 |
|
|
|
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... 7 8 9 10 11 12  Previous Next
|
|
"Widescreen" not on the cover |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,623 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
The Rules mean what they mean, Thank you for that meaningful insight. Most people seem to realize that the rule is not clear, even though the majority seem to favor your interpretation. Quote:
inventing data out of whole cloth is unacceptable, which i what you are talking aboiut. No, it's a fact that the release in question is widescreen. This is not an invention. Quote:
The Full Screen Edition does have a banner and is labeled as such and thus is distinguished from its Widescreen cousin. You are trynig to support the creation of Edition data when there is NONE, in fact by taking information from the Featuyres and turning that into Edition data. Who says there is NONE? It all depends on how you interpret what an "edition" is supposed to be. You seem to think that the rules clearly state that it's not an edition unless it's stated in a banner on the front cover. The rules say no such thing! Quote:
At best you are misguided and desperately trying to pervert the Rules to your own ends. A number of people including myslf have tried to explain this to you, patience wears thin. Could you PLEASE stop accusing everybody who wants to discuss the interpretation of the rules of trying to prevert the rules! | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Enry:
Sorry i don't see it that way. The title which brought about this discussion was released at least TWO FULL years ago and never came up until someone decided they wanted to twist the Rules at least in spirit. Which is what i see all too often, someone finds what they think is a way to undermine the rules and they will twist and turn and argue to try and get what THEY want. I try to be patient and tolerant but it angers me a very great deal and there comes a point... Andmany of the sources for these things come from the same handful of users.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
The Rules mean what they mean,
Thank you for that meaningful insight. Most people seem to realize that the rule is not clear, even though the majority seem to favor your interpretation.
Quote:
inventing data out of whole cloth is unacceptable, which i what you are talking aboiut.
No, it's a fact that the release in question is widescreen. This is not an invention.
Quote:
The Full Screen Edition does have a banner and is labeled as such and thus is distinguished from its Widescreen cousin. You are trynig to support the creation of Edition data when there is NONE, in fact by taking information from the Featuyres and turning that into Edition data.
Who says there is NONE? It all depends on how you interpret what an "edition" is supposed to be. You seem to think that the rules clearly state that it's not an edition unless it's stated in a banner on the front cover. The rules say no such thing!
Quote:
At best you are misguided and desperately trying to pervert the Rules to your own ends. A number of people including myslf have tried to explain this to you, patience wears thin.
Could you PLEASE stop accusing everybody who wants to discuss the interpretation of the rules of trying to prevert the rules! Gunnar: You aren't trying to discuss it, you are trying twist it... deliberately for what reason only you know. And YES..you are absolutely inventing data out of whole cloth. This something that you discovered and are trying desperately to take advantage of it, and like i said I tried to be patient and tolerant but that is at an end and now you are only angering me further with this nonsense. And in my opinion you are deliberately trying to undermine the Rules, but i don't get your motive.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | I get the impression that, for whatever reason, "edition" no longer only means Criterion or Special or Director's, like it once did, but is now expanded as a shortcut to differentiate widescreen from full frame...at least for some users. The rules certainly allow that to happen, whether intentionally or not. God help us if folks decide they need to also differentiate from various audio presentations as well, the field will fill up quickly. After all, that information is always located somewhere on the box, too.
Personally, I'm just going to keep whatever I feel is relevant locally and dump the rest. It's really not a lot of skin off my back to hit the delete key when editing a profile locally.
I also start to wonder if this is an example of nature abhorring a vacuum, or empty field as the case may be, and folks just feel compelled to fill it with something. | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
| | Registered: March 21, 2007 |  Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Gunnar:
You aren't trying to discuss it, you are trying twist it... deliberately for what reason only you know. And YES..you are absolutely inventing data out of whole cloth. This something that you discovered and are trying desperately to take advantage of it, and like i said I tried to be patient and tolerant but that is at an end and now you are only angering me further with this nonsense.
And in my opinion you are deliberately trying to undermine the Rules, but i don't get your motive.
