Jump to content



Photo

Finally IMDB acknowledges the Camera Department


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Erwin Landau

Erwin Landau

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1699 posts
  • TBD

Posted 03 January 2007 - 04:21 PM

I was checking some information on IMDB today... but anyhow.

We are now categorized as camera department, check it out. Camera Operator, Steadicam Operator, 1st and 2nd Ac and Loader... But so are the following: Key Grip, Grip, Electricians, Gaffer, rigging gaffer, lighting technician and even additional positions... like additional electrician...

On my listing, all my "additional Steadicam Operator" credits are still under Misc. Crew... ?????


Finally acknowledged... kinda!!!

Still Baffled...


Erwin
  • 0

#2 Kareem La Vaullee

Kareem La Vaullee

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 177 posts
  • Paris, France, Europe

Posted 03 January 2007 - 06:44 PM

Finally !

Good news,

Kareem - No more part of "other crew" - La Vaullée
  • 0

#3 Michael Stumpf

Michael Stumpf

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 491 posts
  • U.S.

Posted 03 January 2007 - 07:24 PM

It's about time.
I've sent them numerous emails regarding this over the years.
It always pissed me off that sound, make up, and even art department got their
own separate categories, but camera, grip and electric, were "misc. crew".



LOL...oh I see, so they stuck grip and electric UNDER the camera department category. LOL

So they STILL haven't gotten it right.
Maybe it's a work in progress.

And I think it's funny that they stuck the Camera Department category at the bottom right above
Misc. crew.
Is it so difficult to stick it under the Cinematographer category??
Or even just put them alphabetical by (below the line) departments like it's pretty much done in
the credits of every movie.

Hopefully they'll fix the above issues now too.
  • 0

#4 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 718 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 02:02 AM

So they STILL haven't gotten it right.
Maybe it's a work in progress.

I've often wondered whether the folks that run IMDB have ever had anything to do with the film business. After this recent change, it would appear not. But I guess it's a step in the right direction.
  • 0

#5 Erwin Landau

Erwin Landau

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1699 posts
  • TBD

Posted 06 January 2007 - 04:48 AM

Now they are really missing the point... they fixed the additional camera stuff.

But they renamed the camera department into the "Camera and Electrical Department"... and the grip department is also buried in there...

Who are this guys??? Do they know what the different departments do???

Hanging/setting up lights, shading and moving stands and moving the camera are all the same... I guess.

All great jobs and should have there own departments.... Oh wait, they do.


Still baffled...

Erwin
  • 0

#6 Michael Stumpf

Michael Stumpf

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 491 posts
  • U.S.

Posted 06 January 2007 - 10:03 AM

Ok guys, lets all shoot them over an email (it's actually their feedback...or something like that...link) letting them know the camera and grip departments are completely separate and they need to correct that.


Here is the link that you need to go to send them the request to separate the Camera, Grip and Electric departments into their own categories.

www.imdb.com/helpdesk/contact
  • 0

#7 RonBaldwin

RonBaldwin

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 January 2007 - 02:45 PM

I've tried to add/correct my page before and it was next to impossible. I tried to just have cam/steadicam operator" after most of my work -- it didn't recognize that title. I tried to add it as a new one about a year ago and...? When adding a show, it asked me for specific episodes (wish I kept all my call sheets/scripts!?). It's too bad it's such a pain in the arse.

rb
  • 0

#8 Alec Jarnagin SOC

Alec Jarnagin SOC

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1800 posts
  • New York City, USA

Posted 06 January 2007 - 02:53 PM

Yeah, the individual episode thing is a pain in the ass. I can see why they do it, but it is screwed up. They have some of mine wrong, but changing it is a project.

Off to enjoy the 70 degree January day here in NYC. Global warming......
  • 0

#9 Stephen Murphy

Stephen Murphy

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 261 posts
  • London

Posted 07 January 2007 - 05:57 PM

I emailed them about this and here is the response i got -

Why are camera and lighting in the same category?
It looks like the other message got posted whilst I was writing the announcement in this thread so it didn't get covered above, sorry. There are a couple of factors coming into play here...

#1 There is a certain amount of on-going work overhead attached to maintaining each separate filmography category. On the other hand, if any one filmography section is growing too large, that can add other types of inefficiencies too. The sweet spot for departmental list sizes is between 400K and 750K entries (significantly less than that and the overheads are painful vs. significantly more than that and actually managing the section is painful ). We needed to take a sizeable set of credits from the miscellaneous crew section in order to move it closer to preferred range. We also needed to make sure the new section itself was inside the preferred range at launch. Since the last split was many years ago, we knew it would take a while to get it organised and that it would be a while afterwards before we were ready to do the next set of splits, so doing a trial smaller list was not really an option anyway.

