I just want to find out if FX supervisor is a valid Visual Effects credit.

Though it's not listed specifically in the rules as a valid role, VFX supervisors and DFX Supervisors get a visual effects role because it's just short for Visual or Digital Effects. That's totally fine with me, but should we list FX Supervisors as well?

For example
------------------------------------------------------
Visual Effects by Company X

Visual Effects Supervisor Person 1
Digital Effects Supervisor Person 2
VFX Producer
3D Supervisor
...
...
FX Supervisors Person 3 - Person 4
------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion a FX supervisor is not a valid role, so personally I don't think we should list them. In the example I would only list the Visual Effects Supervisor and the Digital Effects Supervisor.

No. The credit is Digital Effects Supervisor, Special Effects Supervisor or Visual Effects Supervisor. FX Supervisor doesn't tell you what kind of FX they supervise. Is it Digital? Is it Visual? Is it Special?

Well that's all well and good, but Rodeo FX has no say here. If it's not DFX, VFX or SFX, it's invalid.

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
there could be not doubt, that any FX which is not accoustic (the company producing it should be of some help to find that out) is a visual effect in the meaning of DVDP.

By the same reasoning, jobs like "Mechanical Effects Supervisor" or "Miniature Effects Supervisor" could be considered valid as well? Those are jobs that I've been tracking locally, as non-contributable custom crew entries. I never contribute them, as the crew credits table doesn't mention "mechanical" or "miniature" effects, but by your reasoning, neither are acoustic, and therefore visual. If the approach is "any and all effects credits, except acoustic ones, are welcome", then they'd have to be allowed as well, right?

I've compared this with the sound editing section in the past, and I'll do that again, just to illustrate the scope of this problem. The crew credits table in the contribution rules explicitly allows "Sound Editor" and "Dubbing Editor", but there's no mention of a "Sound Effects Editor" or a "Sound FX Editor", so we diligently leave them out. In reality, however, that distinction really isn't that clear at all. I've spoken to "Supervising Sound Editors" and "Sound Editors" who are absolutely adamant that the times they wer're credited as "Supervising Sound Effects Editors" and "Sound Effects Editors" they were doing the exact same job as when they were credited without the word "Effects" in their job description. But here at DVD Profiler, we're purely making a distinction based on the exact wording used in the crew credits table. If there's no mention in the rules of a "Sound Effects Editor" or a "Sound FX Editor", then we diligently leave them out. So why would that work differently for other credits? Note that the point of this example is not that I'm necessarily arguing that sound effects editors should be entered, but more that if we're going to be that loose on special/digital/visual effects credits, then you really can't expect people to not adopt the same loose-ness to other crew sections.

It's either "if it's not in the crew credits table, it can't be included", or it pretty much "enter any job label you feel is equivalent to any of the job labels in the crew credits table". Again, if it's the latter, then that'll affect lots more areas than just the special/digital/visual effects section. The thing is that "if it's not in the crew credits table, it can't be included" leads to the same results for everyone, it's something that can be objectively checked when a contribution comes in. But allowing functional equivalents is very much open for interpretation, and with no one around here making definite and public decisions over what is and what isn't a functional equivalent of a certain job description, it can only get us in an incontrollable and inconsistent mess...