Quote:

Optical Effects Supervisor
Special Optical Effects

and I wondered if they would get a visual effects credit under the current rules.

Are they listed in the current rules?

No, you shouldn't add either of these to a profile as contributable crew...but by all means list them under Other within your visual effects crew if you want them.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Orici:

Quote:
I recently came accross these two designations:

Optical Effects Supervisor
Special Optical Effects

I would not enter the first one, but wouldn't have a problem with the second one.

Maybe it's just me; but I see no logic in your answer Martian.
If one, then why not the other?

Maybe I'm wrong - but it seems to me that you are going with the belief that Optical Effects translate as Visual Effects?
If this is the case then don't those jobs end up as:

Visual Effects Supervisor
Special Visual Effects

And if this IS the case then both would be acceptable.

Personally, I go with the logic that 'Optical' is not valid in any of the crew categories and therefore shouldn't be included. For example I wouldn't include a 'Director of Photography for Optical Effects'.

Since the discussion on Digital Effects Artists I have definitely come to the conclusion that, for the sake of consistency, we should stick rigidly to what's in the rules.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
I have definitely come to the conclusion that, for the sake of consistency, we should stick rigidly to what's in the rules.

Unfortunately, as you can see, most people haven't reached that conclusion (yet?). For some inexplicable reason, people seem extremely hesitant to use the local-only custom crew field to store things that they value but that don't exactly fit the rules, and instead seem intent to shoehorn them into a contributable field. 

Quoting CubbyUps:

Quote:
Optical Effects is a form of Special Effects.

Similarly, Sound Effects Editing is a form of Sound Editing. And so on...

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
'Special Optical Effects', contains the credit listed in the chart, 'Special Effects'

There again, by that reasoning, 'Sound Effects Editor' contains the credit listed in the chart, 'Sound Editor'. So I gather you wouldn't object to those either?

Either you apply that reasoning, or you don't...

Quoting CubbyUps:

Quote:
And so?

Nothing. I was merely agreeing with everything you said. My point being that indeed, the current rules do not allow "optical effects", and additionally, that the line of reasoning that some people use to justify entering them, would also allow "sound effects editors" and many, many more things we don't want.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
You gather incorrectly.

There you go. If you don't want "sound effects editors", you shouldn't come up with an approach to other credits which will encourage users to add them as well. Because that's exactly what you're doing. Sure, you can make the distinction, but you can't expect everyone else to make the same call. Instead, you're opening the floodgates. Either we do something, and then do it consistently, or we don't do it. But we shouldn't all "invent" little exceptions for certain bits of data that we personally happen to like. As I said: if you spot someone in the credits that you'd like to track, but it isn't explicitly allowed by the rules, then why not use the custom crew field? That's exactly what it's for...

Quote:
When you abide by all polls, not just the ones that agree with your opinion, you can make these kinds of statements, until then, well, you can't.

I'll decide for myself what kind of statements I can or cannot make, thank you very much. I honestly don't see what this has to do with anything, but then again: we've all gotten used to these unwarranted attacks from you... For the record: I actually do tend to abide by poll results, except, of course, when they're in direct conflict with the rules (a poll doesn't trump the rules), or when there's an official statement from Invelos that settles the matter. So I've got no idea what you're talking about. I guess congratulations are in order: yet again, you've managed to throw in a completely unfounded and wholly unrelated attack for no reason whatsoever. It's sad, really, and it's exactly this behaviour that makes these forums such a nasty place.