| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,550 |
| | Posted: | | | | So almost a month ago I submitted the front and back scans for the Criterion Collection release of Bound. Based on one no vote, this was declined even though the current one has no back cover and the front does not represent the current one (i.e. the red is too red). I don't know if someone actually looked at it or what, but the other submissions I made were accepted, it was only the image part declined.
Also, I had edited my submission to counter the singular no vote (vs. 12 yes votes). And I did PM the no vote a couple weeks back but even though they read it, they failed to reply.
Sorry for the rant, but it's just ridiculous. |
|
| Registered: October 22, 2015 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 275 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't own the package (715515-297219), however, here are my thoughts:
Yes, it is frustrating, so I would suggest you protect your work investment by bullet-proofing the submission.
As a double-check, I always view the covers in outdoor lighting to get a proper gauge of the colors and contrast, as indoor lighting can give a false impression.
From my experience, writing "adding front and back covers" is not enough ammunition to support the replacement of existing scans.
If the existing cover(s) is web artwork, state it in the submission, for example:
"Replaced existing web artwork (front and back the same) with high resolution scans of actual covers"
If the color, contrast, black-level, white-level, shadow detail, is wrong, state it in the submission and highlight key deficiencies to make it easier for readers to understand why you made the change, for example:
"Current scans exhibit a green cast with inaccurate skin tones and blacks looking like charcoal. The new scans provide more accurate colors, contrast and black-levels, that remediate these issues."
"Existing scans display inaccurate colours (note the green in the title on the front cover and picture borders on the back cover, it should be a darker Army green). Also note the washed-out shadow detail on the front cover (missing details in background mountain range). New high resolution scans of front and back covers with more accurate colours and contrast remediating these issues are submitted for approval."
Hope that helps. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,550 |
| | Posted: | | | | Which is basically what I did which was the reds in the current front cover. But what gets me is that in the screener declining, they also declined the back cover (which currently is just the front cover). I actually provided a scan of the back as well. |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,738 |
| | Posted: | | | | If you want to get your scans approved at DVD Profiler, you'd better be willing to ramp up the brightness and the contrast beyond belief. Any resemblence to the actual cover seems to be entirely optional. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,550 |
| | Posted: | | | | Decided to edit this. Same person voted no on this. Don't understand why he/they don't want the back scan or at least submit their own scans if they have a problem with mine... | | | | Last edited: by The Movieman |
|
| Registered: October 22, 2015 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 275 |
| | Posted: | | | | Suggest you edit yor contribution and add the following 4K review for verification in the accuracy of your scans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jH9NWyK-ig&ab_channel=TwinFlicks
Key time stamps are:
0:16 (front cover)
0:20 (back cover)
0:26 (front and back cover)
1:00 (back cover)
1:20 (front cover) |
|
| Registered: December 2, 2008 |  Posts: 77 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting The Movieman: Quote:
Decided to edit this. Same person voted no on this. Don't understand why he/they don't want the back scan or at least submit their own scans if they have a problem with mine... That happened to me one time as well. The profile had the front cover as the front and rear scans. I submitted my own rear scan from my own dvd. but had a no vote because it was larger then the front cover. Even though the scans get re-sized before they are released. It was declined anyway because of a no vote. I didn't bother re-submitting and kept it local till I got rid of the dvd years ago, trying to save space. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,693 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting rando_commando: Quote:
The profile had the front cover as the front and rear scans. I submitted my own rear scan from my own dvd. but had a no vote because it was larger then the front cover. Even though the scans get re-sized before they are released. For DVDs the max size is 500x700 pixels, if I remember correctly. So a larger scan will be resized down to that. However, a smaller scan will not be upsized. If the voter could see that the scans were not the same size, then the front scan was less than 500x700, and thus the No vote was correct per the rules. You should have scanned both front and back. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|