 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1  Previous Next
|
|
Boxset child case type |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,672 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quring the rules: Quote:
Child profiles which share cover images of the parent should use the same case type options, including slip cover checkbox, as the parent. I have been checking my collection for violations of this rule, and I have found quite a few. One common mistake is that the slip cover checkbox is not checked for the child profiles. I have a feeling that this may have been discussed before, but I can't find any threads. Does anyone have any thoughts on occasions where this rule should not be enforced? Also, one special case (!) emerged - The Bond 50 release. As profiled (in almost all variants) it is one parent marked as slipcase, and 24 child profiles marked as either digipak or digibook. Apart from the fact that people can't agree if they are digipak or digibook, they should be neither. Profiled like this, they should all be slipcase by the rules. However, this release is in fact two "books" which I would classify as digibook. So it ought perhaps be one slipcase parent and two digibook children, each with 12 digibook child profiles (with cover images from the digibook rather than the slipcase). Any thoughts on this? | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
Also, one special case (!) emerged - The Bond 50 release. As profiled (in almost all variants) it is one parent marked as slipcase, and 24 child profiles marked as either digipak or digibook. Apart from the fact that people can't agree if they are digipak or digibook, they should be neither. Profiled like this, they should all be slipcase by the rules.
However, this release is in fact two "books" which I would classify as digibook. So it ought perhaps be one slipcase parent and two digibook children, each with 12 digibook child profiles (with cover images from the digibook rather than the slipcase).
Any thoughts on this? I don't see what makes this different from a lot of other box sets, for example 025192834622 The rule you quouted can't be applied since the parent and the children do NOT share cover art. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,672 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting iPatsa: Quote:
The rule you quouted can't be applied since the parent and the children do NOT share cover art. They do in the UK release that I have. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
However, this release is in fact two "books" which I would classify as digibook. So it ought perhaps be one slipcase parent and two digibook children, each with 12 digibook child profiles (with cover images from the digibook rather than the slipcase). I'm not enthusiastic about that suggestion. 'Bond 50' is a box set containing 22 films, and as such, it should be a parent profile with 22 children - there should be no additional layer in there. All movie box sets should be handled in the same basic way: a parent profile, with individual child profiles attached to it for every single movie in the set. I see no use in adding a second (or occasionally maybe even more!) layer of essentially empty child profiles between the parent and the children. We already have an empty parent - let's not add another layer with an empty sub-parent, serving no function at all, really. Well, maybe they should. The contribution rules on this matter state: "If a film is individually packaged, use the cover images from that packaging." Just like the films in 'Bond 50', the films in 025192834622 are not individually packaged - they're packaged in groups of four and two. In the 'Bond 50' set, they're split up over two digibooks. I wouldn't call either individually packaged. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,672 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
I'm not enthusiastic about that suggestion. 'Bond 50' is a box set containing 22 films, and as such, it should be a parent profile with 22 children - there should be no additional layer in there. I actually agree with that. If the two digibooks had been available for purchase separately I would have insisted on two digibook subparents. As it is, I'm quite ok with all children under a single parent profile. But ... with that configuration the case type for the children must be Slipcase, according to the rules, even though Digibook may be more descriptive. Do you agree? | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: October 22, 2015 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 274 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, it looks like we are stymied with our options. If the child films in a box set are NOT individually packaged, you only have one option for the child profile, same case type/cover scans as the parent. |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
But ... with that configuration the case type for the children must be Slipcase, according to the rules, even though Digibook may be more descriptive. Do you agree? Yeah, I'd agree with that. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |