| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Gerri Cole: Quote:
As everyone stated here, we do make mistakes. I didn't stated that, but this however does prove that you can.  | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Gerri Cole: Quote:
In general, we would not take a re-release cover unless it was an extreme difference (for example postage size original release, and max size on the re-release or watermarks on the original).
As everyone stated here, we do make mistakes. You can submit the original scans with a note. If those get declined, then you can also try PMing me. Or quote me in the notes....seeing your own name in the notes wakes you up a bit when you are going through them.
I would also say that if there are only subtle differences in the 2 cover scans, it goes a long way to point out what is different between the re-release and original.
-Gerri Thank you Gerri for your clarification. The "Old, Original cover scans" are currently up for voting. Steve |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I don't see why the screeners allowed an obvious Rule violation through, North. We have Rules that we follow or we don't. If we don't have Rules then your argument makes sense, submit whatever you want and let the screeners decide...BUT we do have Rules.
Skip What argument? Did you even bother to read anything I posted? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | North: Do you even understand what you wrote. Now that itr has been accepted it's up to gerri.... As I said that works IF we have no Rules, the Rules are very clear, they do not state similar slight differences, etc. If the Cover is NOT replaced then Katy bar the door, we Contribute whatever we want and watchg the ping-pong game. It cut and dried the existing images from copyright 2007 are not the SAME as the cover from copyright 2006 and must be replaced. Steve had a legitimate question on the topic and it got settled quite adequately...aqt least until you decided to pop in.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Again, a completely irrelevant and insulting post.
Please go back and read all my posts - I have made no comment supporting the keeping of the wrong scans. The only stance I have ever taken is: "it would be interesting to see if..." based on Gerri's previously stated comment that she won't replace good keepcase scans with bad slipcase scans.
However, having now seen the scans, I think Snarbo overplayed the quality and I don't consider them bad scans at all.
If you got yourself off your high horse once in a while and actually read people's posts - you may find you can actually take part in discussions more relevantly and postively than currently.
PS. Why are you voting on this submission? You don't own the DVD in question and so have absolutely no ability to evaluate Snarbo's submission in any way. No offence to Snarbo, but how do you know these scans weren't just photoshopped? Voting on profiles where you can't verify the submission is vote-stuffing and is against the rules. In fact, your current voting comment shows you aren't able to judge this submission properly as you state incorrectly that the current scans are of a "rental" version and that is patently untrue. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Well that's for the screeners to decide. I don't think this is something users can exploit deliberately as it means getting a re-release scan accepted in the first place, as this one was accidentally.
However, now that the scan is in there, it's up to Gerri to decide if "hardly any difference" is enough or not.{/blockquote]
There you are North.
There is no decision to make, there is only a correction to be fixed.
Maybe you should look at how insulting and argumentative your own attitiude is, sir BEFORE you atempt to try and correct someone else. Hmmmmmmmm. You get attitude because you give it...and it is not appreciated. You are far more insulting than i could ever be.
As to your last...none of your business. I can certainly see enough to judge that the two are NOT identical and that one is a pre-release. MYOB. yo apparently lack the ability to even read. The back cover of the existing image clearly says For rental and resale, while the ORIGINAL release says for NOT FOR RENTAL. But again MYOB.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | And that's supposed to be me supporting the use of re-release covers, how exactly?
Your bolded quote only enforces my opinion on this matter even more: the decisions are made by the screeners, not by me, not by you - the screeners ONLY.
And you voting on profiles of DVDs you don't own and can't verify is my business, it's everybody's business because you are fraudently skewing a vote result. I am perfectly capable of reading your statement that the back cover saying "For Rental or Resale" means that this was a rental copy. However, you are incapable of knowing that this statement is on all R2UK Sony releases that are available for rental AND retail, not just rental.
If you collected R2UK DVDs, you would know this. But you don't, so are in no position to vote on their profiles. | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
No offence to Snarbo, but how do you know these scans weren't just photoshopped? Most people in these forum's know that when I do a cover scan I use only DVDP to do the scanning, never have used any touching up software. Its my belief that if the overview should be submitted with spelling mistakes as printed on the cover then the scans if they have imperfections in them due to printing should stay as well, (but thats me) I have yet to have anybody complain that a cover scan is over saturated in x,y or z. If during scanning I come across what looks like dust spots I will recheck my scanner platen to ensure that is dust free, then if need be use a magnifying glass to check the actual cover, if thats imperfect so be it. Steve |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Believe me, I wasn't casting any dispersions on your scans. What I intended to mean was that Skip had no way of telling whether your images were really of the cover or a "creation" made within a image editing program because he doesn't own the DVD in question, which is why he shouldn't be voting on it.
I never intended in any way to suggest you would submit anything that was incorrect or false or faked. My apologies if that's what you thought I meant.
In fact, the first thing I thought when first seeing the scans myself, after all your comments about them here, was "what's he on about? these scans are fine" | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | For those who these cover scans concern...you will be pleased to see the Original's are now back in the DB.
Steve |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | |  Re-Release on the Left / Original on the RightI looked at the changes and I think it was only necessary to copy the yellow box of the back, Like this:  | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Martin: Go ahead and do that and I will have to vote NO!!!!!! The cover you poicked is the RE-R$ELEASE!!!!!!!! Take note that your choice is Copyright 2007 while the Original Release is Copyright 2006. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | I also changed the layout copyright year on the back from 2007 to 2006. Big deal... | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Isee that you changed Yellow Block, but the Layout Copyright still says 2007. So I hope this is a change you made but did not post. The oither possibility...does that make it a custom cover, I'll not try to answer that.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet: Quote:
I also changed the layout copyright year on the back from 2007 to 2006. Big deal... You'd also be wrong with the Overview. Different ending length, for a start. Banner under the overview is white on foil on the original as opposed to white on blue on the re-release. Just like making waves...eh Martin. Steve |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting snarbo: Quote:
Just like making waves...eh Martin. No, not really. As a matter of fact I don't care, because I don't own this DVD. I just wanted to know what all the fuss was about. And by looking at both covers, old and new, I really don't understand why such small differences in colour and layout was that important. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands | | | | Last edited: by Daddy DVD |
|