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->Posts by rdodolak Page: 1 2 3 ...5  Previous   Next
Message Details
I'd go the other way and don't see "Disney Blu-ray Exclusive" as an edition.  It simply serves as a marketing advertisement that this is a Blu-ray release exclusively from Disney (DMC to be more specific).
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 159
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
They are the reasons why I am currently voting NO to huskersport's attempt to remove "Marvel's The Avengers" from original title on an Australian profile (titled on the front cover "The Avengers"), as per the rules: "For profiles which have an alternate title displayed on the cover, use the title from the film's credits."


Also, if you look at filmratings.com it lists the title as "Marvel's The Avengers" for certificate # 47486.

https://www.filmratings.com/Search?filmTitle=avengers&x=0&y=0
Posted:
Topic Replies: 72, Topic Views: 3741
Quoting MikaLove:
Quote:
Great. Another situation identical to the Box Set parent info one (http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=965429).

Well, the rules say "don't abbreviate" and who is here to decide "Disney" is an abbreviation of "Walt Disney Pictures"?
Studio names change, because they are companies that buy and sell parts of it at times, reconstruct and so on.

It's rather funny however that, according to the rules, Walt Disney Pictures isn't allowed to ever change their company name. And thus, "Walt Disney Pictures" is what must be in the db.
Stupid. And no one around to bother with changing the rules. Or at least explain further.


I'm curious if these titles actually have Walt Disney Pictures listed at the end of the film credits.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 58, Topic Views: 3423
Quoting MikaLove:
Quote:
Please, Addicted2DVD, do not add this data to empty/emptied profiles!
Keep them local for all our sanity's sake and it's so totally annoying seeing these (IMO) nonsensical contributions that are also in line with e.g. re-ordering genres. Which is a contribution that is against the rules since it doesn't really add anything to the DB.


The same could be said for the opposite, one doesn't have to accept any changes to one's local database based on updates to the online database.

Quoting MikaLove:
Quote:
I am feeling very tempted to vote "no" for contributions, citing that rule, because I do not want AR info on box sets as this is, rather objectively, inconsistent data, even if it happens to be valid for all titles in said box set.


Except those contributions ARE in line with the rules where as removing the information IS against the rules.  Two completely different scenarios.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 38, Topic Views: 512
[i][/i]Quoting Nosferatu:
Quote:
Because a parent profile is basically an empty box and all the information – except the packaging data (title, rating details, overview) – belongs to the child profiles, I think the profiles should be largely devoid of data, from video to audio to genres.


So we are profiling empty boxes now. 

We obviously see flaws, none of which we'll all agree on, due to the evolution of the software over the years.

In my opinion, disc profiles and release profiles should be two different, distinct things.  As it stands right now they all use the same tables (and forms), with all available fields, and are essentially the same when it comes to the profile level.  Some fields should only ever be available to release profiles (packaging and release details, cover art, SRP, media companies, etc.) and the others should only ever be available to disc profiles.  We'd also need a separate profile/section for film specific information (production year, film rating, CoO, OAR, theatrical/release studio, production companies, etc.) which doesn't change based on individual discs or releases.  I would envision that each would have their own separate tables (and forms).
Posted:
Topic Replies: 38, Topic Views: 512
Yes, the box set rules do state to exclude the "subtitles, audio & disc features", but the video data is also not one of "the following Clarifications to the standard Rules" for box sets.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 38, Topic Views: 512
Quoting huskersports:
Quote:
If I read this credit right, there's no credit for Special Makeup Effects because it only lists the company name (Steve Johnson's X.F.X), not an individual credit. Definitely no credit for Corso. Art Directors under VFX headers are invalid.


Correct, there is no individual credit for Special Makeup Effects.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 200
How or should these entries be credited in the crew section of a profile?  The contribution guide states we can credit "Special Make-up Effects [by]", but the Art Director aspect is throwing me off.

The end credits show the following:

Quote:
Special Makeup Effects by ... Steve Johnson's X.F.X.

X.F.X. Art Director ... Bill Corso


The special makeup effects would be a group divider since it's a company name.  Does Bill Corso get credited as an Art Director or Makeup Effects?  If he doesn't get credited at all, is the group divider included since there wouldn't be a group, per se.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 200
Quoting bigdog:
Quote:
I did find me old registration data on here which is good as I had no idea where that was originally saved.


Since it sounds like you have access to the old computer, in DVD Profiler you can also find your registration info from the registration screen:

1. Tools -> Registration Information... from the menu bar.
2. Click on the View your Unlimited Registration Key button on the Program Registration popup window
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 564
I don't have an issue with copying the cast and crew from a previously approved profile for pending releases.  For existing releases, I'll usually copy an existing profile, if one doesn't already exist, and then review the film credits and make the necessary changes.

However, I agree that the cast and crew shouldn't be taken from an older profile and simply pasted over a newer one.  I can understand, to an extent, if someone did a complete review and are updating multiple profiles, but there are cases where the credits aren't the same even if it's the same film title.  So, it would be my preference to not copy over data wholesale unless people have those titles and have confirmed the changes.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 271
Interesting re-read after 12 years.

http://www.intervocative.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=291974

--------------------------

Invelos Invelos =? Sole Investor
Posted:
Topic Replies: 103, Topic Views: 11034
I recommend creating a backup as an archive, but you can simply copy some of the file structure over to the new computer.

