Talk:Visual effects

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Filmmaking

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

External Link

Add this link to external link -

CGIndia Visual Effects New & Info

Also , VFX should be redirected to this article as already said by JT --Wiki187 15:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against it. The article is "Visual effects". Ignoring for a moment the WP:EL and WP:SPAM issues, I still don't see enough relevancy with this link. --Ronz 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROnz : If you check the history of this page atleast CGIndia link was there before all this has started....So ???

{{{help}}}

Ronz; Please Do explain little bit more about Relevance???

And let me tell you something about the point of view from the users side, I am least interested in knowing your 5 pillars etc.... but the link I suggested was totally relevant.....Beside using your moderation power and your pride,… Consider logic and common sense as your first tool......The both the link ( CGIndia and AutoDesk’s “AREA”) are relevant for following specified section - visual effects (VFX), Computer Graphics , Maya (software), 3ds Max.....You may invite Wiki users for voting and host a poll :) ..........................May Be some1 above you look into your matter.....Please stop repeating or may i say pasting same old comments on every once post. --Wiki187 11:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps adding VFX HQ - Visual Effects Headquarters as an external link might be good and extremely relevant for the "visual effects" page. Just an idea. -todd 24.5.78.40 20:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough information + searching

With the vast amount of visual effects in today's feature films and even commercials, the amount of information provided by this page is not sufficient for a curious reader (i.e. myself). If someone within the VFX industry--or someone who is experienced with it--could donate some of his/her time to expand this article, it would be very much appreciated.

Also, a search on "vfx" should be redirected to this article, not the Special effects page.

Thank you, --JT 14:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a person working in the visual effects industry, I totally agree that a search for "vfx" should be redirected to this article instead of Special effects. It is a common mistake to assume that special effects and visual effects are synonymous.

--CraigFS 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree, if only because the entry on "Special Effects" is much more comprehensive and, I think, better in general. The proper term might be "Special Visual Effects," which seems to suit the Academy pretty well. I'll suggest retitling the "Special Effects" article "Special Visual Effects," and redirecting to _that_. (Brian Siano, brian@briansiano.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.113.197 (talk) 18:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I work in the industry, and there has always been confusion around visual/special/digital effects. But generally now things have fallen into the following:

Special Effects is considered as physical effects (exploding piros, all non-computer based effects). Digital Effects are 2D, 3D animation (computer based). All of which come under which come under "Visual Effects". I agree with CraigFS.

--Gabbs1 13:46, 29 October 2007 (GMT)

Linkfarm & External links

I've cleaned up the external links again. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM before adding external links. The list of companies was becoming a linkfarm again, in violation of WP:NOT#LINK, so I removed all the external links as well as companies that don't have their own article. --Ronz 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If fxguide.com does not belong in external links for this topic then why do any of the companies in notable links belong there? fxguide covers the visual effects business with in depth articles, podcasts, fxguidetv, forums and more. Let's see, I want to learn more about visual effects... wikipedia offers me an extremely basic description. fxguide has articles about things like the art and history of Optical Flow, Keying, HDR and much more. Take a look at http://www.fxguide.com/archive.html and the fxg recommends articles for example... wouldn't it be helpful to direct a wiki reader interested in visual effects to fxguide where they might see them? Maybe I am confused but if the point of wikipedia is to define visual effects with an almost dictionary like simplicity and exclusion of links that could help someone interested in the subject, I don't see the point. Neonmarg 15:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of FX Companies

Should Dreamworks be included as an FX company? If so, then shouldn't Pixar be included in this list as well? My own feeling is that Dreamworks LLC is a production company, and they tend to contract out vfx work, while Dreamworks Animation is a CG Animation studio, and probably shouldn't be included in this list.

By way of disclaimer, I should point out that I used to work for Dreamworks Animation. Roryhinnen (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Removed Reduntant & Unrelated Links from MainPage

I have removed the link and name of Max Studio from the list of VFX Companies because the actual Max Studio which provides VFX services is different while the link to MAX Studio [1]in the list of the MainPage was linked to Fashion Accesories seller in Delhi,India. Maya Entertainment Ltd. or MEL has been added to the list of VFX studios in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asydwaters (talk • contribs) 08:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the point of the list of FX companies as serving any useful purpose other than blatant advertising, this supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a directory. there is very little information on this page about VFX at all, the heading should be changed to "VFX companies". Rapidlaser (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List inclusion criteria

Until we can come up with a better list inclusion cirteria, we should only allow entries that already have their own Wikipedia article per WP:LIST. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, all that does is encourage more people to add more companies to wikipedia, again I state wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a directory.Rapidlaser (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So should we just remove the list? -- -- intgr [talk] 11:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitsville

I think if the list were to split that would be kind of useful, because the list is kind of a eyesore Series premiere (remake) (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a category would be better. --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories