| Message |
Details |
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Have you compared the results to see which function that seems best in finding blurry scans? Even though the results are different, I find it hard to say that one is more efficient than the other. How about you?
There was a reasonable correlation between the two methods. Those with poor contrast and /or fewer colours were typically rated with lower variance. Back covers tended to have higher variance values than their corresponding front cover, as they had, in the main, more information (text, colours, images, contrast).
Either method is fine. The output result can be sorted from lowest to highest variance (that is, worst to best), so allows for quick identification and confirmation that the image in question is in need of fixing.
In some cases, a low variance image cannot be improved because it is mainly a dark image (or solid colour) with small variations in pixel intensities. | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 736 |
 |
SharpnessCheck ver. 1.1.0 (64-bit)
Scan 3920 profiles on Intel (Coffee Lake) i5-8600K CPU @ 3.60GHz (6 cores, no hyperthreading):
Laplacian:
(Front)
parallel tasks
6 ==> 21.86 secs
3 ==> 30.89 secs
2 ==> 43.94 secs
1 ==> 84.25 secs
(Back)
6 ==> 22.23 secs
3 ==> 30.97 secs
2 ==> 44.28 secs
1 ==> 84.46 secs
Wavelet:
(Front)
parallel tasks
6 ==> 13.18 secs
3 ==> 14.78 secs
2 ==> 17.58 secs
1 ==> 29.13 secs
(Back)
6 ==> 13.31 secs
3 ==> 14.93 secs
2 ==> 18.01 secs
1 ==> 30.09 secs
Windows resource monitor shows all processors are active, no matter how many parallel tasks are configured.
All cores at 100% when parallel tasks at 6 or more, and all cores at a lower % of activity depending on the reduced number of parallel tasks configured.
Hope that helps. | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 736 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Has the problem with adding new birth years also been fixed? I haven't been able to check. Perhaps someone that's more into birthyears can check that?
I'm not sure if this is the same problem you were describing, but I remember trying to add a new profile in June this year and the web site came back with an error message about a birth year not being allowed.
I just created an update to this profile and added the birth year and surprisingly, the web site now asks me to click a check box with this new entry and to provide additional notes verifying this change.
Is this the scenario you describe? | Posted: Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 428 |
|
| This tool (v2.0) is a Hollywood production, it works like a dream! | Posted: Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 6304 |
|
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
wow... thanks Tim... I honestly don't know how I want to vote on this one. I been going back and forth on this in my head since you posted it! 
There is already a precedent in the online database for a comic book artist being credited for OMB and OCB, and that is Jack Kirby (CAPTAIN AMERICA, ANT-MAN, AVENGERS, BLACK PANTHER, FANTASTIC FOUR, HULK, IRON MAN, THOR, X-MEN, ...).
Jack Kirby was an American comic book artist, he was not a writer. He combined with writers Stan Lee and Joe Simon to create many of the super heroes. | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 1857 |
|
Interesting credit. When it comes to screenplay adaptations, a graphic novel is no different to a comic book, the screenwriter may use the text and/or drawings to better understand/develop the story and its characters.
As such, I consider the above screen credit as a source material credit (OMB). | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 1857 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
I have a bit of a conundrum. The alternate source that I am looking at contains 128 different categories. That may be historically correct, but not very helpful. I'm wondering if one could merge some of them. For example, 22 music categories? Wouldn't "Score" and "Song" be enough? Any thoughts on which categories that could be conflated (if at all)?
May I suggest you adopt the categories listed in The Official Academy Awards Database:
https://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/?search=Basic
You can then condense the various music categories under:
• MUSIC (Scoring) <== original or adaptation (there may be multiple winners in the same year)
• MUSIC (Song) <== original or adaptation
Other categories that may be condensed:
• WRITING <== [includes original story, screenplay, original screenplay, adapted screenplay, etc.)
• PRODUCTION DESIGN <== [includes art direction, art direction (B/W), art direction (color), etc.]
• CINEMATOGRAPHY <== [includes cinematography (black-and-white), cinematography (color)]
• SOUND <== [includes Sound, Sound Recording, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, last two discontinued after 2019] | Posted: Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 6304 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Fun facts:
- The person with the most nominations has been nominated 49 times. Guess who? JOHN WILLIAMS
- One person has been nominated 17 times without winning. Who's the unlucky guy? GREG P. RUSSELL
My answer is in BOLD.
I believe the statistics for John Williams is incomplete, the nominations (up to 2023) should be 53. I double-checked other composers/song writers (such as Dimitri Tiomkin) and found "best original song" nominations were not included in the statistics - is this right? | Posted: Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 6304 |
|
| Are you referring to the 1976 computer game "Colossal Cave Adventure" which used the magic code "XYZZY" to teleport the player between two locations? | Posted: Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 6304 |
|
What a nice reference tool, reminds me of the days when I used Microsoft's Cinemania.