Skip You always seem to think that your point of view is correct and that anyone who is of a different opinion is wrong. How can you be so obtuse? Gunnar has a valid point. That point is that the rules do not say to take any info from the front cover. How difficult is it for you to accept that the rules have not been written the way you wanted them written? Gunnar isn't perverting the rules, he is following them. I think that the rules should be changed periodically for the better good. This is one of those instances where the rules should be changed for absolute clarity. Skip, everything you say above more accurately depicts you and not Gunnar. | | | | Graham |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,623 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
You aren't trying to discuss it, you are trying twist it... deliberately for what reason only you know. And YES..you are absolutely inventing data out of whole cloth. This something that you discovered and are trying desperately to take advantage of it, and like i said I tried to be patient and tolerant but that is at an end and now you are only angering me further with this nonsense.
And in my opinion you are deliberately trying to undermine the Rules, but i don't get your motive. As so often you repeat your generalizations, instead of responding to any of the points raised. It's obvious that most users here do not see things my way. Fair enough. I assume that it means that the contribution in question will be rejected. I can live with that. My main gripe is that the rules do not define what constitutes an "edition". Wikipedia has this to say: In printmaking, an edition is a number of prints struck from one plate, usually at the same point in time. While that doesn't directly apply to DVDs, it clearly shows that the word "edition" in itself does not rely on simply what's on the cover. For a DVD, the Widescreen and Fullscreen versions are definitely not "struck from the same plate", so by definition they are different editions. This, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that they are editions as define by DVD Profiler. But - the rules does not make that clear. If you can't see that, then that's too bad. And if you have to go through life believing that anyone who offers an opinion different from yours must have some hidden agenda, then that's too bad, as well. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,022 |
| | Posted: | | | | Personally, I hate the edition field being used to display widescreen/full screen etc. I adhere to the current rules and submit it where applicable during other updates to a profile. My 'understanding' has been that the Edition information typically would come from the front cover, or from a banner on the front or rear cover. However, strictly using the rules current wording, this loophole is allowable, however squeaky some of us believe.
Perhaps the time is to move on, and agree to disagree. What is important now is that we propose a rule change to clear some of the conjecture around the current wording of this issue, once it is agreed what the majorities preference is. Also, a feature request that the format is perhaps automatically displayed in a seperate field as W/F/P/M as applicable, which would clean up this generally unpopular element of DVDP.
My two-pennys worth.
Rich | | |  | | | | Last edited: by hayley taylor |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,623 |
| | | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I try to be patient and tolerant but it angers me a very great deal and there comes a point... Andmany of the sources for these things come from the same handful of users.
Skip Skip, This is truly meant in a sincere way and not to be sarcastic or insulting in any way, but if an internet forum "angers me a very great deal", perhaps it's time to find a different pastime. Life is way to short too be angry over such insignificance. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 347 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting mwkirchner:
Quote:
I gotta think that Ken & Geri have been reading this post and can only hope that they can find it in their hearts to re-write that rule in such a way that there is absolutely no way anyone could interpret it any other way then the way it is meant to be.
Right now there is way too much confusion amongst everyone. The rule should be cut & dry and have no loop holes.
Absolutely NO confusion here.
