| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | I am one of the NO Voters.
If those of you who think this mock up is fine please let me direct you to Northblokes images in this thread. You will see the top image (the online current has BLACK spots on the face, whereas the one currently up for offer has WHITE spots.
SO therefore are not the same image. I have in the past had things like this pointed out to me when I first started contributing, stating that OUTER cases take precedence over INNER. Yet here is somebody trying to do the same thing, when his error is pointed out, comes running to the forum and most people are now yelling IT's OK.
Which is it people. Original artwork, or can we all make mock-ups. I do believe the rules specify that the INNER image can be used if the OUTER is of a REFLECTIVE nature which in the case of AVATAR it is not. |
|
| Registered: April 9, 2009 | | Posts: 4 |
| | Posted: | | | | You pointed out my error? I haven't made any. I came 'running' to the forum because there was a direct contradiction between the rules, and what you were saying, and wanted to hear peoples opinions. Isn't that the entire point of this section of the forum?
I'm assuming you do own this disc, you voted on it so I hope so. If you do, then take a look at the slipcase again...it is reflective, hence why I bothered to do this in the first place. Those 'black' dots are shiney silver, but as we all know the colours are changed and darkened when scanning reflective surfaces. Its fairly obvious that the scan of the insert more closely matches the look of the slipcase than the current scan in the database.
The rules, as I said before, say it is acceptable to use the insert to get a better scan. What I was unsure of was the use of Photoshop to put the two together, but it appears that this is ok in most peoples eyes. |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | I too have the experience that scanning a silvery reflective surface results in a black (or black-ish) scan. I remember one case in which the inner artwork was completely different and it took me a lot of effort to turn the largely black slipcover scan into a more or less presentable gray (admittedly I'm not very good at editing images  ). If a fellow user's complaint is that the spots are not black enough, it makes me wonder if he actually had the slipcover at hand to compare the old and new scans to the real thing... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting dee1959jay: Quote:
it makes me wonder if he actually had the slipcover at hand to compare the old and new scans to the real thing... Just for your benefit:- HereIf you still don't believe just ask and I'll pkotograph any other part as well. I don't like people who call me a liar  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | Further yes the spots do look black-ish. BUT they are NOT WHITE which they are on the INNER.
But then again twelvemonkeys does stipulate that he MADE the cover via PHOTOSHOP. Hell we'll be letting Yves correct all the mis-spelt words in the Overviews next. (No malice intended Yves) |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting snarbo: Quote:
Here
Thank you for the photograph, it makes the answer quite easy for me. I must admit that I much prefer the keep case scans but that is not relevant to this discussion. The keep case is not identical to the outer sleeve and, therefore, can not be submitted per invelos rules. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
Quoting snarbo:
Quote:
Here
Thank you for the photograph, it makes the answer quite easy for me.
I must admit that I much prefer the keep case scans but that is not relevant to this discussion.
The keep case is not identical to the outer sleeve and, therefore, can not be submitted per invelos rules. But TwelveMonkeys has used Photoshop to add the blu-ray banner to the scans making them if not identical then pretty damn close. That's the question here (at least I think it is): if you can't scan the slipcover because it's reflective, can you create a mock-up using a scan of the inner case? In my opinion, I see nothing wrong with it - you end up with a better scan but it still looks like the slipcover - and isn't that the most important thing? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
But TwelveMonkeys has used Photoshop to add the blu-ray banner to the scans making them if not identical then pretty damn close. That's the question here (at least I think it is): if you can't scan the slipcover because it's reflective, can you create a mock-up using a scan of the inner case?
In my opinion, I see nothing wrong with it - you end up with a better scan but it still looks like the slipcover - and isn't that the most important thing? This is the crux of the matter though isn't it. "making them if not identical then pretty damn close. Pretty Damn Close isn't a Scan of the Cover. You either have a scan of the cover as per the Rules or why not just go make any cover that pleases you. My that's a good idea, I think I will find some good porn pictures to replace all my covers with, just because it pleases me.  |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
That's the question here (at least I think it is): if you can't scan the slipcover because it's reflective, can you create a mock-up using a scan of the inner case? My answer to that would be: yes! Again, it's all about the end result. Here, that end result is a better, more accurate representation of the actual cover. If that's the case, then I couldn't care less about how that image came to be. |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | I understand the points being made by those who feel TwelveMonkeys contribution should be allowed. I also agree that these scans should be allowed because the quality is so much better.
But, the way I read the rules does not allow for this:
"If a DVD is packaged in a keep case, within a slipcase of some kind, scan the Cover Images from the outer slipcase. If, however, the Slipcase is reflective, and the inner cover art is identical, use the Keep Case art to scan, as it will give a better quality image."
The inner cover art is not identical so I would, reluctantly, vote no because of the way the rule is written. It might be the rule needs to be modified to allow for this type of situation.
Edit: A simple rule modification such as: "...the inner cover is identical..." > "...the inner cover is or made identical..." | | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
|
| Registered: August 4, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,441 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
That's the question here (at least I think it is): if you can't scan the slipcover because it's reflective, can you create a mock-up using a scan of the inner case?
My answer to that would be: yes! Again, it's all about the end result. Here, that end result is a better, more accurate representation of the actual cover. If that's the case, then I couldn't care less about how that image came to be. Infact it's not mandatory to use a scanner to obtai the image, we can take a pic and use it if the result is better than a scan. I can't see any significant difference beetween the good image obtained using photoshop and the real slip cover showed in the photo, maybe the spots color is not exactly the same, however it seems to me still better than the scan. | | | | Updated List of Accepted Birth Years |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Why don't we just let the voters and screeners decide, in the meantime those who want the new images can grab them from the voting screen. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 28, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,299 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
...I also agree that these scans should be allowed...
...I would, reluctantly, vote no because of the way the rule is written... So why not vote neutral? This is what I don't get. You'd prefer these scans, yet you'd vote no because of the rules. If there were no neutral option I'd fully understand your stance, but since the neutral option has been made available, why not use it? Personally I use the neutral button for two things: 1. I don't agree with the change, but it's within the rules. 2. I do agree with the change, but it's outside the rules. (although, admittedly, I sometimes vote yes on these if the changes are just too good to pass up) | | | Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin. | | | | Last edited: by Astrakan |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | If you're going to allow this composite of two separate sources, then we may as well just allow custom covers in as well. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | There's a big difference between voting yes to this image and allowing custom covers or replacing all cover scans with porn images.
As I've said the image submitted is almost identical to the actual slipcover, in fact the only difference I can see if that it's not reflective - which is the point. If you can see more differences, please point them out.
Gerri has already stated that minor discrepancies are allowed as long as the image is an overall improvement.
All of this combines to, in my opinion, a valid image submission. |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's not the only difference between the actual cover though.
The submitter has said they've composited the banner on to it. That in itself, makes it a custom cover. |
|