize: 507mb (AtoZ), 415mb (NFP)
English: American, honorifics.

Things that are the same


[AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_22.46_[2013.07.25_14.26.49] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_22.46_[2013.07.25_15.08.32]

Neither group modified my karaoke.


[AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_00.45_[2013.07.25_13.58.46] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_00.46_[2013.07.25_14.40.46] [AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_01.35_[2013.07.25_14.00.32] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_01.35_[2013.07.25_14.41.38] [AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_02.30_[2013.07.25_14.02.25] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_02.29_[2013.07.25_14.42.50]

Neither group fixed the missing punctuation at the end of the second-to-last line.

[AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_03.17_[2013.07.25_14.03.13] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_03.17_[2013.07.25_14.43.40] [AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_03.28_[2013.07.25_14.44.12] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_03.28_[2013.07.25_14.43.53] [AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_07.00_[2013.07.25_14.08.56] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_07.00_[2013.07.25_14.51.25] [AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_10.29_[2013.07.25_14.13.50] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_10.30_[2013.07.25_14.55.27] [AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_22.41_[2013.07.25_14.26.40] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_22.41_[2013.07.25_15.08.25]


[AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_05.30_[2013.07.25_14.05.38] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_05.31_[2013.07.25_14.48.23]

to -> for

[AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_11.34_[2013.07.25_14.14.58] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_11.33_[2013.07.25_14.56.37]

Two options here. Either show that you’re emphasizing “are” by italicising it or contract to “You’re”. Right now, it looks overly formal. Granted, it’s an official talking, but I think she’d be a bit too panicked to speak this formally.

[AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_15.36_[2013.07.25_14.19.09] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_15.35_[2013.07.25_15.00.46]

Needs a possessive in there.

> Evacuation of Blue Island’s residents complete.

[AtoZ]_Vividred_Operation_-_01v2_[BD_720p_Hi10P][A660E3DD].mkv_snapshot_22.07_[2013.07.25_14.26.04] [NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_22.06_[2013.07.25_15.07.49]

The enemy. You need a quantifier here.

Things that aren’t the same




a crash landing.


so long as -> as long as


NFP didn’t have the preview.


[NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_03.41_[2013.07.25_14.44.32]

She’s sitting at the table already. Carry -> bring.

[NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_04.10_[2013.07.25_14.45.58]

And here’s where the major issues begin. See, I decided the main dialogue font for JK’s release. Since we went with using the o-with-a-bar-over-it instead of ‘ou’ or ‘oh’, we had to have a font that supported it. That was the main reason why I chose Candara as the dialogue font. But these guys decided to pick their own font. That’s perfectly fine, as its their release. But you have to make sure that you either change the script to work with the font or pick a font that works with the script.

[NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_04.24_[2013.07.25_14.46.14]

Who dares to disturb my research?!

[NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_05.21_[2013.07.25_14.48.12]

“Pah”? Really?

[NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_14.37_[2013.07.25_14.59.43]

And here I thought the font issue wouldn’t cause too many more problems…

[NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_14.43_[2013.07.25_14.59.51]

But it really does.

[NFP] Vividred Operation - 01 (1280x720 Hi10P BD AAC) [FD5EDF71].mkv_snapshot_17.36_[2013.07.25_15.03.06]

Many, many problems.


tl;dr: NFP are incompetent. Go with AtoZ. (Also, if not for the font issue, I wouldn’t have bothered with this review.)

23 thoughts on “[AtoZ/NFP] Vividred Operation – 01 (BD)”

  1. >Neither group modified my karaoke.
    well, this certainly is a new approach for Crymoar

    also, I don’t really understand… “Things that aren’t the same” – did the other group get all those thing right? or are those only your suggestions?

  2. Hah, that font issue is hilarious. :D
    The obvious lack of QC’ing sort of makes you wonder whether they even touched the script, doesn’t it?

    > Who dares (to) disturb my research?!
    Would you mind explaining why the “to” is necessary? I’ve seen both constructs in films, literature, etc., so I’ve always just assumed both of them to be valid. If that’s not the case, however, I would like my ignorance remedied.

    • It’s certainly correct both ways, but I think having the ‘to’ is more grammatically correct. There are lots of times when we omit words and the sentence is fine-sounding, but might not be the most correct. A common omitted word is “that”.

      • Yeah, no. ‘Dare to’ is not more correct than ‘dare’.

        In fact, I’d say it’s exactly the opposite as far as style goes. Let’s look at a writer who fucking loved to use this word. HP Lovecraft.

        Gonna use “The Colour Out of Space” here.

        Exhibit A: “[…] and he dares to do this because his house is so near the open fields and the travelled roads around Arkham.” (+1 with)

        Exhibit B: “He dared move neither backward nor forward […]” (+1 without)

        Exhibit C: “[…] and did not dare look back till they were far away on the high ground.” (+2 without)

        Exhibit D: “Behind and below was only a darkness to which the men dared not return […]” (+3 without)

        Exhibit E: “[…] and was crushed forever with a brooding fear he dared not even mention for many years to come” (+4 without)

        Exhibit F: “[…] and the few who have ever dared glimpse it in spite of the rural tales have named it ‘the blasted heath.'” (+5 without)

        And that’s the end of the novella. Thank me later.

        • Yeah, both the “dared” comment and the “so long as” comment are pretty much just personal preference. The latter, you could argue, doesn’t really match the woman’s personality, but you can’t claim that it isn’t a construct used in speech or written text.

          • I wanted to point out that the options are there. I personally am of the opinion that they are superior. It was recently mentioned to me that I mostly focus on grammar and not actual editing in these reviews. I was kind of trying to rectify that here…

            • Yeah, that’s all nice and well. But you’re simply wrong when you claim that omitting the ‘to’ makes it somehow more correct.

              This is patently untrue.

          • I’d put “so x as” on the same level as “alright” – it’s not wrong per se, but it’s the less-common variant and some people object to its usage.

            Personally, I’d go with “as long as” and omit the “to” too. ;)

            • No, “alright” is a foul beast that should be eradicated from language. After doing some research, “so long as” is more old-fashioned that’s somehow made it into normal diction because it just seems to make sense to use it. I’ve used it before, though I think it’s more of an American slang phrase as I hear it a lot in movies and American TV shows. But I’d never class it as wrong.

      • True, we often omit various words if they are either implied or unnecessary for the sentence to make sense, but in this case, I think adding the “to” makes the question sound somewhat stilted. But that’s just my personal opinion, so I was really looking for a grammatical rule that makes it more correct to include it.

      • Dare can be a modal. It’s not a matter of being informal or sounding natural; it’s correct to not have “to”. Obviously dare as a plain old verb can go before an infinitive.

  3. Military radio traffic can get pretty clipped. I see no problem with “Enemy” instead of “The enemy” or “Blue Island” rather than “Blue Island’s”, provided that speech patterns remain consistent throughout the series (which–if I recall correctly–they did).


Leave a Comment