Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
And takes away valuable data.

Ignoring, for a moment, that value is in the eye of the beholder, I never said otherwise. 

I agree with Skip on this.

At least with the company credits we can, in detail, credit them exactly as credited.

Since this is about Visual Effects, the program automatically lists the people as just "Visual Effects". But the problem is that without the specific credit included we have no way of knowing, without looking at the actual credit, what the person is actually credited with. Did they do Special Effects only, are they the Special Effects Supervisor or the Visual Effects Supervisor?

All we can tell by the program credit is that they did "Visual Effects" on the film, but it's so vague as to be almost worthless.


So at least, with the company credit divider we can accurately credit the companies themselves. And bo doing so we have some idea of what those listed under them did, especially if it's a very specific type of credit that gives detail about what the company actually did.

To just list the company name is watering down the credit into being too vague in some cases.


IMHO.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Let me ask you a very simple question, Martian. I can see genuine harm being done by just company credits. What harm is done to anyone by having the complete credit. Too many keystrokes?       I see more complete and clarifyimng data with the complete credit, and I can see absolutely no harm caused to you by including it even thought you don't want it. I see valuable information being taken away and the data being not as clear as it should be. So descriobe to me the harm that is done if you can.

I never said it did any harm.  What I said was, "value is in the eye of the beholder."  You are looking for a fight where none exists.

Quoting CubbyUps:

Quote:
Since this is about Visual Effects, the program automatically lists the people as just "Visual Effects". But the problem is that without the specific credit included we have no way of knowing, without looking at the actual credit, what the person is actually credited with. Did they do Special Effects only, are they the Special Effects Supervisor or the Visual Effects Supervisor?

All we can tell by the program credit is that they did "Visual Effects" on the film, but it's so vague as to be almost worthless.


So at least, with the company credit divider we can accurately credit the companies themselves. And bo doing so we have some idea of what those listed under them did, especially if it's a very specific type of credit that gives detail about what the company actually did.

But...the majority of time the onscreen text simply states: Visual Effects by XXX so by adding the Visual Effects we gain nothing compared to what we currently have. We just clutter up the crew list even further.

For the few occasions when the onscreen text is more specific (such as the 'Rollercoaster Effects' example earlier in this thread) an exception clause can be written into the rules allowing the few times this happens to be entered.

I honestly do not see specific information very often in the credits. For example I did 10 profile audits yesterday and not a single one of them had anything other than 'Visual Effects by', and some didn't even have that; they simply had the company names.

There are always going to be exceptions to every rule - for example if it IS only the company name onscreen would we be expected to add the text 'Visual Effects by' to make that information more relevent? If so, this is fabricating data. Whereas if we use only Company names as they appear on screen we are not fabricating anything and it all fits into a single divider.

None of my data is worthless, as you mention, because as I edit I utilise the Custom Roles to show what's onscreen: so I know if someone was a Digital Effects, Visual Effects or Special Effects Supervisor or Designer or a Department Head Make-up Supervisor.
This data only gains meaning when the end user endeavours to make it so.

Adding unnecessary text will not remove the need for the end user to make that data more relevant. IMO.

I'm on the side of the fence with Skip on this one. I love information, and the more detailed information you have, the better your understanding of the bigger picture...no pun intended. The following is just one example of hundreds that would more accurately describe the roles of the crew. I hate the fact that we only list Makeup, when the actual credit reads Hair and Makeup for Actor X. At least we accurately describe the actor roles. OK my 2 cents are in the pot.  

Paul:

Actually they go hand in hand

Quoting paulb_99:

Quote:
Quoting mreeder50:

Quote:
I'm on the side of the fence with Skip on this one. I love information, and the more detailed information you have, the better your understanding of the bigger picture...no pun intended. The following is just one example of hundreds that would more accurately describe the roles of the crew. I hate the fact that we only list Makeup, when the actual credit reads Hair and Makeup for Actor X. At least we accurately describe the actor roles. OK my 2 cents are in the pot.  

But that is an entire different issue, that's about the custom roles of which i'm in favor too.

We are now discussing Dividers and whether we should just use the copany name (ILM) or the full credit (Digital Effects by ILM)

Paul

I just meant the more information we have the better. I am in favor of (Digital Effects by ILM).

Quoting mreeder50:

Quote:
Quoting paulb_99:

Quote:
Quoting mreeder50:

Quote:
I'm on the side of the fence with Skip on this one. I love information, and the more detailed information you have, the better your understanding of the bigger picture...no pun intended. The following is just one example of hundreds that would more accurately describe the roles of the crew. I hate the fact that we only list Makeup, when the actual credit reads Hair and Makeup for Actor X. At least we accurately describe the actor roles. OK my 2 cents are in the pot.  

But that is an entire different issue, that's about the custom roles of which i'm in favor too.

We are now discussing Dividers and whether we should just use the copany name (ILM) or the full credit (Digital Effects by ILM)

Paul

I just meant the more information we have the better. I am in favor of (Digital Effects by ILM).