From the linked article…
In a day and age when literally everyone connected to a film production gets a credit, from craft services to on-set teachers of child actors to random “production babies” who didn’t even work on a film, it is utterly incomprehensible that vfx artists, whose work makes possible the final images that appear onscreen, are routinely omitted from screen credits.
I can attest to this, having worked in the field. Most of the work in TV and cinema goes uncredited, with team leaders or just the post houses at most being recognized with an end credit placement (by contract, of course). I understand totally that it is always a team effort and hardly any of the viewing public sits through the entire end credits roll. I totally get it. But when it happens that you are included, that small token of recognition does remind you why you’re doing 12-hour days erasing power lines, making day look like night, adding/removing people and/or signage from shots they weren’t supposed to be in and pushing greenscreened people in front of moving cars.
I don’t like this idea at all. QR codes are just a different way of encoding a URL, so as soon as someone stops paying the hosting bill that extended credits document is gone. Credits are in the movie itself so they can’t be erased or forgotten. I highly doubt a web server for a movie, even an Oscar winner, is going to be online in 20-30 years from now.
QR codes are not encoded urls, they are a way of encoding data. They can contain 2953 bytes. What they contain is irrelevant.
A film could technically have several QR codes that had all the credits in text in them.
This is true, but the practical use of QR codes is almost always to encode a URL that points at something hosted traditionally, similar to how NFTs can contain unique data on their own but most of the time are actually pointing to a file hosted somewhere else. And that somewhere else
couldmightprobablywill eventually fail.