With regards to Thelma Ritter, it was a shame she was 6 nom./0 wins. Even worse was Glenn Close with 8/0 wins, and what about Stanley Kubrick (9/0 wins). None of these compare with sound man Greg P. Russell with 17/0 wins.
I was disappointed when I couldn't find any technical nominations for GSyren, as I believe this person deserved it! Many thanks. | Posted: Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 6304 |
|
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
In this case, I'd have to agree with the other poster based on my initial research. Here's the link to the company's registration in the UK.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC406063
In Britain, Ltd. or Limited after the company name implies it's a private limited company which means it's a limited company (have limited liability). This aligns with what is shown in the link above, where the company is a private limited company and they have the Limited after the name.
For UK companies, I treat "Limited" or "Ltd" as a company suffix.
However, in the USA, "Limited" or "Ltd." is a corporation, whilst LLC is a limited liability company.
I have seen "Ltd." as part of the American company name in film credits, such as Lucasfilm Ltd, which is the trade name owned by Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC (https://uspto.report/TM/78662806).
In this example, I would treat the American company name as "Lucasfilm Ltd." and "LLC" as the company suffix:
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/201235310073 | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 3949 |
|
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
A fun example in the same vein is the production company called "David Copperfield Disappearing Inc." I couldn't bring myself to drop the "Inc." from that one...
I got a good chuckle out of that. Indeed, it is true, David Copperfield's Disappearing, Inc. is a corporation based in Nevada (naturally).
Sadly, his Californian companies of the same name really did disappear, some say it was due to their missing tax records. | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 3949 |
|
I would list COO as: Germany-UK-France, as per Invelos rules.
• This was a European multilateral co-production film, so you should see "A German-French-UK Co-Production" credit towards the end of the film and on credit blocks and posters. This co-production credit was a mandatory requirement of Article 12 in the "European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production": https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/502395.
You will note there was no mention of United States participating in the co-production credit.
• Invelos rules state we use the film credit sequence when listing production companies and their COO, not the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production.
• I believe the film credits will show the following production company names:
________________________________________________________
A CONSTANTIN FILM/IMPACT PICTURES PRODUCTION <== (Germany/United Kingdom)
...
IN CO-PRODUCTION WITH NEF PRODUCTIONS AND NEW LEGACY FILM <== (France/United Kingdom/Germany)
AND STUDIO BABELSBERG
________________________________________________________
NOTE:
Company countries of origin were:
• Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (Germany): https://opencorporates.com/companies/de/D2601V_HRB55385
• Impact Pictures Limited (UK): https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04122251
• NEF-Productions S.A.S. (France): https://opencorporates.com/companies/fr/523333029
• New Legacy Film Limited (UK):https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04125345
• Studio Babelsberg (Germany)
For U.S. releases, Summit Entertainment was the theatrical distributor. | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 2537 |
|
I seem to remember from trivia nights these trick questions:
Who won the Academy Award for Best Picture IN [yyyy]? <== the answer referred to the Award ceremony year
Who won the Academy Award for Best Picture FOR [yyyy]? <== the answer referred to the eligibily year(s)
The film eligibility period for past Academy Award ceremony years were, I believe:
Ceremony Year / Eligibily Period
• 1929-1932:
01 Aug - 31 Jul (1st-5th Academy Awards)
The 1st Academy Awards ceremony (held May, 1929) was for films released from 01-Aug-1927 to 31-Jul-1928.
The 2nd and 3rd ceremonies were held in 1930 (02Apr and 05Nov, respectively).
• 1934:
01 Aug 1932 - 31 Dec 1933 (6th Academy Awards)
There was no award ceremony held in 1933.
• 1935-2020:
01 Jan - 31 Dec (7th-92nd Academy Awards)
• 2021:
01 Jan 2020 - 28 Feb 2021 (93rd Academy Awards - held April, 2021)
• 2022:
01 Mar 2021 - 31 Dec 2021 (94th Academy Awards)
• 2023-2025:
01 Jan - 31 Dec (95th-97th Academy Awards)
So its possible for a film to have the same release year as the award ceremony year (1930 and 2021).
It is also possible for a film to be released two years before the award ceremony year.
For example, WINGS (1927) was the best picture winner at the 1st Academy Awards (award ceremony held in 1929).
Excluding ceremonies 1929-1932 and 2021, the eligibility period ended on 31 Dec and the award ceremony occurred the followng year.
Award ceremony years whose eligibility periods spanned aross two years were 1929-1932, 1934 and 2021.
I'm not familiar with the Awards tool you are using, but you can use the above ceremony/eligibilty years to determine whether the dates shown in the tool refer to the film's release year (within the eligibility period) or the subsequent award ceremony year.
Hope that helps. | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 3152 |
|
| . | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 3152 |
|
Agree with Zappman.