The main directory is the following, but the others are optional depending on what you have.

<drive>:\Users\<user account>\Documents\DVD Profiler\Databases

If you have customized your layout from the standard default, you can copy over the following file:

<drive>:\Users\<user account>\AppData\Local\DVD Profiler\layout.dpl
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 564
Quoting tithers:
Quote:
I've just bought the BFI dual format edition of the French film, 'Peppermint Soda' (or, Diabolo Menthe') which has the AEN code:
5 035673 012 666, but this comes up as a completely different film when I type it in. Some nonsense called 'That Kind of Girl' appears. Obviously been entered wrongly beforehand. Please advise.


Unfortunately sometimes EANs/UPCs end up being reused.  You can add an alternate version to the database:

http://invelos.com/dvdpro/contributions/Rules.aspx?display=altversions
http://invelos.com/dvdpro/customhelp/changeupcguidelines.aspx
Posted:
Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 216
How about highlighting the differences or the option of hiding the items that are the same between both releases?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 854
Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote:
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
For one, the child profiles are optional and thus not everyone uses them.  The main profile has always served as the container for the features found on a given release.  It's similar to how we include all media types for a release in the main profile.

"entered as a normal profile for the main media type (Blu-ray in this example), with all included media types checked".


Perhaps that should change.

Have where child profiles for Blu-Ray/DVD or 4K Blu-Ray/Blu-Ray or any combination thereof, would be automatically downloaded.
That would solve this problem, hopefully.

I also like jurgen42u's idea,
Quote:
For a reason I even would prefer a basic main (empty) profile such as used for boxsets for multiple movies and have a subprofile for every featuring disc inside the combo.


Why? Cause I think it would more correctly reflect what is on each disc. Right now features that are only found on the lesser quality format, be it a DVD in a combo pack or a Blu-Ray in a 4K combo pack, are included on the superior formats profile. Making it appear that the higher quality format disc has those features, when in fact it doesn't.
This is especially true of the 4K format when only the Blu-Ray in the combo pack has the vast majority of features, whereas the 4K disc itself either doesn't have any or has way less. But the combo profile makes it appear that the 4K disc actually does have all of those features as well. Which doesn't reflect reality at all.


I would disagree with this as the current implementation is horrible.  What I would agree to is a release profile and a disc profile (different from what we have today).  A disc profile would allow you to catalog disc specific features/content, but without all of the redundant release profile fields which tends to lead to duplicate data or an empty shell.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 524
For one, the child profiles are optional and thus not everyone uses them.  The main profile has always served as the container for the features found on a given release.  It's similar to how we include all media types for a release in the main profile.

"entered as a normal profile for the main media type (Blu-ray in this example), with all included media types checked".
Posted:
Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 524
Nope, for that I just use Blu-ray.com
Posted:
Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 687
You could also try a database repair.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 710
Quoting mreeder50:
Quote:
UHD or Ultra HD by themselves doesn't mean a thing without 4K in front of it. Once 8K hits the market harder it won't let you know which is which.


8K Blu-ray will just be Extremely HD (EHD) Blu-ray. 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 903
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
This is my idea of a Digipak:


Yes, that is a type of Digipak (4-panel, 1-disc). Digipaks can come in may shapes and sizes.

This would also be a type of Digipak, but it wouldn't surprise me if some consider it as Other.



Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
IMO the Legacy Collection boxes are something else. But the fact that all the Legacy boxes are listed as Clamshell is a clear indication that some others here agree that they are not Digipaks. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


My intent is not to come of as argumentative and it's clear some others have a different opinion.  Just trying to provide information on what the industry has considered Digipaks to be.

I would agree it would be helpful it the different packaging types were defined in the rules.  But fair enough.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 925
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Since you like definitions, here is what Wikipedia says:
Quote:
A digipak (trademarked term) or digipack (generic term) consists of a rectangular cardboard package with one or more plastic trays capable of holding a disc attached to the inside.


It's wikipedia and anyone can edit a wiki page, but that doesn't mean it's all inclusive.  What you have is a 4-panel 2-disc Digipak.  The outer package looks to be made out of chipboard?

Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
This case is most certainly not cardboard.


Digipaks can have an outer cover made out of paperboard, chipboard, etc.

Anyway, here are a few YT vids that talk about Digipaks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbFaYeBZV1U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q58MYW2tKUA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHsklbjXOec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ELKQYt3Lw
Posted:
Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 925
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
This is a Digipak? All Universal Legacy Collection DVD boxes are listed as Clamshell, so apparently not everybody agrees with that,


Yes, that is a Digipak, but I think the issue is that this site has tried to redefine case types that have already been defined by the industry.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 925
No need to reinvent definitions.

slipcase
: a protective container for books or magazines that has one open end
: a close-fitting case open at one side or end for an object such as a book


A slipcover (or o-sleeve) is a close fitting protective sleeve for objects that has two openings on opposite ends.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 26, Topic Views: 956
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Quoting AlunH:
Quote:
While we're clarifying this, then; what's a clamshell?

In Profiler-land, this would be a typical clamshell:


I would consider that to be a Digipak.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 925
Are you sure this wasn't originally released in a digipak?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 925
Invelos Forums->Posts by rdodolak Page: 1 2 3 ...5  Previous   Next