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 ObiKen Page: 1 2  Previous   Next
Message Details
Excluding bonus feature films, my understanding is that "checking multiple media types" flags the profile as a "combo set" and ALLOWS the creation of OPTIONAL child profiles in a standard main feature profile.  Don't check them then you cannot create a child profile.

With regards to normal profile and bonus material, my understanding is it is limited to the following types:
- standard single main feature profile for a SINGLE disc with main feature/bonus material.
- standard 2-Disc set single main feature profile with main feature/bonus material on disc 1 and bonus material ONLY on disc 2.

A combo set is neither a box set nor does it contain a "bonus feature film".

It cannot be treated as a 2-Disc set because the second disk is not bonus material ONLY, it comprises a "main feature" with bonus material and is subject to its own profile (which is optional in the combo set rules).

In the case of a 4K/Blu-ray combo set, the bonus material found on the Blu-ray disc is associated to the main feature found on the Blu-ray disc and would be subject to the standard rules for any single main feature profile.

So that leaves the 4K disc to be subject to a standard single main feature profile on a single disc, which is exactly what is written in the combo set rules.

Primetime21's understanding of the combo set rules is correct.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 262
I thought Ken Cole's definitions were covering outer SLIP types for box sets, in which case, they are straight-forward and simple to implement and eliminate the need to discuss/interpret the physical construction and extraction methods of the outer slip enclosure.

Put simply:
- the outer slip enclosure for a box set is a SLIP COVER if there is only one inner enclosure type.
- the outer slip enclosure for a box set is a SLIP CASE if there are two or more inner enclosure types.


But the original question posed by GSyren was for a non-box set profile that contained a single digipak with an outer enclosure whose slip type (Cover or Case) was being debated.

Some people view the physical attributes of the outer slip enclosure as the determining factor for selecting slip case, whereas Ken Cole's definitions are physically neutral, it doesn't matter whether it is cardboard, paper, has one opening or two, slides over the top/bottom or slides side-to-side or into.

For me, Ken Cole's definition for a SLIP COVER is equally consistent for non-box set scenarios as well.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 26, Topic Views: 562
I agree that multiple short films should not be considered as "Episodes", rather, they are distinct films.

I also agree that multiple short theatrical films on a single disc are a box set and we have to create profiles for each film. 

But hang on, we cannot create alternate Disc IDs for short films.

So, the question is, how do we adhere to both rules at the same time?

As everyone has suggested, we create a single Disc ID profile, but the point being discussed is on the use of episode dividers with references to the TV set rule, which MadMartian has pointed out, is not applicable.

On the other hand, the standard rule for DIVIDERS states you can use Episode dividers for TV show episodes, distinct films, or other logical episodic distinction.

So my recommendation is to do what CubbyUps said, plus list the short film titles in the overview.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 2978
I agree with scotthm, we must follow the rules.

However, what I am suggesting is, we use the copyright information in the film's credit, if no other screen credits exist to identify a production company.

The copyright owner of a film was either the producer or a production company.

Hughes Productions was listed in the opening credits of "The Outlaw" at the 46 second mark as the film's copyright owner.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 19, Topic Views: 1077
I agree with your observations and empathise with your dilemma.

However, there's an old adage about databases, garbage in, garbage out, so leave it out if you can't verify the accuracy of your data.

Researching takes some time which most people don't have.

For example, in the case of American films, particularly older films, I will often refer to the American Film Institute (AFI) Catalog of Feature Films (1893-1993) and then corroborate with another entity, such as IMDB or Wikipedia.

For the film, The Outlaw, I also looked up the Library of Congress Catalog of Copyright Entries: Cumulative Series. Motion Pictures 1940–1949 (https://archive.org/details/motionpict19401949librrich/page/n5) and found the following entry on page 306:
_______________________________________
THE OUTLAW. Released through United
Artists, c1941. Presented by Howard
Hughes. 115 min., sd.
Credits: Director, Howard Hughes;
screenplay, Jules Furthman; music direc-
tor, Victor Young; photographer, Gregg
Toland; film editor, Wallace Grissell.
© Hughes Productions; 15Feb41; LP177.
_______________________________________

Since both AFI and IMDB list "Hughes Productions" in the production company credits:
AFI ==> https://catalog.afi.com/Film/603-THE-OUTLAW?sid=dc7acdb5-9043-4418-a5c2-403a78b60641&sr=8.778264&cp=1&pos=1
IMDB ==> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036241/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co

and the original copyright holder was Hughes Productions, I would submit "Hughes Productions" in the profile as the production company for the film.

