| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't see voting no being more "incorrect" than trying to impose the logo on the online when it's clearly not wanted by the majority. If you do that, you should be prepared for a negative reaction.
But a vote is still only a vote, it's up to the screeners to decide what gets through. And in the end, you are free to keep any image you want locally. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 762 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would prefer the scan with the better quality. The logo is part of the artwork, there are many covers that have just artwork with the rating logo. I believe Australia carries big rating logos too and I don't know if they have covers with no logo on the flip side. It's just another rule that needs to be written more precise to avoid ping-ponging data. The rules should say that either or cover needs to be scanned for the online database. There needs to be a clear rule just like slip covers. "Scan cover without logo if available, only scan cover with logo if there is no flip side without a logo" or something like that. Make it precise, no options. Either way, pro or against rating logo but precise.
I have to agree with you gals and guys here that everybody has a different understanding of what "significant higher quality" means to them. To me only the picture quality matters, not if it has the logo or not, but I agree that this is totally different for every user and within the rules. | | | | Last edited: by TheDarkKnight |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting KinoNiki: Quote:
I don't see voting no being more "incorrect" than trying to impose the logo on the online when it's clearly not wanted by the majority  I didn't " impose" anything! I contributed new coverscans and withdrew my contribution when the "No"-votes arrived. I simply started this poll to find out if I got the voters on a bad day, or if their attitude is supported by the majority. Not more and not less. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 762 |
| | Posted: | | | | Damn, I hit the wrong button. Just ignore me.  | | | | Last edited: by TheDarkKnight |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Everything you state here falls into the category of personal preference. Better colours, sharpness, contrast are all personal preferences. What may look better to you may not look better to others. IMO the rating logo falls into the same category. Everything must be taken into consideration when judging whether an image contribution is of higher quality than the existing image. The NO voters are absolutely correct in their assessment of the quality of your contribution. They feel that the logo detracts from the image quality as a whole, and I tend to agree with them. And I would gladly agree with you if it wasn't for reasonings like the one already quoted. Where the "No"-voter clearly states that my contribution is of a "much better quality" but nevertheless votes "NO". Regarding "Better colours, sharpness, contrast are all personal preferences": By all means: NO. These are verifiable and objective measures. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Silence_of_Lambs: Quote:
Regarding "Better colours, sharpness, contrast are all personal preferences":
By all means: NO. These are verifiable and objective measures. Once again you are wrong. Certainly they are verifiable because you can probably observe a differnce but the output is completely subjective...not objective. Your results may be worse in someone elses opinion. Just because YOU say the colours, sharpness & contrast are better does NOT make it so...it's completely subjective. One NO voter's comment does NOT make your contribution better either. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,217 |
| |
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mithi: Quote:
The only solution: multiple-cover support!
cya, Mithi This is personal favorite request. Yes please!  | | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mithi: Quote:
voted "undecided"
The only solution: multiple-cover support!
cya, Mithi Absolutely . | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 762 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mithi: Quote:
voted "undecided"
The only solution: multiple-cover support!
cya, Mithi That's the way to go!  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agree! I been wishing for multiple-cover support for a long time now! | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: September 18, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,650 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quality of the scans should be the deciding factor IMO. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:
Quote:
Regarding "Better colours, sharpness, contrast are all personal preferences":
By all means: NO. These are verifiable and objective measures.
Once again you are wrong. Certainly they are verifiable because you can probably observe a differnce but the output is completely subjective...not objective Your results may be worse in someone elses opinion. Just because YOU say the colours, sharpness & contrast are better does NOT make it so...it's completely subjective. You are aware that we are not painting pictures, but scanning originals, are you? So either I have a significant difference to the original or not. There are always the originals to compare the scans to. This really doesn't leave much room for subjectiveness. Provided of course that you actually countercheck against the real cover. Quote:
One NO voter's comment does NOT make your contribution better either. As said before ALL (6) voters (except for one, who simply wrote that he doesn't like the rating logo) explicitly stated that my scans were better. But you already stated that no matter how good the scans actually are you'd always vote "No" as long as the big rating logo appears. So I see your argument as the logical consequence of your statement. Possibly it's best if we simply agree to disagree here. Quoting samuelrichardscott: Quote:
Quality of the scans should be the deciding factor IMO. My point exactly. Funnily nowadays we can't even agree on "quality" anymore. Quoting Mithi: Quote:
The only solution: multiple-cover support! | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting KinoNiki: Quote:
I don't see voting no being more "incorrect" than trying to impose the logo on the online when it's clearly not wanted by the majority. Every location has rating logos on the cover. And they may even change over time. I strongly believe that our images should always show the original product, and not other artwork from wherever it may come. | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,582 |
| | Posted: | | | | In Australia Eastern Eye/Madman released reversible covers for their Godzilla titles and frankly I preferred the logo-less cover. All titles prior to 2005/6 the logos were see through, by that I mean they didn't impinge on the covers. After that date though the logos became green for G, hideous bright yellow for PG, blue for M, red for MA 15+ and black for R 18+. Frankly I'd rather buy titles from overseas now than locally because of those horrendous logos! | | | In the end; Winning is the only safety.
Kerr Avon
Blakes 7 Series 4, Ep. Blake. | | | | Last edited: by Sidrat |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Silence_of_Lambs: Quote:
You are aware that we are not painting pictures, but scanning originals, are you?
So either I have a significant difference to the original or not. There are always the originals to compare the scans to. This really doesn't leave much room for subjectiveness. Provided of course that you actually countercheck against the real cover.  In a way you are “painting” a picture. Your scanner is your brush and your icc profile is your palette. If either of those tools are off then what you see may not be what you get. I’m NOT disputing the fact that there may be a significant difference between your images and the existing images in the database. What I am disputing is the fact that those differences may or may not enhance the quality of what has already been accepted in the database. The mere fact that one may claim in their contribution notes that the colours, sharpness and contrast are improved does not necessarily make it so. What you see as an improvement may not look like an improvement to the voters. You know why? Because when it comes to Cover Scans…it’s all SUBJECTIVE!!! . Quoting Silence_of_Lambs: Quote:
But you already stated that no matter how good the scans actually are you'd always vote "No" as long as the big rating logo appears. So I see your argument as the logical consequence of your statement. Perhaps I should rephrase my original statement with: “if the original images look like crap, then I would accept the logo’d image” . But…like you say, we’ll just have to agree to disagree here and move on  . | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|