| Author |
Message |
| Registered: April 3, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,998 |
| | Posted: | | | | [1] When you enter the forums if you have a PM you get a notice at the top to let you know. I was wondering if this would be possible to do the same when a profile is posted you can vote on.
[2] Would it be possible to have to contribution rules as a PDF for ease of downloading and printing. It would make it easier to review them when you are doing a profile.
[3] Can we have Dolby Digital Mono 2.0 added to the sound menu
[4] When a profile and image scan is posted I would like to vote separately on the profile and image. Maybe you could have two tick box’s in the Yes and two in the No so you could tick yes for the profile and no for the image or vice versa. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 1,338 |
| | Posted: | | | | #1 is probably not going to happen due to people with large collections - it would always be lit up... maybe if it were able to be turned off... at ~1000 discs i wouldn't want this... | | | | -JoN |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ninehours: Quote:
[1] [3] Can we have Dolby Digital Mono 2.0 added to the sound menu I seriously doubt it, as it is Mono (not Stereo) after all. Even back on Intervocative Mono was to be entered as a 1. | | | | Corey |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ruineddaydreams: Quote:
#1 is probably not going to happen due to people with large collections - it would always be lit up... maybe if it were able to be turned off... at ~1000 discs i wouldn't want this... It depends where you are. I've not a very large collection (~800), OK. But in the two last monthes, I could have voted on only half a dozen contributions, quite all adding CoO. In my zone/country, there are not so much changes of existing profiles. And pingponging is quite inexistant. | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 922 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ninehours: Quote:
[2] Would it be possible to have to contribution rules as a PDF for ease of downloading and printing. It would make it easier to review them when you are doing a profile. Get a PDF Printer (e.g. http://www.bullzip.com/products/pdf/info.php), go to the Rules page, select " Printable Version")and "print" your own PDF... (or send it to your normal printer  ) Quote:
[4] When a profile and image scan is posted I would like to vote separately on the profile and image. Maybe you could have two tick box’s in the Yes and two in the No so you could tick yes for the profile and no for the image or vice versa. I think that's the way it's done at the moment. | | | 
Deutsches DVD Profiler Forum: www.dvdprofiler-forum.de |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Katatonia: Quote:
Quoting ninehours:
Quote:
[1] [3] Can we have Dolby Digital Mono 2.0 added to the sound menu
I seriously doubt it, as it is Mono (not Stereo) after all. Even back on Intervocative Mono was to be entered as a 1. Dolby Digital mono 1.0 and 2.0 are two completely different things and they don't have anything to do with stereo. They both contain only one track. With 1.0 you will hear it from center speaker and with with 2.0 you hear the same mono track from left and right front speaker. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
Dolby Digital mono 1.0 and 2.0 are two completely different things and they don't have anything to do with stereo. They both contain only one track. With 1.0 you will hear it from center speaker and with with 2.0 you hear the same mono track from left and right front speaker. Whether Mono is encoded as 1 or 2 channels on a DVD makes no difference here in the program right now, it is still Mono. | | | | Corey |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
Dolby Digital mono 1.0 and 2.0 are two completely different things and they don't have anything to do with stereo. They both contain only one track. With 1.0 you will hear it from center speaker and with with 2.0 you hear the same mono track from left and right front speaker. Whilst I agree they are differently encoded (and would personally support them being different entries in DVDP... if for no other reason than I've heard of some cheap players that don't play true 1.0 properly!) I believe how it sends them out is quite often up to your decoder unit. I for one can change it so even true 1.0 is split to L/R, presumably very useful for those with big L/R speakers and only a small C speaker. | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Katatonia: Quote:
Whether Mono is encoded as 1 or 2 channels on a DVD makes no difference here in the program right now, it is still Mono. The problem is the program doesn't let you choose 2 channel Mono and there is no Rule stating if the cover says Mono, that supersedes the mono DVD having that single channel encoded and reporting 2 channel. I learned when submitting a profile update that version 2.x had a 2 channel mono selection and the convention is as you say, and that's fine, i can go with the customary practice. But the option ought to be provided or the rule updated. The Rule: Quote:
Use the Audio specified on the DVD Cover unless you can verify there is a discrepancy between that and the actual Audio included on the disc. When contributing accurate, DVD based Audio, include your verification method in your Contribution Notes. When i submitted the profile that got dinged i thought the fact i could prove the DVD reported 2 channel (regardless of whether the content was mono/stereo) superseded the cover's claim of Mono. That was a discrepancy (per the Rules) to me but not according to the convention here. Again, fine, i can roll with it. Could i actually prove the 2 channel content was Mono or Stereo? To prove it was stereo would depend on how good a job of audio encoding was done. To prove it was Mono (proving a negative) would require listening to the whole movie and NOT hearing any L/R differences. Perhaps someone has an automated tool to compare L/R channels for differences that could solve this.  But i won't be the last one to try and submit Mono as 2 Channel because that's what the DVD shows. The current Profiler and the current Rules don't completely cover this. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting gtweeter: Quote:
Quoting Katatonia:
Quote:
Whether Mono is encoded as 1 or 2 channels on a DVD makes no difference here in the program right now, it is still Mono.
