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->Posts by GSyren Page: 1 2 3 ...16  Previous   Next
Message Details
CLTinfo 2.2

Change in Filters: In the previous version, filtering just excluded the profiles that didn't match the filter, but did not change the statistics. Now filtering does recalculate the statistics to only include the selected profiles.

The statistics now counts multiple credits in the same profile as one occurrence. So if someone produced 24 episodes of a TV show, they only count as one credit if they are in the same profile.

The search function has been removed since I discovered that it wouldn't work consistently in a Treeview that uses virtualization. And without virtualization the whole program would be excruciatingly slow for large data sets.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 129
You'll have to create your own report. In the reports window, click New Report. Then do something like this:



and you report will look like this:



Or put Title and UPC side by side, if you prefer that. Note that for the UPC you need to set "Show as barcode" to True, otherwise you get just the numbers.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 156
Yes, you can design a report that does that.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 156
Quoting mediadogg:
Quote:
Finally somebody figured custom views out.

It's not rocket science, it's actually exactly like designing a report.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 223
Well, I got curious, so I createed a custom view:


Like I said, it takes a bit of tinkering, trial and error, but definitely doable.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 223
I know of no way to change "View as Details", but you can always use "Custom View" and build your own view. I have never bothered with that, but I assume that you can get "Last watched" there. It takes a bit of tinkering, though.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 223
Actually ...


That's on iPad. I assume it works the same on iPhone.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 223
CLTinfo 2.1

Now with new filter function:


You can now filter on any combination of the person's crew roles, plus cast (if the person has any cast credits).
Posted:
Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 129
You can show Last Watched, but afaik not Watched By.
If you log Watched By for different persons that won't do, of course. In that case I would recommed creating a filter instead.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 223
AiAustria - you got your wish. CLTinfo supports both options for production year. (See Settings)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 535
CLTinfo 2.0



Here it is - the companion to mediadogg's CLTBoss plugin. It takes the output from CLTBoss and formats it inte an easily read format.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 129
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
I don't know how big the programmatical difference is, but from my personal (selfish) point of view it would be great to have a check box: Differentiate production years Yes/No, which toggles the counts...

I was afraid you would say that ... 
Quote:
The cross linking uses the current (flawfully - does this word exist) CLT as a definition base. Therefore amending the rules of counting denies the reason for its existence.

Isn't that exactly what the common name threads do? That's my main reason for not really liking them. And I imagine that the reason for CLTBoss/CLTinfo would be to support the common name threads, not to replace the CLT, so ... ?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 535
Sensitive subject. Ignoring valid data, leading to incorrect title count, is unacceptable. I get it. And in a perfect world I would most certainly agree. But...

This is not a perfect world, and it's not a perfect database. Not by a long shot. Several things throw off the title count, mainly misspelled titles and missing or incorrect original titles. It's impossible for a program to produce guaranteed correct title counts.

Ignoring production year will get us an undercount of titles. Using production year and ignoring the fact that it is unfortunately sometimes off by a year or more will lead to an overcount of titles. Which is worse? I believe that using production year will actually cause more errors than ignoring it would.

But as I said, I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or the other. This is one of the few programs that I don't develop for my own use, so I'll go with whatever you guys say.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 535
OK, I don't have any strong preferences myself, so unless I hear anyone else telling me the contrary I guess that I'll make year count.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 535
I was so focused on the title that I didn't consider the year.

But that raises another question. Should the year be considered? Of couse a person can be involved in two different productions with tha same title, so my initial reaction was - Yes!

But then I thought - it's more likely that a certain movie is profiled with different production years than a certain person being involved in two different movies with the same title. So ignoring the year probably yields a better result than treating them as different titles. It's just a matter of which error you prefer.

Thoughts?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 535
Ah, right, that seems more logical. Thanks!
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 535
I'm currently testing my program CTLinfo, which is a companion to mediadogg's CTLBoss. I'm a bit confused by the results I get compared to what the CLT gets when it comes to counting titles. Here is an example:





The CLT says 8 titles. I am getting 7. I suspect that the indicated profile is the "culprit". It's title is just "30 Rock: Season 2", but it has "3 disc" as edition. So it would seem that the CLT includes the edition when it counts separate titles.

This is, of course, guesswork to a fair degree. So I have a question. Can anyone confirm (or disconfirm) that this is how the CLT counts titles?

So if that's how it is done, where does it leave us? Should we say that the CLT is wrong? It is after all the "official" way of counting.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 535
While I understand T!Ms logic, by the same logic, should we not include stand-ins if they are listed. They are actors. And stunt people act as well, so why are they not included?

The argument that we should include people based on what they do rather than how they are credited seems to be a slippery slope.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 673
Quoting myself:
Quote:
Here we have 35 (!) people in a group called just "ADR Group". It doesn't actually say "voice", that's an assumption on the part of the contributor.

And it doesn't say "cast" either.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 673
Quoting Gamemaster:
Quote:
Lip sync is indeed not necessary, but they do provide the voices for that crowd and in my opinion that meets the requirement for the non-specific voice credits as stated by Ken.

Right, but why would they be credites as ADR if they're not lip syncing?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 673
Quoting Gamemaster:
Quote:
With such large groups there are probably scenes with large crowds, like a full restaurant or a big battle etc.

They would hardly need to lipsync large crowds, would they?

Quote:
I totally agree with T!M and with Ken's statement I think it's pretty clear there's a reason for not adding them or removing them.

A reason for not adding them? I don't think T!M or Ken suggested that. 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 673
Well, I guess I'll have to accept it as cast. Here is an observations, though:

ADR is not just additional voices. ADR is lip syncing dialog, most often used for scenes shot on location where the production sound isn't good enough. In most cases the onscreen actors will do their own ADR, unless they are unavailable for some reason.

Here we have 35 (!) people in a group called just "ADR Group". It doesn't actually say "voice", that's an assumption on the part of the contributor. A fairly reasonable assumption, given that there are other specific ADR crew roles listed before the group, but still an assumption.

The question in my mind is - why would they need 35 additional voice artists doing lip syncing?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 673
Long topic that, but unless I missed something, ADR was not specifically mentioned. So are we to take that "ADR Group" when listed together with the rest of the ADR credits is the same as "Additional Voices"? Sounds rather similar, but I'm no expert.

Too bad Ken can't (or won't) chip in here.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 673
There's a contribution that adds a whole group of ADR voices for The Chronicles of Riddick. While I understand the thought, I'm not sure I agree that they belong in Cast.

I must admit that I have never seen such credits before, but in my mind they are comparable to stunt performers; performers not identifiable with a certain role. IMDb lists them as crew, together with the rest of the ADR crew.

So, what do you think - cast or not cast?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 673
I also agree with huskersports.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 327
Invelos Forums->Posts by GSyren Page: 1 2 3 ...16  Previous   Next