Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
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.

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.

That I can live with.

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.

So do I.
However, for those that I don't own the vagueness of the built in credits, such as Visual Effects makes the credit almost worthless because I have no idea what that actual credit is. Are they a Special Effects Supervisor or a Digital Effects Supervisor or what?

Even though this isn't about the divider issue, it does highlight the limitations of trying to shoe-horn all the various credits under one term. So I would at least support having the ability to contribute the Custom fields to make the credits more clear.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting mreeder50:

Quote:

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

But this is the issue for me. I don't see that we actually gain anything in the majority of cases.

Example:

If the credits read:

Visual Effects by Pixel Magic
Joe Bloggs  - Visual Effects Supervisor
Jane Bloggs - Digital Effects Supervisor

IN PROFILER it would look like:
Visual Effects by Pixel Magic
Joe Bloggs  - Visual Effects
Jane Bloggs - Visual Effects

By having Visual Effects by in the divider it simply duplicates (and not accurately) what the credits below tell you.
If I saw this I would think: 'Ok that's two people doing visual effects for a visual effects company called Pixel Magic'...which, taking the credits specifically, would not be true as both are Supervisors and one is for Digital Effects.

By just using the company name we get the exact same information:
Pixel Magic
Joe Bloggs  - Visual Effects
Jane Bloggs - Visual Effects

Once again we can tell that these two people worked on Visual Effects for Pixel Magic.

Having 'Visual Effects by' does NOT give any MORE information.

No matter what happens, until Ken allows the custom roles to be contributable no one is going to know the specifics of people's job titles unless they look at the credits and type that information into their local profile themselves.

I'm quite capable of working out for myself that anyone assigned to Visual Effects below a divider meant that the company in question worked on the Visual Effects...I don't need unnecessary text in the divider to tell me that.

While I agree with the sentiment, I must disagree overall

what if it said

Digital Effects by Pixel Magic  (or Photographic, Computer Graphic, choose your other possibility)
Joe Bloggs  - Visual Effects Supervisor
Jane Bloggs - Digital Effects Supervisor

Then would it be ok for.

Digital Effects by Pixel Magic
Joe Bloggs  - Visual Effects
Jane Bloggs - Visual Effects

The individual credits from the online still tell us nothing individually, but the reference to the company, because of the credit, will tell us, at least in a sense, what they worked on.

While the "VFX by xxx"  may not be very informative, the rest will convey meaning.

And if we do for one, then we should do for all (as long as the credit is presented that way).


Charlie

It does to me, Neill. There is no such thing as enough data.

Digital Effects by Pixel Magic  (or Photographic, Computer Graphic, choose your other possibility)
Joe Bloggs  - Visual Effects Supervisor
Jane Bloggs - Digital Effects Supervisor

Then would it be ok for.

Digital Effects by Pixel Magic
Joe Bloggs  - Visual Effects
Jane Bloggs - Visual Effects


CharlieM:

But, once again the way this information is displayed in Profiler currently could incorrectly lead to someone thinking that both Jane & Joe worked on Digital Effects for this company....which would be wrong.

By using ONLY the company you name all you can surmise is that they worked on some form of Visual Effects - which is the closest to accurate we can get until Custom Roles are contributable.

I doubt anyone would have objection if the following was contributable:

Pixel Magic
Jane Bloggs - Digital Effects Supervisor
Joe Bloggs - Visual Effects Supervisor
Jimmy Bloggs - Special Effects Supervisor

This would tell who these people worked for and what their jobs were.

Once again this comes back to the majority of examples I see in credits. There are always going to be exceptions that DO give more valuable information, eg. Dinosaur Effects by or Creature Hair Effects.
Of course, both these give pertinent information and I'm all for allowing this sort of information into a divider to give it more depth.

What I don't want to see and see no value in is mindlessly copying 'Visual Effects by' into a divider when it's damned obvious that what the company does. IMO.

