Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
The rules have been adjusted.

Absolutely brilliant - thanks a bunch!     

I do very little  when it comes to crew... but I do have a (hopefully) quick question reading the chart. Take the new addition for example...

Sound:

Role: Sound

Credited As:
Sound,
Sound Recording,
Sound Recordist,
Sound Supervisor,
Recordist,
Recorded by

Notes:
Only use when there's no production sound mixing credit

Now... am I reading this correctly that we would use none of those roles...

Sound,
Sound Recording,
Sound Recordist,
Sound Supervisor,
Recordist,
Recorded by

...if there is a production sound mixing credit?

Not that I care either way... just wasn't sure if the note was for all the credits... or if the note is just for the added Recordist. If so it should be edited to be more clear as it reads like none of the roles if there is a Production Sound Mixing credit.

Basically wanted to make sure I was reading right.

It is indeed. Only ever award the "Sound" credit to someone when there's no production sound mixing credit.

Two thoughts.

1) Yay for clarification! 

2) Crap. Now there's a buttload of incorrectly credited Sound guys in my local that have to be removed. Just when I think I'm gaining ground in my local...

Still, the yay for clarification outweighs the crap, but the crap still weighs pretty heavily...

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Unfortunately, this rule change does not help for those UK movies where one of  "direct sound recordist", "sound recordist", or "recordist" is used as a direct translation of the US "production sound mixer".

Why not?  Or are you saying it means they will now have to be entered as 'Sound' instead of 'Production Sound Mixer'?

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Unfortunately, this rule change does not help for those UK movies where one of  "direct sound recordist", "sound recordist", or "recordist" is used as a direct translation of the US "production sound mixer".

Why not?  Or are you saying it means they will now have to be entered as 'Sound' instead of 'Production Sound Mixer'?

I will not say that. I still look at them as translations. But I'm sure there are users which will read the chart differently and would add them as "sound".

The trouble is to know when it's a UK production... But the placing of the credit is often a good help, it's usually next to the boom operator. In that case I will use PSM rather than "Sound".

Quoting ninehours:

Quote:
Are Recordist and Rerecordist the same thing?, i ask because i am finding the same people credited as both Recordist and Rerecordist and there placement in the credits is the same (usually at the end of the sound credits)

Yes, they are. Again, they're minor studio technicians assisting the actual re-recording mixers. If it were up to me, I'd remove "Sound Re-recordist" from the list of valid jobs for the "Sound Re-recording Mixer". The only problem is that there may be an occasional "older film" that uses this exact label to indicate the actual re-recording mixer that we are after (although I haven't seen one yet). That's why it's listed as a valid role: to be able to capture the few re-recording mixers that are credited as such in the occasional "older" film, not to capture a whole bunch of lesser studio technicians that really shouldn't be given equal credit with the ACTUAL re-recording mixers. The rule of thumb here is similar to that of the "Sound" credit: you should never award any "Rerecordist" credit with an entry in DVD Profiler when there already is an actual "re-recording mixer" credit present. I understand that it's hard to put all this into the rules, so I'll try just to be happy with this "Sound" clarification that at least solves two thirds of the problem, but how I just described it is really how it should be.

The good news is that we can use the same justification not to include them that I used with regards to "Recordist" earlier in this thread: I argued not to include "Recordists" because the rules didn't list "Recordist" as a valid job, only "Sound Recordist". Some people chose to ignore that, felt it was obvious that if "Sound Recordist" was valid, "Recordist" would be too, but note that Ken did feel the need to add "Recordist" to the accepted list with yesterday's change. If they were allowed before, he wouldn't have needed to do that, and adding the condition would have been enough. Instead, he added the condition and added "Recordist" to the list of valid jobs. Effectively, him doing so validates my stance that it wasn't allowed earlier. Here, we have the same thing: "Sound Re-recordist" is listed as a valid job for the "Sound Re-recording Mixer" credit, "Re-recordist" is not. So let's not make the same mistake again. "Re-recordist" is not listed as a valid role, and should therefore not be entered.