Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Well, the simple answer would have been Yes.
The info has to go in the parent profile for the very simple reason that the child profiles are optional.

That may have been the simple answer, for you, but it wasn't my answer.  My answer was, and always is, based on how I read the rules.  Nothing in the rules says it is done because the child profiles are optional.

Quote:
I was also not advocating doing anything that would result in people not getting the data they want. I was throwing out ideas and thoughts.

I never said you were, I simply responded to your ideas and thoughts with thoughts of my own.

Quote:
My final solution of not adding child profiles does not 'just make sense to me' as you state.

I didn't state that, you did.  You said, and I quote, "The ONLY way this makes sense is if the child profiles don't exist."

Quote:
It would actually solve the entire issue because all the data would be kept in the one profile; just as people who don't want the child profiles prefer.

That isn't what people who don't want child profiles prefer, at least it isn't what I prefer.  I prefer the main profile to reflect the specific details...audio, subs, video, etx...of the main media type, but also include any special features that are included in the set.  I don't use child profiles because I don't care about the information specific to the DVD.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I don't use child profiles because I don't care about the information specific to the DVD.

That's kind of the point I was making. A lot of people don't care about the specifics of any extra discs included in a set.
I think (could be wrong, though) that most people don't use the child profiles for combo sets.

So, what I was saying (badly it seems) is that maybe if the rules didn't allow for the use of child profiles in these cases there would be less confusion. If the rules said to include all extras from ALL discs but ignore any specifications except for the parent profile (BD, 3D BD etc) then that would be better as far as I can see.

I'd happily have one profile; but while the rules say that child profiles can be created I'm going to continue to do so.
Why?
Because no one else seems to do them.
I have yet to download a single combo profile in the UK where the child profiles were created. US sets seems to be much more complete, with most having the children created.
So, I add them because other people may want them. Once done, I don't see the point of deleting them locally, so I keep them - if only to track the differences (which I never look at, so don't know why I bother).

As stated - I don't really care either way; I just want to know exactly what I should be doing with these sets.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I don't care about the information specific to the DVD.

What about extra blu-rays? For example in 3D sets there is usually a 2D version. Do you care about the differences on those discs? I assume not. Other people may. I still think having child profiles for these sets is daft.

Quoting locutus2k:

Quote:
If i uncheck the anamorphic field all the resulting DVD's will be listed as non-anamorphic, even if they are.

On the other hand if you check it, it would imply that the Blu-ray disc would be anamorphic, which they are not. That's why we have an option to create separate profiles for DVD and Blu-ray.

Quote:
Anyway the anamorphic and PAL/NTSC fields are available only in dvd or combo sets contributions so

That's a bug or bad design and hopefully it will be fixed in future releases.

Quote:
I have voted a number of contributions on combo set (itlaian editions) who deleted the anamorphic field. I've voted NO

You voted agains the rules.

Quote:
but if they pass, my database will be a real mess unless i lock everything.
Please, advise.

Only way to handle these correctly is to create separate child profile for DVD child.

Quoting locutus2k:

Quote:
Not correct. Bluray discs are anamorphic by default,

NO, see this message.

cya, Mithi

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I don't care about the information specific to the DVD.

What about extra blu-rays? For example in 3D sets there is usually a 2D version. Do you care about the differences on those discs? I assume not. Other people may. I still think having child profiles for these sets is daft.

I don't buy 3D sets...unless I have no other choice.  However, if I did, I would only care about the information specific to the 3D version as that is the reason I purchased the set.

Unless you purchased Prometheus 4-Disc set so you could get the blu-ray bonus disc with the long documentary on the making of! 

I usually don't buy them as I don't have a 3D HDTV and don't plan on it anytime soon, but when I was in the US in November I picked up a handful for $15 at best Buy because that is cheaper than the 2D version in Canada.

On another note, I was still curious about how to handle the bonus features that are on the DVD, but not on the Blu-ray.  Should they be listed in the main profile or not?

I don't use the child profiles for combo sets, but am considering doing so in the future.  The main reason I didn't like using them was when Id' export my collection CSV it was very messy but since I started using the MSAccess plug in it really isn't a problem.

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Quoting Mithi:

Quote:
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Changing the meaning of the field would let you do essentially the same search with 2 parameters instead of 4...

ehm, changing the data to accommodate a database-query?
Plain and simple: NO WAY IN HELL.
Sorry, but that really is the absolutely wrong way to go.
Not to mention that filter-sets are savable in DVD Profiler, you just need to define it once, then simply reload it if necessary.

cya, Mithi

It's not changing the data to match a database query. It's changing the format in which the data is stored in response to reality changing. The current paradigm made sense when the program just tracked DDs, but HD formats have been kind of kludged in. If one were designing from the ground up to accommodate Blu-rays and DVDs, tracking whether a title has a 4:3 or 16:9 frame would make more sense. This is far more relevant to the end user and easier to understand the concept of anamorphic scaling, as the above comments show, and ultimately doesn't lose any data.

What about in the case of a 4:3 AR on blu-ray?

Quoting DoubleDownAgain:

Quote:
What about in the case of a 4:3 AR on blu-ray?

I'm not talking about aspect ratio. I'm not proposing any changes to how we track that. This is about the shape of the total frame including the mattes aka black bars. Blu-ray are always 16:9 for HD material. Any HD 4:3 material on Blu-ray is embedded within a 16:9 frame.

Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
We already track the aspect ratio so there is no need to track it again. All DVDs have a frame of 4:3, it's inherit to the format. All Blu-rays have a frame of 16:9. it too is inherit to the format. So no need to track that information again. DVDs have the ability to digitally "squeeze" a 16:9 image into the 4:3 frame, hence why it's called anamorphic (or 16:9 enhanced). But the DVD frame is still 4:3 and needs to be "unsqueezed" by the player for us to see the correct proportions. Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that but since this only seems to confuse people I will not go into all the details here. There are plenty of sites on the interweb that explains the process, with illustrations and all. But suffice to say we already track this information too. Just disable the anamorphic option in all HD formats and no one needs to be confused by this option anymore.

I'm not proposing we track aspect again. I'm proposing we track frame shape differently. Your explanation here isn't quite correct. Digitial video is just a record of a bunch of lines of pixels. They aren't inherently any particular shape. For NTSC or Pal, neither 4:3 nor 16:9 DVD has square pixels. It's more accurate to say that DVDs can be 16:9 or 4:3 that to say they are inherently 4:3, but can be squeezed to 16:9. That's just a metaphor.

Let's say that you're right for a minute, though. Why track whether a disc is anamorphic instead of the frame shape? It's effectively the same data, but one way puts 4:3 DVDs and all Blu-rays in one category and 16:9 DVDs in the other. The other way puts 4:3 frames in one category and 16:9 in another, regardless of format. if you have a 16:9 TV and are trying to figure out which movies you can watch without windowboxing or zooming, the latter is a far handier way to have the data.