| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 844 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DarklyNoon: Quote:
Fell free to paste my so called nasty pms, those are pms that are properly written, but not my fault that understanding sarcasm is not your best 
cheers
Donnie You asked me to post them, or did you forget? | | | | Last edited: by bob9000 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 844 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DarklyNoon: Quote:
what already should get you banned is to add Blu-Rays to your collection just to be able to vote NO to my contributions.cheers
Donnie This is an out and out lie, quite easily determined by checking when a particular title was uploaded to my online collection. Something I am sure is well within Ken's abilities. Also I would have no way of knowing which contributions you may or may not be making unless they were already in my collection. Unless you are suggesting that someone else is letting me know so that I can add the titles in question. Is that what you are suggesting? Is this a conspiracy against you? And you are basing this on the THREE contributions total I voted no on. What about your contribution for Angel Heart that has my yes vote because of the additional data and the good cover scans that outweigh your potential error with the commentary tracks. Maybe I am just trying to throw off the scent. LOL You are overreaching, when did this get personal for you? | | | | Last edited: by bob9000 |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Forum Moderator: Removed | | | | www.tvmaze.com | | | | Last edited: by Forum Moderator |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 844 |
| | Posted: | | | | To my best recollection I have never had any contact with you before you started harrassing me via PMs for having the temerity to ask for some solid documentation that related to the specific title at hand rather than some generic comment about 'Modern Cinema' before voting yes. You quickly escalated this into insults, bizarre comments about the non-existence of God, then threats, Who is trying to bully who? All I did was vote no on a whopping 3 contributions by you.
Frankly I probably would not have paid any attention to this thread except that you dragged me into it with your condescending & agressive PMs. | | | | Last edited: by bob9000 |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | While it is correct that theaters have never had two channels, we also don't know for sure that the mix on the DVD is the theatrical mix, especially when dealing with dubs. I would need to see someone actually verify on their receiver or with documentation from the disc to change two-channel stereo to surround. |
|
| Registered: May 9, 2008 |  Posts: 467 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
While it is correct that theaters have never had two channels, we also don't know for sure that the mix on the DVD is the theatrical mix, especially when dealing with dubs. I would need to see someone actually verify on their receiver or with documentation from the disc to change two-channel stereo to surround. I agree with this. The lack of stereo in Theater or TV presentations has no barring on what was actually encoded on the DVD/BD. Tom |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 6 |
| | Posted: | | | | There are several independent movies in modern cinema, especially from Japan, that are not surround encoded. You just have to check the end credits. One that I know of is Josee, the Tiger and the Fish (Japan 2003). |
|
| Registered: April 7, 2007 |  Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting tkinnen: Quote:
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:
Quote:
While it is correct that theaters have never had two channels, we also don't know for sure that the mix on the DVD is the theatrical mix, especially when dealing with dubs. I would need to see someone actually verify on their receiver or with documentation from the disc to change two-channel stereo to surround.
I agree with this. The lack of stereo in Theater or TV presentations has no barring on what was actually encoded on the DVD/BD.
My point too, all of the changes I have voted against are for dubbed tracks not the primary soundtrack. |
|
| Registered: April 7, 2007 | | Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DarklyNoon: Quote:
I will change everything in my collection to those standards and will submit it. And nearly everyone votes YES so far.
If a few disagree, then fine, they can vote NO, and the screeners will decide.
cheers
Donnie Donnie, there is no need to do this. If your argument is so conclusive or persuasive then Ken will either change the field name Stereo/Surround or apply a filter to bulk change all the Stereo to surround. I've seen quite a few films where the surround flag isn't set so how does that work? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | You can follow any standard you wish in your personal collection, that's all fine by me. But trying to bend the online db to suit your personal preferences without presenting any valid proof whatsoever is simply unacceptable. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,217 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DarklyNoon: Quote:
In cinema there was never pure two-channel-stereo! You still don't get it. It is totally irrelevant what format the original soundtrack had. We are talking about the Commentary-Track. Even if there was a Surround-Track in the beginning, there is is nothing to keep the sound technician from omitting any back-channel and just record the whole stuff in stereo or even mono. cya, Mithi | | | | Mithi's little XSLT tinkering - the power of XML --- DVD-Profiler Mini-Wiki |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
While it is correct that theaters have never had two channels, we also don't know for sure that the mix on the DVD is the theatrical mix, especially when dealing with dubs. I would need to see someone actually verify on their receiver or with documentation from the disc to change two-channel stereo to surround. Totally agree; we are supposed to be recording what's on the disc and how it is encoded there, not what was played in theatres on its release. Documentation from the sources (programs/decoders) as already described in this thread is the only way to go. Quoting Mithi: Quote:
Even if there was a Surround-Track in the beginning, there is is nothing to keep the sound technician from omitting any back-channel and just record the whole stuff in stereo or even mono. Again, fully agree: when the commentary is recorded the theatrical and commentary tracks aren't 9necessarily) 'mixed together' in any particular way and for all we know the original sound track might just be playing in the background or mixed into the microphones in any manner the production team wants... | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong | | | | Last edited: by Voltaire53 |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, so you are willing to let 98 % of false data being in the database for some very rare exceptions that might be out there ? Isn't it much more logical to let those 2 % of exceptions be the fasle data int he database ? Also whoever proved that those tracks are stereo ? I have seen NO PROOF AT ALL about this. Every commentary track that I listened too uses all my speakers of my 5.1 system, and the receiver is set to Pro Logic II. So in my book that is proof enough that the surround flag is set. Where is the proof that the surround flag is not set ? Where is the proof that they are stereo ? it is rsather funny, that someone with deep knowledge (schaumi) makes a very in depth post about this stuff and is just plainly ignored by people who are obviously nubcakes when it comes to this technical matter. I haven't read any post that even tries to explain or tries to disprove (is that even an english word ) what schaumi said. Anyways, I will submit what i think is correct, the screeners will decide what goes in the online database. My profiles are all locked anyways in my local database. Forum Moderator: Removedcheers Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com | | | | Last edited: by Forum Moderator |
|
| Registered: March 11, 2009 | | Posts: 211 |
| | Posted: | | | | Please stay on topic, keep the personal attacks out, and leave the PMs out as well. The 'P' stands for Private. |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Just saw a guy I never spoke with, is verifying what i try to change.
The user is tkinnen, that is what he writes to my changes:
Verifed with Pioneer vsx-94txh that flag is set and trips prologic in auto mode.
But I am sure that is also no valid proof for some here.
cheers
Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
|
| Registered: May 9, 2008 | | Posts: 467 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DarklyNoon: Quote:
Just saw a guy I never spoke with, is verifying what i try to change.
The user is tkinnen, that is what he writes to my changes:
Verifed with Pioneer vsx-94txh that flag is set and trips prologic in auto mode.
Like I said previously, you have to go with what is on the disc. In the case of some of the changes you are correct and they appear to be surround encoded. However, I feel to be fair it needs to be pointed out there was also at some I voted no on for the flag not being set (I think some were not from you) where this change for 2.0 to surround was being made also. What I think is a bigger issue is people not bothering to check. The 2.0 s. surround issue I do believe is one that submitters and voters need to check due to the various issues detecting this. Tom |
|