I have a question about 3D combo packs. If the cover of one combo pack lists Blu-ray 3D first however the back shows Disc 1 as the Blu-ray which do we follow? Two examples below.

Captain America
Front:
Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy
Back:
Disc 1 - Blu-ray
Disc 2 - Blu-ray 3D
Disc 3 - DVD

Tangled
Front:
Blu-ray/Blu-ray 3D/DVD/Digital Copy
Back:
Disc 1 - Blu-ray 3D
Disc 2 - Blu-ray
Disc 3 - DVD
Disc 4 - Digital Copy

The rub is, do we follow the front of the cover or which disc is labeled #1 for the parent? I would lean on the side of, whatever disc 1 is, but alas, I can't make up my mind.

Quoting GreyHulk:

Quote:
I would say, if the actual disc itself is labelled as 'Disc 1' then that's disc 1 for the profile.

We don't necessarily always go with 'Disc 1' on other occasions. For instance, with a two-disc set containing a theatrical cut and a director's cut, we always track the longest version, not 'Disc 1'. And faced with a Blu-ray/DVD combo or DVD/Blu-ray combo, no matter how it's labeled or packaged, we always track the HD data in the main profile - again, even if it's not 'Disc 1'.

So, I'm getting the feeling that, as it refers to Blu-ray 3D and Blu-ray, Captain America should be Blu-ray as Parent and Tangled should be Blu-ray 3D as parent.

Ken, how would you do it?

The more that I think about it between cover art, the fact that not alll people download the children I would think the parent should be based on the type of release it is.

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
In looking at the contribution rules:

"Sets containing the same film on multiple media types (such as a Blu-ray/DVD combo pack) are to be entered as a normal profile for the main media type (Blu-ray in this example), with all included media types checked. A combo which includes HD media (HD-DVD, Blu-ray) as well as DVD should use the details from the HD media in the main profile. However, you may add an additional profile by Disc ID for the DVD content and add this profile to the Box Set contents for the Blu-ray profile."

Now although some consider 3D a separate media type and some do not.  In a 3D release is is certainly the focus of the release as opposed ot a BD/DVD combo where the BD is the focus of the release. 

Now this rule does not deal with 3D specifically, but howw I interpret the intent would to base it of the type of release. 

Thoughts?

I really don't believe it is based on the type of release. As there is releases that are DVD/BR releases... where going by the package they are pushing the DVD more so then the the BR... and the same title also has a BR/DVD release. And with those we still have to use BR as the parent profile. Even though based on the type of release it would be the DVD as parent. We still have to use BR as the parent per Rules.

I wish I could remember the titles from when this came up last time... but can't. If I do I will post them.

But considering that... I can't see how it can be based on the type of release when the DVD/BR releases has to have the BR as parents.

IMO, this wouldn't be an issue if we treated these combo sets similar to box sets, but I'm in the minority on that (though I do understand why it's done that way). So with that said, the intent of the release was as a 3D set so the parent should be the 3D BD and then BD and DVD for the child profiles.

Quoting Ranavalone:

Quote:
Quoting TheMovieman:

Quote:
IMO, this wouldn't be an issue if we treated these combo sets similar to box sets, but I'm in the minority on that (though I do understand why it's done that way). So with that said, the intent of the release was as a 3D set so the parent should be the 3D BD and then BD and DVD for the child profiles.

+1

I would expect the rules to be updated at some point to clarify the "rank" of 3D Blu-ray media, in the same manner as the relative order of HD (HD DVD & [2D] Blu-ray) and DVD media is specified now.  3D Blu-ray + 2D Blu-ray (+DVD) combos haven't been common for long - at least not long enough to be recognized by DVD Profiler and the contribution rules.

3D BD -> (2D) BD -> DVD seems like a very logical progression (at least to me ).  The distributor might have printed completely different things on the front cover, spine, back cover and the discs themselves.

I agree

And for waht it is worth, the historical precidence (a short history relively speaking) that people have done  is 3D parent and BD/DVD children.  Although I have just recently started using this product I have had to download my whole collect which includes about 6 3D combo sets and that is how thery were done.

I would hope they do give some future clarification and examples in the rules at a later date.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I have always hated this particular rule.  In my opinion, the hierarchy should always be based on how the set is released.  If DVD is the focus, then that should be the primary.  The same goes for BD or 3D focused releases.  Hierarchy should not, in my opinion, be based on what some people believe is the better format.

That is a good point since the release specific information for a DVD/BD combo is different.  Most have different cover art.  But I can see where a standard needed to be develped based on the design of the tool.


From a database design perspecteve there is someting to the argument you should have a release obkect that contains release specific information (such as cover images, SRP, etc) and each release has one to many discs and the disc information contaings only disc/video/audio format information.

Having release specific information mixed with disc details poses many issues in the current environment.

But it is easy to come up with design decisions after the fact.  Unfortunately when desiging databases and software it is hard to necessarily forsee what would the future would bring so sometimes you get to a point where "it is what it is".