Quoting mreeder50:

Quote:
By having Visual Effects by in the divider, we know for sure that it is so. If we only have a company name, we ASSUME it is. It could just have been a contributor wanting to keep from having to type out, Volcanic Eruption and Pyrotechnic Visuals by XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, which sometimes takes 2 dividers in a row to accomplish. Me, I want to know as much information as possible when reading credits. It's fun to have more trivia knowledge to choose from.

So if a divider is followed by Visual Effects crew you would only assume that company worked on the effects?
Well, I'm not sure anything else would help then.

As for your subsequent point: It could just have been a contributor wanting to keep from having to type out, Volcanic Eruption and Pyrotechnic Visuals by XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

There's nothing to stop that happening anyway.
Someone could just as easily leave out the 'Volcanic Eruption and Pyrotechnic Visuals by' part and just type 'Visual Effects by' to same themselves time...however, if all we mustinclude is the company name they couldn't getaway with listing less could they.

Once again, I'm all for making data more meaningful but not just for the sake of it.

I was the first person to start using episode dividers to give the effects crew more meaning - to great opposition from this forum I might add - and I have yet to see enough cases of detailed dividers to agree with adding 'Visual Effects by'. I'd much rather have the exception in the rules that would allow for Volcanic Eruption and Pyrotechnic Visuals by to be added.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Neill:

I still am seeing nothing but an argument based based on what you want. I have made some very dedfinitive statements and so have others with regard to what is harm is done with with too little data. I have asked specifically what harm is done by adding the full credit data and no one yet has been able to answer that.  You are arguing from a personal viewpoint, not data and you are claiming that it is redundant, that MAY be true sometimes, but that still is not harm. So what harm is done by more definitive data?

Firstly don't ever accuse me of working from a 'what I want' standpoint. If I only worked on what I want I'd hardly do anything in a profile instead of attempting to complete 100% of the data for others to benefit.

That said...

You have not convinced me in the slightest that 'Visual Effects by Pixel Magic' is more valuable than simply 'Pixel Magic'.

I happily agree that "Volcanic Eruption and Pyrotechnic Visuals by Pixel Magic' actually adds valuable information to a profile.
Therefore, as a compromise I have happily conceded that an exception written into the rules to allow for this sort of valuable and more detailed data would be a great idea.

However, I see no such compromise on your part. You still want the totally meaningless 'Visual Effects by' which adds nothing specific to the a profile that you can't tell from the people listed below.

......actually now I come to think of it, both our standpoints are obviously from a personal preferences standpoint. What else would they be.

The difference is that if Ken said we must list 'Visual Effects by' I'd simply go along with it without further comment; whereas if he said only company names were required you'd probably continue trying to convince everyone you are correct for a further 20 pages.

I've said before, currently both Visual Effect by Pixel Magic or simply Pixel Magic are both correct. I'm sure Ken has read this thread and I would really like him to make a ruling. If he goes with your preference then I have a hundred or so profiles to re-edit!! 

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:

I've said before, currently both Visual Effect by Pixel Magic or simply Pixel Magic are both correct. I'm sure Ken has read this thread and I would really like him to make a ruling. If he goes with your preference then I have a hundred or so profiles to re-edit!! 

I have always said, that for the online, I will always go with what Ken decides. 

I also stated earlier, that until then, I will contribute full company credits.  It is far easier to remove the extra information, than to get the disc out and add the information back in.

Charlie

You still have not answered my question, Neill. I understand your logic. But what HARM is done? NONE. Do I believe it brings added clarity...absolutely. And I have explained the harm that I see with less data, not to mention the fact that you are suggesting a totally unneccessary conditional, just list the Full Credits PERIOD, simple, everyone can understand it and it works every time. There is an issue with regards too multiple lines, right now, that can be fixed in the next version, I don't see the issue raised as being serious enough to NOT do the Full Credits and it still brings no harm with it.

No conditionals unless we HAVE to, they never bring anything but confusion. And this is certainly not a have TO.

Skip