| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | Good idea or not to do the following regarding covers?
With the ever increasing re-issues of the same movie with the same UPC#, but with different cover art do you think it would be a good idea to offer the following.
1. For those titles in which a title has been re-issued on dvd with different coverart, but with the same UPC# to give the ability to upload/download multiple covers for the same UPC#.
In other words say someone has just bought a re-issue of Small Soldiers. Now of course the cover is very different from the one in the profile. They could upload the new cover art. The new covers would not overwrite the covers already in the database, but would be like an additional field for different covers.
Once that is in the database, another user could just enter Small Soldiers for download and have the option of which cover to download along with the profile. Perhaps on the preview download screen or a pop-up when adding the profile for download to the list would show up asking the user to choose which cover to download for the profile of Small Soldiers.
I hope that made sense.
Personally this would help users to have a more accurate profile for those re-issued profiles in their own database. Also it would help those that don't have the capability to do scans for themselves to have the correct covers representing what the actual dvd is on their shelf. |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Although it makes sense, I doubt it will be done due to the sheer amount of extra space required.
These figures are made up & just used for an example.
Let's assume that all entries in the data base have a 2nd cover, front and back different.
Each part of the cover is 198k so x 2 (front and back) = 396k
Multiply by current entries 388,703 = 150318.73 MB or 146.79 GB (using 1024).
Then multiply by 2 for the re-release cover = 293.59 GB.
Of course, some get more than 1 re-release under the same UPC so that figure could go up by a fair bit. Also, how would one decide how many different covers could be uploaded?
I think the current system of having the original in the online & do what you want locally is the best option at this time. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | I really doubt the number of re-issues with the same UPC# would be any higher than 5 or 10% of the total amount in the database at this time.
Off the top of my head I can only think of only a few titles in my collection that are re-issues with different covers but the same UPC#. I think I only have a few Paramount, Sony titles that are re-issues. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Cubby:I agree with Forget, though it's up to ken. Not that I don't think it's a good idea, even 5 to 10% is not insignifcant and it does carry a cost. This has been requested literally for YEARS and any answer has always revolved around the storage question, or ignored altogether. So I would advise...don't hold your breath and all we can do is wait and see what the future brings. Ken is all to aware of it.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree... being someone that don't have a scanner... and have lots of re-releases (with same upc) in my collection... I would love to see it. But it is not something I will get my hopes up on seeing. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't think it's really up to us to decide whether an idea is feasible or not in terms of storage space or programming - it's up to Ken to decide that. The best we can do in this forum is either like an idea or not, and if Ken sees support for it, it may be worth his while to look into extra storage. PS I like the idea!  |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 366 |
| | Posted: | | | | I like the idea.  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | North: Do you read what is said, like "though it's up to ken" and "Ken is all to aware of it".  None of us have said its not a good idea, all that has been said is what has been true thus far and for YEARS and said "don't hold your breath and all we can do is wait and see what the future brings." Its for him to make the decision and to decide whether he wants to invest in more storage or not. Skip<shakes head> | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | This was one of my two wishes in the "If I had one wish" thread, so naturally I support this. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think it would be more meaningful (and more storage intensive) to treat each cover as an individual release. That would make the release date meaningful for the particular artwork in your collection and would allow implementation of an Out of Print checkoff. This could also solve the Exclusives; limited time bonuses; etc. that muddy up releases with the same UPC. (I understand this is a major departure from the overall philosophy of Profiler and I'm certainly not holding my breath.  ) (I also would rather see a master table of films (including variants like Director's Cut, TV edit, etc.), to which DVDs containing that film would point. That would centralize the credits, production and film distribution studios and other film specific details which would not have to be maintained on miriad UPC listings.) | | | | Last edited: by CalebAndCo |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Being able to have a choice of covers would be a huge boon for this software. As more and more people discover this program and use it, they are less and less likely to have the original releases, and so you will end up with a growing userbase finding the image database less unable to suit their needs.
Yes, more images mean more storage, but who's to say the re-release images have to be the same quality as the original releases? Although I'd prefer the same quality, half-quality would be an acceptable compromise, at least in the meantime.
As you mention, storage could also be saved by changing the database structure to allow profiles to share information, such as cast and crew.
There's also the option that, as well as being able to search for headshots, the program could be adapted to search for covers instead. Either that or Ken does a deal with one of those cover-sharing sites. It needn't cost any money as I'm sure they'd be happy for the extra traffic. | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,741 |
| | Posted: | | | | Although I like the idea, there are some technical difficulties to consider.
e.g. When I upload a cover how do is it determined whether I want to create a "new" one or overwrite an existing with a better scan. And what constitutes a new scan (Snapper vs. Amaray)?
And when it was contributed & accepted, what would the "refresh profiles" process on the client look like (several branches of images vs. the local one).
And how do I choose a new picture when I already have an existing profile?
I don't say it's impossible, there are just some issues to keep in mind. | | | Karsten
DVD Collectors Online
 |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | I usually no longer buy a DVD when it is first released (of course there are exceptions!). I've been trying to catch up on the ones I already own. I also prefer to wait for the price to come down, I've noticed within a year or so most movies end up in my local WalMart's $5 bin. Since I don't own a scanner I would also love to see this implemented! I know...I know I should just buy a scanner but I always end up buying movies instead! |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm guessing the best way to differentiate the images would be to tag them with a release date.
So when you first add a profile, you get a dialog saying something like: "There is more than one set of images attached to this profile, please select your preferred images" and a clickable list of thumbnails with the release date underneath. Choosing an image will set both the release date of your DVD and the images that are downloaded.
Then when you contribute new scans, only those with the same release date will be overwritten, or if you've manually edited the release date to something new, you could get a warning like "This will create a new set of images, are you sure?"
And finally I guess we'd have to have an extra "Refresh" option, something like "Reselect images from list" or similar.
In order to stop the database filling up with irrelevant images, I would guess that all image changes, including additions, should come up for vote regardless of release date.
What do you think?
Another option is to maybe have all images download into the new Gallery folder for the specific profile, and you can then drag and drop the ones you want. |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Those are good points DJ, I'm getting a headache just thinking about it!!
As for linking areas that will stay the same to save space, if you do that then if any changes were ever submitted, you'd have to open voting for everyone with that title. Also if the film has any new effects done later, then the people involved often get added to the credits, like the Star Wars films so would need to be kept separate to any standard releases. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
As for linking areas that will stay the same to save space, if you do that then if any changes were ever submitted, you'd have to open voting for everyone with that title. Also if the film has any new effects done later, then the people involved often get added to the credits, like the Star Wars films so would need to be kept separate to any standard releases. I know we're starting to stray off-topic, but I only see that as a good thing. Instead of only a handful of people checking a contribution - we could have hundreds! Also think how accurate the CLT would be with only a handful of credits to fix instead of loads of profiles. And as Caleb says, remastered and recut titles could still be listed separately. |
|