Skip Maybe that is true ... BUT ... there is confusion with others in interpreting the rule or else there would not be this many opinions from so many people. I am NOT saying you are wrong ... but I do not see what is so hard about just getting the rule written in a way that NO ONE can misinterpret it. Right now there is confusion about the rule ... maybe not to you ... but clearly to alot of others ... including myself. . | | | | Antec Nine Hundred case, 4GB A-Data DDR2 800 RAM, Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Conroe 2.66GHz, ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP MB, XFX GeForce 8600GT XXX 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 video card, ZALMAN CNPS9500 AT 2 Ball CPU Cooling Fan/Heatsink, Seagate Barracuda 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s HDD, Zerodba 620W PSU, LITE-ON 20X DVD±R DVD with LightScribe SATA, Samsung CDDVDW SH-S203B SATA, Hanns-G HH281 28" monitor, Kodak ESP3250 printer, Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 speakers, Windows 7 Professional | | | | Last edited: by mwkirchner |
| | Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mwkirchner: Quote:
... but I do not see what is so hard about just getting the rule written in a way that NO ONE can misinterpret it. Would that it were that easy.  If it was, we (meaning the U.S.A.) wouldn't need a court system to help interpret the intent of laws that run on for hundreds of pages and still have loopholes and unintended and unforeseen consequences. What we (meaning the DVD Profiler community) need is a Supreme Court to interpret such these issues! That's the ticket!  If anyone needs me i'll be in the corner curled into the fetal position. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Personally, having a widescreen label means nothing to me because I don't buy full-screen movies. I get this twitch when I see a DVD labeled full-screen. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mwkirchner: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Quoting mwkirchner:
Quote:
I gotta think that Ken & Geri have been reading this post and can only hope that they can find it in their hearts to re-write that rule in such a way that there is absolutely no way anyone could interpret it any other way then the way it is meant to be.
Right now there is way too much confusion amongst everyone. The rule should be cut & dry and have no loop holes.
Absolutely NO confusion here.
Skip
Maybe that is true ... BUT ... there is confusion with others in interpreting the rule or else there would not be this many opinions from so many people.
I am NOT saying you are wrong ... but I do not see what is so hard about just getting the rule written in a way that NO ONE can misinterpret it.
Right now there is confusion about the rule ... maybe not to you ... but clearly to alot of others ... including myself.
. Were that up to me, MW, It would have benen corrected Looooooooong ago, along with most of the other things which have come up, but...that is above my pay grade. Whhops my poltical side showing.  @ Hal: None taken. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting tweeter: Quote:
Quoting mwkirchner:
Quote:
... but I do not see what is so hard about just getting the rule written in a way that NO ONE can misinterpret it.
Would that it were that easy. If it was, we (meaning the U.S.A.) wouldn't need a court system to help interpret the intent of laws that run on for hundreds of pages and still have loopholes and unintended and unforeseen consequences.
What we (meaning the DVD Profiler community) need is a Supreme Court to interpret such these issues! That's the ticket!
If anyone needs me i'll be in the corner curled into the fetal position. And to expand on what tweeter said. With my experiences in Government, we cannot and should not try and legislate EVERYTHING. Our Congress is doing that and the more they legislate the more touble they cause and the more loopholes they open in the process, which ultimately results in some very BIZARRE legal arguments before the courts and some legal defenses which defy logic, kind of what I see here. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | Just adding my POV:
I agree:
The Edition should be able to be taken form anywhere on the cover (front or back).
I agree:
The Edition should be easily identifiable as such, not necessarily by a banner but at least by big letters and prominent presentation.
Predetaor: Collector's Edition
There is wide- and fullscreen versions with identical front cover. The back cover has "Widescreen Edition" resp. "Full Screen Edition" in big white letters on top of the back cover. | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
| | Registered: June 21, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
Personally, having a widescreen label means nothing to me because I don't buy full-screen movies. I get this twitch when I see a DVD labeled full-screen. I'm in Kill's boat. I can see both sides of the argument for a movie which has WS and FS versions, but are not clearly marked. The smart shopper would never need to have the edition field filled in, I know which one I bought! The only FS discs I have are ones which don't have WS cousins, in any region for that matter. For better or worse, the Paramount "Widescreen Collection", most of which don't have FS cousins, are still marked clearly enough via the banner to earn the edition field per rules. Just the way I see it. Here's a good senario. Region 1 Hannibal. The first versions clearly said Special Edition, which could've fallen into the "there's no other version, don't include it" part of the rules. A few years later, there is another version, plus a fullscreen version. Should it have started with an empty edition field, then been filled in when the new discs came out? Should we start putting "movie-only" or "bare-bones" in edition field of rereleases that are? Not trying to be difficult, these are questions that popped up while redaing most of this thread. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |