Quoting mitchg:

Quote:
1. is a valid credit
2. and 3. I think, are not valid because they are Digital Effects Supervisors for a company that do the 'Additional Visual Effects'.

Most definitely correct.

Quoting mitchg:

Quote:
I'm not sure what to do with the following credits.

The credits for 'Resident Evil: Extinction' are:
1. Visual Effects Created by Mr. X.
Aaron Weintraub  Visual Effects  >> credited as Digital Effects Supervisor

2. Additional Visual Effects by Rocket Science Visual Effects
Tom Turnbull  Visual Effects  >> credited as Digital Effects Supervisor

3. Additional Visual Effects by Invisible Pictures
Neil Williamson  Visual Effects  >> credited as Digital Effects Supervisor

1. is a valid credit
2. and 3. I think, are not valid because they are Digital Effects Supervisors for a company that do the 'Additional Visual Effects'.

I know this isn't gonna be an easy one to get a good answer for, but I better ask it anyway before I delete these credits.

Greets,
Mitch.

Are you saying the  company group dividers are incorrect since they have the word "Additional" in them?

Because the group dividers were expanded in size the last release specifically so all that information could be retained for the company based on the end credit.

I have seen no clarification posts that say otherwise.

And based on the crew chard DE Supervisor is allowed

Visual/Digital/Special/Special Visual Effects, including Designer, Supervisor, and Director,Special Photographic Effects


I think they are all valid unless I missed some clarifications that says companies named like "Additional Visual Effects by Invisible Pictures" is not valid

It's pretty inexplicable to say that an "Additional Visual Effects Supervisor" is invalid, while saying it suddenly becomes valid when the word "Additional" is moved to a company header. That's just semantics, and doesn't say anything about the actual job performed. I could go either way, as long as it's one or the other. But to treat the same people doing the same jobs differently only based on where the word "additional" is put, that's nonsense. Either we track them, or we don't.

Think about this: is a director of photography listed under an "Additional Photography" header still a valid "Director of Photography" credit for our purposes? Is it?

Quoting CubbyUps:

Quote:
We're after the individuals credit, not the company credit.
[...]
The only time a divider should affect a credit if it's a unit crew, such as 2nd unit.

If this was true, then lets just hope that we don't find a "Producer" or, even worse, a "Director" without leading VFX in those "Additional Visual Effects"-sections ...

I already had a good laugh when someone suggested that in such cases (with a valid company credit ahead) the entry should read:
Visual Effects by Company XYZ
John Doe >> Director

But this suggestion now really beats it all, because with an invalid Company Header we suddenly would find John Doe with an extremely remarkable Director credit.
I'm quite sure that John Doe would be really surprised to hear of this ...

If you take the crew out of context, then they would be allowed. And so would 2nd unit crew that is credited under a 2nd unit header, as long as their credit did not include 2nd unit it the crew discription.

IMO additonal whatever headers make all crew listed within it additional crew, and should not be in the main database.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I might agree if group headers, and company headers were the exact same thing, I don't believe they are.

They might not be the exact same thing, but they are crew listed within a distinct group.

Quoting SwissFilm:

Quote:
I do not write "Visual Effects by ...", I only put the companies name in the divider. This because the credit shows the name and Visual Effects. Though no need to put "Visual Effects by" also in the divider. This is my opinion, don't know if others agree with this.

Ken has stated before that we should include the full Divider — exactly as it appears in the film credits.

Since the rules do not say so and the roles are correct, per the rules, I disagree with removing them. Especially when they were already approved.