 |
|
|
|
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  Previous Next
|
|
I Have To Comment On This |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | We have a title up right now that was issued with an errord in the AR. It was re-released later with the corrected AR, the key word is re-released.
One voter posted the following comment
"In theory it is a reissue (mine has 1:78 ratio on rear), but as an exception i think its ok"
Note that the voter even noted that it was a re-release and has deliberately chosen to ignore the Rules which are very specific in this area. Both the contribution and the vote represent a very clear vioation of the Rules with respect to Cover Art.
And I quote:
"If a title is re-released with the same UPC, but different cover images do not contribute the new images. This includes cases where a DVD was initially released in a slipcase, which was later removed. As explained in the introduction you may use your personal images in your local database, but they will not show online."
There is NO EXCEPTION to this. Some users no doubt still own the ERROR version, even the voter still has the Original release, there are NO EXCEPTIONS listed for this Rule, it is plain black and white, if it is a re-issue it is NOT Contributable PERIOD.
Sorry gang, this kind of stuff I will NOT ignore.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks!!! I'll sleep much better knowing you are on watch!  |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | BTW while I am thinking about it. The correct way for this particular corrected title to Contributed is via Disc ID. The re-release does use the same UPC as the ORIGINAL, but since it is a different pressing it, of course it has a completely different Disc ID, and for all I know someone else has already submitted the corrected version properly. But the rules are very clear on the re-release.
I just looked and indeed the title already has a Profile under the disc ID for the re-release. Just as it should.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: June 21, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yeah, but for the release in question you should all throw away your cropped 1.78 versions for the true 2.40 beauty (it is cropped and not just a more open matte, lots of picture missing from those intentional error discs), making the original a footnote in dvd studios history of bad ideas.  Only semi-serious.  Plus the cover is exactly the same except for a small sticker. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Bigdaddy: It makes no difference it IS a re-release. The difference is obvious, and it HAS been entered properly into the online under the Disc ID. Who knows it make become the upside down airplane stamp of the DVD world...fat chance.  The Contributor should down load the correct Profile and deal from that basis. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: June 21, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks for pointing me to the alternate version's profile. Switched all my data, re-subbed what was 99.99999% certainly correct to error profile and all info to correct profile. Learned another new profiler trick, I never thought to look for disc ID but it makes perect sense. This has a chance at becoming the rarity as I see new versions have the proper ratio printed on cover. The question is are there more 1.78 error discs out there, or more 'corrected with sticker' discs?  Even bigger question, does anyone but me care?  Seriously to any who have the 1.78 Lord of War, email Lionsgate and demand a replacment. It's a 2.40 cinemascope film and the 1.78 discs are cropped bad. I've watched both (error single disc from library, then corrected I bought) and it's a huge difference. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | Why the dancing around the title? Why not just say what disc you're talking about so we can check it too? Without that, it's just venting. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
| | Registered: June 21, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | I did mention it last post, but here it is all alone to avoid any confusion.
Lord of War (031398188018).
The tread is about the 2-disc SE, although there are single discs errors out as well, probably many more singles than doubles. This was an intentional error by Lionsgate when they thought everyone buying a 16X9 set would want the screen filled like the 4X3ers did, so they cropped the 2.40 to fit 1.78 (Starz recently did this to/with Traitor as well, although I haven't seen or heard of any replacment discs for that title. At least the BD of Traitor is 2.40, but all dvds I've seen are 1.78).
Then threads on the net started popping up bitching about it, and without any word, the new discs with stickers on back showing the corrrect 2.40 ratio showed up. Looks like the newest ones have the right ratio printed on the back cover, at least the scan under disc ID did. If your copy of LoW is 1.78, you should scream at Lionsgate IMO, as it's ugly and wrong.
Too bad the Blu doesn't have any of the extras from the 2-disc. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |