| Author |
Message |
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Sorry for the thread but there's not enough room in the "No" vote box. Feel free to ignore this thread if you don't have the title in question. There are several reasons why the new scan is not from the slip cover as required by the rules -  The submission is of the cover as opposed to the slip cover. As it currently stands, the only exception for using the cover instead of slip is when the slip is reflective. There is no such exception (rightly or wrongly) for lenticular covers. | | | | Last edited: by Ardos |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | The rules don't say "shiny" but "reflective" (and if anything the existing is waaay too reflective).
If i owned it the new one would get my vote. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! | | | | Last edited: by tweeter |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Apologies, my brain said reflective but my hands said shiny  I've corrected the first post. Although it looks reflective, it's not. It really does look like that. My main objection is that the contributor is insistent on it being the slip cover even after having the differences pointed out. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would leave it alone.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 663 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't have it either, but I would also vote "Yes" on the new image (if I had it), since the old one looks too grainy, like someone really cranked up the contrast. | | | We're on a mission from God.
 | | | | Last edited: by Mike D. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
Apologies, my brain said reflective but my hands said shiny I've corrected the first post.
Although it looks reflective, it's not. It really does look like that. My main objection is that the contributor is insistent on it being the slip cover even after having the differences pointed out. While it may not be reflective, it really doesn't make any sense...at least to me...to have that quality of image in the main db. Unfortunately, I don't think the screeners are consistent on this issue. Sometimes they follow the letter of the rule and sometimes they go with the better scan.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mighty Mike: Quote:
I don't have it either, but I would also vote "Yes" on the new image (if I had it), since the old one looks too grainy, like someone really cranked up the contrast. That's often an unfortunate side-effect of lenticular covers. As they aren't completely smooth, the scanner can have some trouble. Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:
Quote:
Apologies, my brain said reflective but my hands said shiny I've corrected the first post.
Although it looks reflective, it's not. It really does look like that. My main objection is that the contributor is insistent on it being the slip cover even after having the differences pointed out.
While it may not be reflective, it really doesn't make any sense...at least to me...to have that quality of image in the main db. Unfortunately, I don't think the screeners are consistent on this issue. Sometimes they follow the letter of the rule and sometimes they go with the better scan. I don't know about image quality. I think that that contributor did a good job of removing most of the double effect you get with that type of cover while still giving a decent & accurate portrayal of the actual slip. As I said though, the main issue I have is that the contributor isn't being honest about what the scan is of. Even on the off chance this is now being distributed with a non-lenticular cover, it would mean that it's a re-release so the existing should stay. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
I don't know about image quality. I think that that contributor did a good job of removing most of the double effect you get with that type of cover while still giving a decent & accurate portrayal of the actual slip. No doubt but, in my opinion, it is still an inferior image...especially when compared to the one being contributed. Looking at the two, I know which one I would want in my local db. Quote:
As I said though, the main issue I have is that the contributor isn't being honest about what the scan is of. Even on the off chance this is now being distributed with a non-lenticular cover, it would mean that it's a re-release so the existing should stay. I understand what you are saying and you are correct, based on the rules, we should keep the existing image. In my opinion, the rule should be changed to include lenticular covers as they rarely produce a good scan. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | like others have said, I don't have this film - but if I did I would want the new cover rather than the old. | | | | Paul |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Posts: 281 |
| | Posted: | | | | . | | | | Last edited: by Dragon 6 |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have done so with evidence to support the claim, highlighting the differences between the two. There is 100% no chance that the submitted image is the lenticular slip cover that came with the original release. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's not uncommon for different retailers to have different covers for the same release. Aka "Exclusives".
In such cases, first one in typically wins. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 951 |
| | Posted: | | | | If the lenticular cover was a BestBuy exclusive then it shouldn't be used unless the UPC was also only exclusive the BestBuy release with the lenticular cover.
If the lenticular cover was availble to all retailers on release day with this UPC 883929036288 then it should be in the database. | | | Are you local?
This is a local shop the strangers you would bring would not understand us, our customs, our local ways. |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Tracer: Quote:
If the lenticular cover was a BestBuy exclusive then it shouldn't be used unless the UPC was also only exclusive the BestBuy release with the lenticular cover.
If the lenticular cover was availble to all retailers on release day with this UPC 883929036288 then it should be in the database. I definitely didn't buy it from BestBuy but DVDWorldUSA so it wasn't an exclusive cover. |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Posts: 281 |
| | Posted: | | | | . | | | | Last edited: by Dragon 6 |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Very true, the picture changes slightly, it does NOT change brightness and clarity by that much though. It also does not add detail that isn't there. It does show a border on the scan. I've actually just done scans of both my slip & cover. Slip Cover As I said, they're both quick scans, only rotating/resizing them down. However the similarity is there between my slip & the existing scan. Same cropping at the bottom by the footprint including having the border of the lenticular part running through it & same paler colouring. Likewise, the same similarity is there between my actual cover & the submitted change. Same darker colouring, same extra detail at the bottom (a whole extra footprint that isn't on the lenticular), no lenticular border showing, star in the EXACT same place down the D in "3-D". There is enough there to give me no doubt whatsoever that the submitted cover is NOT from the lenticular slip cover but from the box cover. |
|