Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum rules before posting.

Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free registration is required.

If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.

    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1 2 3 4  Previous   Next
Cover Scans - Voting On, Accepted
Author Message
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributornorthbloke
Registered: March 15, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United Kingdom Posts: 5,459
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting EnryWiki:
Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
No, I'm talking about yours - as you've already stated you're not happy with them quality-wise, I thought I'd better mention that Gerri may not accept them even though they're replacing re-release scans.



I recall a clarification about reflecting outer cover scans vs. inner cover scans, but she didn't mention original covers there.

You're right Enry, I was mis-remembering her comment about slip cover scans. Although it'll be interesting to see whether the screeners would accept inferior 1st release scans over already accepted re-release scans.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
North:

Like I said the Rules are the Rules. ther copyright date on the new scans is 2006, while the Copyright on the existing images is 2007. It is very clear, cut and dried, whatever you want to call it the existing images should have never been accepted.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributorsnarbo
Registered: March 13, 2007
United Kingdom Posts: 1,242
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
Although it'll be interesting to see whether the screeners would accept inferior 1st release scans over already accepted re-release scans.



The difference is that the Re-Release should NEVER have been acepted in the first place, once it was pointed out by 3 NO voters that stated the contribution was of re-release covers.

Steve
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributornorthbloke
Registered: March 15, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United Kingdom Posts: 5,459
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting snarbo:
Quote:
The difference is that the Re-Release should NEVER have been acepted in the first place, once it was pointed out by 3 NO voters that stated the contribution was of re-release covers.

Steve

That's what I mean - now that the scans are in the database, will Gerri overwrite them with inferior (an assumption based on your comments) scans or will she wait and see if better scans can be made of the original cover.
My rhetorical question is: do the rules override quality once an incorrect scan has been accepted or do the screeners keep the better scan?
 Last edited: by northbloke
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Yes they do, that is obvious, north, else we have NO rules and we wind up back in the bad old days when users were submitting whatever they felt like submitting and titles were yo-yoing every week. The Rules supply the answer, it is not an option.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
 Last edited: by Winston Smith
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributorsnarbo
Registered: March 13, 2007
United Kingdom Posts: 1,242
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
Quoting snarbo:
Quote:
The difference is that the Re-Release should NEVER have been acepted in the first place, once it was pointed out by 3 NO voters that stated the contribution was of re-release covers.

Steve

That's what I mean - now that the scans are in the database, will Gerri overwrite them with inferior (an assumption based on your comments) scans or will she wait and see if better scans can be made of the original cover.
My rhetorical question is: do the rules override quality once an incorrect scan has been accepted or do the screeners keep the better scan?


The reason the scan appear inferior is because the original release are on Foil based material (ie highly reflective, I don't have any laminated pouches so the best I can do is as currently up for voting, if somebody else with this title has better ORIGINAL scans I will gladly withdraw mine, but at the current time those that are now in the online DB should never have been accepted "as per the Rules".

No slip cover, No inner cover image, I could if people prefer turn the artwork over and scan the plain white backing material.

I'm sorry if this looks like I'm getting-on-my-high-horse, but if I keep being quoted the Rules as to what is and isn't allowed, well now I'm doing the same, people can't have it both ways just to please themselves.

Steve
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quite correct, Steve. And the Rules say
"If a title is re-released with the same UPC, but different cover images do not contribute the new images.

They don't say ALMOST the same, similar or close. Close only counts in horseshoes and A-Bombs.

Since this was not a slip case, but a foil based keep cover, that's it. All we can do is hope that someone can do better. Good luck, Jim

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorDarxon
Vescere bracis meis
Registered: March 14, 2007
Germany Posts: 742
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:
Quote:
I haven't seen the scans, but if they are superior in quality and almost identical I think this outweighs the fact they aren't from the first release.


Nope, it doesn't. You can interpret the rule this way locally, but for the online, the rules are crystal-clear, and your take on them is simply wrong.
Lutz
 Last edited: by Darxon
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorDaddy DVD
Lost in Translation
Registered: March 14, 2007
Netherlands Posts: 2,366
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
My comment was based on the question why opposing votes might have been ignored not to replace original scans with the ones of a re-release. I didn't meant to say that the rules for cover images could be interpreted that way.
Martin Zuidervliet

DVD Profiler Nederlands
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:
Quote:
My comment was based on the question why opposing votes might have been ignored not to replace original scans with the ones of a re-release. I didn't meant to say that the rules for cover images could be interpreted that way.

Irrelevant, Martin. They were accepted in error and should not have been, it is just that simple. I can accept that an error was made and we are now fixing, I have a problem with any attempts by anyone at justifying it.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributornorthbloke
Registered: March 15, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United Kingdom Posts: 5,459
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Darxon:
Quote:
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:
Quote:
I haven't seen the scans, but if they are superior in quality and almost identical I think this outweighs the fact they aren't from the first release.


Nope, it doesn't. You can interpret the rule this way locally, but for the online, the rules are crystal-clear, and your take on them is simply wrong.

I think Martin's making the point I've been trying to make - it's got nothing to do with the interpretation of the rules. Nobody is saying that the re-release scans should have accepted in the first place, but Gerri has already stated that a bad scan of a slipcase does not override a good scan of a near-identical keepcase. I'm curious to know whether she would follow the same procedure for 1st release/re-release scans.
 Last edited: by northbloke
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorDaddy DVD
Lost in Translation
Registered: March 14, 2007
Netherlands Posts: 2,366
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
I'm curious to know whether she would follow the same procedure for 1st release/re-release scans.

I know I would, because I rather see a high quality scan of a re-release that is almost identical than a low quality scan of a first release on which you can hardly see the differences.
Martin Zuidervliet

DVD Profiler Nederlands
 Last edited: by Daddy DVD
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorDarxon
Vescere bracis meis
Registered: March 14, 2007
Germany Posts: 742
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Problem with that is, however, where to draw the line for "hardly any difference".
Lutz
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributornorthbloke
Registered: March 15, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United Kingdom Posts: 5,459
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Darxon:
Quote:
Problem with that is, however, where to draw the line for "hardly any difference".

Well that's for the screeners to decide. I don't think this is something users can exploit deliberately as it means getting a re-release scan accepted in the first place, as this one was accidentally.
However, now that the scan is in there, it's up to Gerri to decide if "hardly any difference" is enough or not.

Edit: on a personal note, I decided to go look at these scans and I have to admit there are very few differences to the two covers - I can see why they were accepted. The re-release obviously has a better front cover because there's no foil to worry about. Although personally I prefer Snarbo's back cover cos I think the text is sharper! 
 Last edited: by northbloke
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I don't see why the screeners allowed an obvious Rule violation through, North. We have Rules that we follow or we don't. If we don't have Rules then your argument makes sense, submit whatever you want and let the screeners decide...BUT we do have Rules.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
Invelos Software, Inc. RepresentativeGerri Cole
Invelos Software
Registered: March 10, 2007
United States Posts: 524
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
In general, we would not take a re-release cover unless it was an extreme difference (for example postage size original release, and max size on the re-release or watermarks on the original).

As everyone stated here, we do make mistakes. You can submit the original scans with a note. If those get declined, then you can also try PMing me. Or quote me in the notes....seeing your own name in the notes wakes you up a bit when you are going through them.

I would also say that if there are only subtle differences in the 2 cover scans, it goes a long way to point out what is different between the re-release and original.

-Gerri
Invelos Software, Inc. Representative
    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1 2 3 4  Previous   Next