| Author |
Message |
 | kd5 | | SciFi/Fantasy/Horror Geek |
| Registered: May 24, 2010 |  Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | It would be nice if we could have child profiles independent of different releases. For example:
I recently purchased Back to the Future: 25th Anniversary Trilogy on blu-ray, UPC# 025192-095559, the cover was a scan that was not up to par with typical DVD Profiler standards, not to mention the child profile images were of an entirely different set (UPC# 025192-049491) so I submitted improved cover images for the parent profile and each of the 3 child profiles. The child profile images were voted down because it would change the images for their child profiles as well, which is an entirely different set, different UPC # and everything.
I don't for the life of me understand why the child profile images are interchangeable between wholly different releases. I could see if the UPC's were the same but these are entirely different sets.
A feature request I would like to make is to have child profile images/profiles independent of different releases where an entirely different UPC is involved. | | | | Time is the fire in which we burn. (Soran) | | | | Last edited: by kd5 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,744 |
| | Posted: | | | | Because a child profile in itself is still identified by a UPC or DiscID and a locality. It is however not defined by the parent it is attached to. The parent-child feature is just a convenient way to group profiles together but it has no influence on the actual ID. Hence, you can have only one child profile with the same ID, even if it is assigned to different UPC box sets. See this thread as well. | | | Karsten
DVD Collectors Online
 |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | I guess first of all you'd have to understand how DVDProfiler distinguishes between different profiles:
DVDProfiler knows exactly two profile-identifiers for its maindatabase
1) EAN / UPC
2) Disc-ID
In combination with the locality you get a unique identifier.
It quite often happens that distributors re-release discs in other packages and/or boxsets so that it can happen that the cover you have in hand doesn't match the cover in the database.
In so far every profile in the database is already "independent of the original release" since it can be attached to any other profile as Child-Profile.
You just must not change the original data (First Release rule).
In your local database you can do whatever you like though. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
DVDProfiler knows exactly two profile-identifiers for its maindatabase
1) EAN / UPC
2) Disc-ID
3) Manual Profile ID --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,744 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting Lewis_Prothero:
Quote:
DVDProfiler knows exactly two profile-identifiers for its maindatabase
1) EAN / UPC
2) Disc-ID
3) Manual Profile ID
--------------- not for the main (i.e. online) database. | | | Karsten
DVD Collectors Online
|
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DJ Doena: Quote:
not for the main (i.e. online) database. Well, no. But my database is full of them.  --------------- |
|
| kd5 | | SciFi/Fantasy/Horror Geek |
| Registered: May 24, 2010 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, my database is correct as per the releases that I have in my collection, but my online database has a multitude of incorrect covers (inconsistencies with my main database) because no custom cover data will transfer to the online database. So I suppose my feature request should have been that custom covers could transfer to an individual's online datbase. Other custom information will transfer (as per my online database), why not custom covers? | | | | Time is the fire in which we burn. (Soran) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kd5: Quote:
Well, my database is correct as per the releases that I have in my collection, but my online database has a multitude of incorrect covers (inconsistencies with my main database) because no custom cover data will transfer to the online database. So I suppose my feature request should have been that custom covers could transfer to an individual's online datbase. Other custom information will transfer (as per my online database), why not custom covers? My guess is it is due to server space. Custom data takes up far less space than custom covers would. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | I guess what this boils down to is the old feature request to allow for alternative covers in the on-line database such as used for re-releases. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
My guess is it is due to server space. Custom data takes up far less space than custom covers would. I find that hard to believe. If all covers in present db take max 250GB disc space and the need for custom covers is max 10% it would only mean 25GB increase. In modern servers that's nothing. |
|
| kd5 | | SciFi/Fantasy/Horror Geek |
| Registered: May 24, 2010 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
My guess is it is due to server space. Custom data takes up far less space than custom covers would. I can't see how it would make that much, if any difference. Images are images unless they're god-awfully huge. I would think it would pretty much even out in the end. | | | | Time is the fire in which we burn. (Soran) |
|
| kd5 | | SciFi/Fantasy/Horror Geek |
| Registered: May 24, 2010 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting dee1959jay: Quote:
I guess what this boils down to is the old feature request to allow for alternative covers in the on-line database such as used for re-releases. Yes, exactly, but for child profiles as well as parent profiles. | | | | Time is the fire in which we burn. (Soran) |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | Absolutely, and you have my full support. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 485 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
My guess is it is due to server space. Custom data takes up far less space than custom covers would.
I find that hard to believe. If all covers in present db take max 250GB disc space and the need for custom covers is max 10% it would only mean 25GB increase. In modern servers that's nothing. It used to be different; terabyte disks are only a recent invention (commercially available at reasonable prices for about 3 to 4 years now, I think). Sub-terabyte disks are still available en masse in retail shops. This request pops up every now and then. I think it was in the Intervocative days (before 2007) that I saw it discussed at length the last time. In those days, 25 GB (Kulju's estimate, not mine) would have been really large if not prohibitive. It is not only storage; Invelos also has to think of the possibly larger bandwidth required. That said, with todays hardware the promised online upgrades (Invelos said that or implied it during the server upgrade some weeks ago), it could be added to the feature request list for 3.x and/or 4.x. | | | Eric
If it is important, say it. Otherwise, let silence speak. |
|
| kd5 | | SciFi/Fantasy/Horror Geek |
| Registered: May 24, 2010 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | I changed the title of this thread to reflect how the subject matter changed during the course of the conversation. | | | | Time is the fire in which we burn. (Soran) | | | | Last edited: by kd5 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting eommen: Quote:
It used to be different; terabyte disks are only a recent invention (commercially available at reasonable prices for about 3 to 4 years now, I think). Sub-terabyte disks are still available en masse in retail shops. Yes, I know how it used to be, but it's 2013 now and that just isn't a valid excuse anymore. I've built a several terabyte RAID groups +10 years ago but the you couldn't call it a "reasonable price" back then.  Quote:
In those days, 25 GB (Kulju's estimate, not mine) would have been really large if not prohibitive. I believe that 25GB is an over estimation. Quote:
It is not only storage; Invelos also has to think of the possibly larger bandwidth required. What does the bandwidth has to do with this? It takes exactly the same amout of bandwidth to up- or download 400KB cover scans A or B. | | | | Last edited: by Kulju |
|