The two different back covers (with same UPC) can be seen here:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=381176&page=9 | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 2976 |
|
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
Is there a rule that states the overview must be about the film?
It's very easy to find the rule pertaining to overviews of films. One might assume that the overview would be identified by it's being about the film.
Quote:
Copy the overview from the back of the DVD case exactly as written, including capitalization of words exactly as shown on the back of the case. Separate all paragraphs with a blank line.
If there is no overview on the back cover one may supply a simple, short overview.
---------------
Thanks for your response. I suppose the best way to answer my question is by example. Is the following an overview (exactly as printed on the back cover):
The star-studded epic lands onto 4K Ultra-High-Definition for the first time ever in this 3-disc set packed with bonus features and a booklet! | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 3514 |
|
In a combo set with slip cover, where both parent and child share the same slip cover scans, can the child use a different overview found on the inner cover?
Is there a rule that states the overview must be about the film?
My understanding is that the combo set parent/child share the same covers/overview and that the rule for the overview does not define what the overview is about, as long as it matches the text on the back cover. Is this correct? | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 3514 |
|
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
Both have been used in the credit block of the back covers. You should use what is listed in the credit block just like we use whatever is listed for the studio in the film credits.
I agree with that approach, however, it does not resolve the conundrum with the licensing because the 1977 copyright owner (hyphenated name) had "All Rights Reserved", which means that company had sole exclusive rights to the distribution, not the unhyphenated company name (which, if it is a legit company name, is technically, a breach of copyright). That is why I considered the "Licensed from ..." entry a mistake and placed reliance on the 1977 copyright holder (which was listed in the credit block). Does that makes sense? | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 3480 |
|
A recent contribution change was made to the media company, changing the above hyphenated name to the unhyphenated name. The home media release was in Dec, 2024 and the film was produced in 1977.
Original contribution stated that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. was both publisher/licensor, as per the © 2024, © 1977 copyrights and fine print at the bottom of the back cover.
The fine print at the bottom of the back cover was:
"© 1977 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved. Package Design © 2024 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. All Rights reserved. Licensed from Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios Inc."
The contributor based the change only on the "Licensed from ..." name, stating there was no hyphen between the M, G and M. This was approved by the screener. This change also removed the publisher credit.
The unhyphenated name on the back was a mistake (see NOTE).
So, which name should be used?
NOTE:
There is no company called "Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios Inc.", it doesn't exist, on the other hand, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. is an active Delaware corporation:
• https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_de/2359895
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 3480 |
|
I used the information printed on the front/back covers to determine the media companies.
There was no reference to Kino Lorber Studio Classics on the front/back covers.
Am I missing something here? | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5269 |
|
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
...
Disagree. Paramount Pictures isn't the publisher in this case and Paramount is only a licensor. It's Kino that is doing the publishing.
Kino Lorber Studio Classics (publisher), Paramount Home Entertainment (licensor) and Kino Lorber (distributor).
This is my understanding:
• Kino Lorber Studio Classics (aka KL Studio Classics) is not a valid company name, it is a physical media label used by Kino Lorber, which focusses on Hollywood classics. Refer "Our Story" section (2nd and 4th paragraphs): https://kinolorber.com/about
• DVD package design (which includes graphic design) is a publishing function, as it covers package construction, artwork, typography. Even "The Criterion Collection" has on their back covers a "package copyright author (media release year)", confirming their publisher role. Kino Lorber made no such claim on the packaging.
• The "Paramount Pictures" logo was on the back cover.
• The restored 3D/2D film was not a derivative work of the original film, so Kino Lorber (or 3-D Film Archive) cannot claim ownership (copyright) of the restoration work, but is licensed to distribute the restoration work. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5269 |
|
The fine print at the bottom of the back cover displayed:
DISTRIBUTED AND MARKETED BY KINO LORBER INC. UNDER EXCLUSIVE LICENSE FROM PARAMOUNT HOME ENTERTAINMENT INC. PACKAGE DESIGN © 2023 PARAMOUNT PICTURES.
Media companies: Paramount Pictures (publisher), Paramount Home Entertainment (licensor) and Kino Lorber (distributor).
I inferred that Kino Lorber commissioned the 3D/2D restoration (by 3-D Film Archive) for the release.
"3-D Film Archive LLC" may act as a media company when it owns the film (such as, The Stewardesses, 3-D Rarities).
Hope that helped. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5269 |
|
Version 2.0.3 gets an A+ mark from me, so you can safely go back to the front row of the classroom  | Posted: Topic Replies: 10, Topic Views: 9836 |
|
UPC was 5055761913002
The help file stated to just copy/paste the UPC, whereas, I manually entered the UPC into the top box and pressed the enter key. | Posted: Topic Replies: 10, Topic Views: 9836 |