#2 Given the above, a combined camera/lighting/electrical section was the best grouping available. The groups are often related and featured close together in credit rolls (sometimes even combined) and some job categories are on the boundary between the various departments. We even have other combined groupings already live, most notably the assistant directors and second unit directors section so a combined grouping here made sense.

We do have the option of reviewing this specific split in subsequent rounds later in the year. We are currently looking at further process changes to extend the preferred range of section sizes both upwards and downwards. If it makes sense and we can come up with a set of rules on exactly which jobs go in which department, then dividing camera and electrical should be straightforward.

The whole point of this initial split is to refine various processes and make future ones a matter of routine once any category of credits in misc (or any other section) reaches critical mass and merits its own category. I would recommend people not get too caught-up in arguments over details on this split.

  • 0

#10 Michael Stumpf

Michael Stumpf

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 491 posts
  • U.S.

Posted 09 January 2007 - 10:56 PM

Yeah, I got this cookie cutter response too.
I responded to that stating that in their example of a "combined" department using assistant directors and 2nd unit directors as an example is NOT an example of two different job categories merged into one as they seem to think. I let them know that BOTH of those positions worked under the same department and are represented by the same union...unlike Camera, Grip, and Electric.

I suggested to them that they actually hire or use a film consultant so they can accurately represent their site and have correct information, because it was clear they do not utilize such a person or have a person on staff who has worked IN the film business.

They responded back to go to the message boards regarding this issue and post our concerns there, as the
"administrators" will read that and take our thoughts into consideration for future updates, changes and/or corrections.

Now the question is....where is this message board on their site that pertains to this issue???
  • 0

#11 Rob Vuona SOC

Rob Vuona SOC

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 1143 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 January 2007 - 02:44 AM

I've tried to add/correct my page before and it was next to impossible. I tried to just have cam/steadicam operator" after most of my work -- it didn't recognize that title. I tried to add it as a new one about a year ago and...? When adding a show, it asked me for specific episodes (wish I kept all my call sheets/scripts!?). It's too bad it's such a pain in the arse.

rb

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya what's up with their web site and who post this stuff anyway, Do they randomly choose shows to post and randomly decide to throw in Steadicam as a title. Updating anything including awards is next to impossible, is there anyone who can tudor on the use of this stupid web site that our industry has decided to adopt as a standard.
  • 0

#12 Afton Grant

Afton Grant

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 908 posts
  • New York, Boston

Posted 24 January 2007 - 06:37 AM

Before we put the site down too much, keep in mind it is staffed by humans. While they do not seem to know every detail of the crew breakdowns (I'm sure if someone there did, they'd be working on one), they do seem to have the desire to uphold some quality control. IMO, this is a good thing. Otherwise, we'd have every student film ever made up there.

With any human system, there will be errors, and updates will take time. With more manpower, the updates could come faster, but that requires more money. For the most part, the service the site offers is free, and for that, it's hard to complain. The reason it has become the "standard" is because it was the first, it obviously had a successful business plan, and it DID build itself an insanely large database. The great thing about the internet is that it's infinite in size. If you don't like something, you're free to make something you do.

For the record, I do not work for IMDB, I do not sleep with IMDB, I don't even know how to pronounce IMDB. I merely speak on the behalf of other web-admins out there.

Best regards,
Afton
  • 0

#13 Kris Torch Wilson

Kris Torch Wilson

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 184 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 February 2007 - 01:41 AM

While I agree that IMDB has problems I have to chuckle at our own glossy and expensive rag of a magazine.
This month's issue continues to have me listed as an operator on a game show that I filled in on for a couple of days FIVE years ago. Perhaps it's the production company's fault but embarassing just the same.

Kris "I don't want to be associated with the Feud" Wilson
  • 0

#14 bobgilles

bobgilles

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 02 February 2007 - 08:02 PM

I have friends at ILM that have worked on dozens of the biggest blockbusters and are not on IMDB at all, one of my freinds won an oscar for Pirates of the Carribean 2 and you can't find his name at all.
  • 0

#15 Lukas Franz

Lukas Franz

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 187 posts
  • Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 03 February 2007 - 03:07 PM

Hey Bob,

I thought the Oscars will be on February 25th, how could your friend get an award for Pirates of the Carribean 2 that is only now nominated? Or am I wrong?

Cheers.
Lukas
  • 0




Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

PLC - Bartech

Wireless Video Systems

IDX

rebotnix Technologies

Varizoom Follow Focus

Omnishot Systems

PLC Electronics Solutions

GPI Pro Systems

Ritter Battery

Engineered Cinema Solutions

Boland Communications

Betz Tools for Stabilizers

BOXX

SkyDreams

Paralinx LLC

Teradek