The problem is the program doesn't let you choose 2 channel Mono [b]and there is no Rule stating if the cover says Mono, that supersedes the mono DVD having that single channel encoded and reporting 2 channel.
[/b]
I learned when submitting a profile update that version 2.x had a 2 channel mono selection and the convention is as you say, and that's fine, i can go with the customary practice. But the option ought to be provided or the rule updated.
The Rule:
Quote:
Use the Audio specified on the DVD Cover unless you can verify there is a discrepancy between that and the actual Audio included on the disc. When contributing accurate, DVD based Audio, include your verification method in your Contribution Notes.
When i submitted the profile that got dinged i thought the fact i could prove the DVD reported 2 channel (regardless of whether the content was mono/stereo) superseded the cover's claim of Mono. That was a discrepancy (per the Rules) to me but not according to the convention here. Again, fine, i can roll with it.
Could i actually prove the 2 channel content was Mono or Stereo? To prove it was stereo would depend on how good a job of audio encoding was done. To prove it was Mono (proving a negative) would require listening to the whole movie and NOT hearing any L/R differences.
Perhaps someone has an automated tool to compare L/R channels for differences that could solve this.
But i won't be the last one to try and submit Mono as 2 Channel because that's what the DVD shows. The current Profiler and the current Rules don't completely cover this. Umm tweeter, yoiu are making this far more difficult than it is. 2.0 for our purposes means NOTHING, it can be Mono, Stereo or even Surround. Mono is Mono. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Umm tweeter, yoiu are making this far more difficult than it is.
Skip You are probably right, though that wasn't the goal.  My point is that i know exactly how many channels of audio are on a DVD, my receiver puts that on the front panel for me. It will even tell me if it's Surround (Pro Logic). In 2.0 it doesn't distinguish Mono/Stereo (that i've ever noticed, i must check that). And as i understood the rules i thought the DVD reporting 2 channels superseded what the DVD cover said. I learned differently from submitting profiles and that's fine. I was hoping to point out i probably won't be that last to confuse this and i see some room for clarity. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Personally, i don't really think adding Dolby 2.0 Mono, Stereo and Surround adds any value to the program except in the most anal way.  It basically goes back to the basic premise that Mono is ONE track, regardless of how many Identical channels are used, Stereo is TWO channels and Surround is 3 Channels, beyond that we get entertaining as we all know.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
  | Kevin | | Registered March 22, 2001 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 609 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ninehours: Quote:
[4] When a profile and image scan is posted I would like to vote separately on the profile and image. Maybe you could have two tick box’s in the Yes and two in the No so you could tick yes for the profile and no for the image or vice versa. I like this idea. There was recently a profile and image submitted, and even though I didn't agree with the data, I loved the cover scan. But I voted "Neutral" on it. I will then - if the profile is accepted, download the cover and ignore the profile. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,279 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting SH84: Quote:
I think that's the way it's done at the moment. No it's how it used to be on the old site, but here you only have the ability to vote once overall if the submission contains both the coverscan and profile changes. | | | | IVS Registered: January 2, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,279 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kevin: Quote:
Quoting ninehours:
Quote:
[4] When a profile and image scan is posted I would like to vote separately on the profile and image. Maybe you could have two tick box’s in the Yes and two in the No so you could tick yes for the profile and no for the image or vice versa.
I like this idea. There was recently a profile and image submitted, and even though I didn't agree with the data, I loved the cover scan. But I voted "Neutral" on it. I will then - if the profile is accepted, download the cover and ignore the profile. It may be slightly selfish but you can copy the scan and paste it into Profiler and then vote no on the profile. If data is incorrect it really should be a no vote anyway. | | | | IVS Registered: January 2, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Katatonia: Quote:
Whether Mono is encoded as 1 or 2 channels on a DVD makes no difference here in the program right now, it is still Mono. Of course, mono is mono, as there is only one signal. But the sound effect is different if it is 1.0 or 2.0 that better "fills" the room. When I make a critic of a DVD, the note is generally higher for a 2.0 mono than a 1.0 mono. In fact there are two different type of data : - Number of signals : mono=1, stereo=2, ... - Nature of the encoding : 1.0, 2.0,... 5.1, 6.1 For example, stereo may be encoded 4.0 I agree with ninehours that the system doesn't allow to be sufficiently precise. | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
|