Hope that helps you in some way.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 19, Topic Views: 1077
I believe the original copyright version displayed "Hughes Productions" in the credits and was released by RKO Radio Pictures/United Artists Corporation.

A Public Domain version of a movie would probably redact any credit references to the original production companies that held copyright. In the case of The Outlaw, the film went into public domain in 1971 when the copyright was not renewed.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 19, Topic Views: 1077
Ran mediagogg's DVDInfo (1.05) program (don't have AnyDVD) and got the same new DiscIDs as DVDP on Win10 ver 1903 (not unexpected, as his program was based on Microsoft's DIRECTSHOW API).

I thought AnyDVD was the culprit in the past and it was solved when they created a registry setting to  white-list DVDP to allow the GetDiscID call to retrieve the correct DiscID.

Subsequently checked AnyDVD's change log (https://www.redfox.bz/download/changes_anydvd.txt) and I found AnyDVD fixed the discrepancy with DiscIDs in AnyDVD version 6.3.1.2 (23-Jan-2008), in particular:

- New (DVD): Added hooking of the IDvdInfo2::GetDiscID interface. All 32-bit
  applications which use DiscIDs will retrieve the correct DiscID, even if
  AnyDVD is running (e.g., Windows MCE 2005, Windows Media Player, Invelos
  DVD Profiler, MyMovies, etc.)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 88, Topic Views: 4562
New Disc-ID profiles created under Win10 ver 1809 or later do show up in the "Add DVD by Disc ID" screen.

However, any new DiscID added to a UPC profile does NOT currently show up in the "Add DVD by Disc ID" screen.

At the moment, under Win10 1809 or later with no AnyDVD software running, no DVD Disc-ID (old or new) will show up in the "Add DVD by Disc ID" screen, unless there is a matching new Disc-ID profile.

Why, because DVDP re-calculates the new Disc-ID every time it reads the disc before searching for the profile..

I can't explain at the moment why DVDP disconnects the matching UPC profiles with new DiscID in the "Add DVD by Disc ID" screen, but I suspect that is more a programming issue rather than a cdrom.sys issue.

With regards to how DVDP calculates the DVD Disc-ID, I can confirm it makes a programming call to Microsoft's DIRECTSHOW API "DVD Navigator source filter" using the "IDvdInfo2::GetDiscID" method, which retrieves a system-generated 64-bit unique identification number for the DVD.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 88, Topic Views: 4562
That may be true for artistic makeup artists, but the work and responsibilities of a movie makeup artist are different and can be constrained by film production contracts and union rules.

A movie makeup artist applies cosmetics from the top of the head to the top of the breastbone, from fingertips to wrists and from toes to ankles. A movie body makeup artist applies cosmetics to any area of the body that a regular movie makeup artist cannot:
https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-make-up-artist1.htm

In particular, the Makeup Artists & Hair Sylists Guild (http://www.local706.org/rules-regulations/) defines makeup as:
"any change in the appearance of a performer’s face or body created by the application of cosmetics, facial hair goods, and/or prosthetic appliances applied directly to the performer’s face or body."

The Makeup Artist Guild also further defined the use of prosthetics in makeup:
"Prosthetics are any three-dimensional appliances, including transfers, that have been prepared in advance from a mold and applied to the actors to change his/her appearance and to give character to the make-up.  It could be as small as a scar or wound, or as large as full facial pieces, and/or body parts, or bald caps."

So, my thoughts now are, "Body Makeup Artist" is a "Makeup Artist".

However, as GSyren rightly pointed out, there is no matching "Credited As" for "Body Makeup Artist" in the current rules for Make-up Artist 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 638
mreeder50 is correct with the role descriptions.

There are four different types of movie makeup artist roles:

1. Key makeup artist - responsible for designing/applying makeup to lead roles and supervising/delegating subordinate makeup artists.
2. Makeup artist - responsible for applying makeup to non-lead roles and extras based on Key makeup artist's designs.
3. Makeup assistant - organize makeup kits and assist makeup artists with body makeup (such as tatoos or body painting).
4. Special effects makeup artists - responsible for any special makeup effects using either makeup/prosthetics to reproduce wounds, deformities, wrinkles, etc.

However, it's not easy to determine whether body makeup credit is a makeup SFX effect or a makeup artist/assistant role.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 638
Suggest you try Dolby Digital Plus and choose 7.1
Posted:
Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 377
Just upgraded PC from Win 10 Ver 1809 ==> Ver 1903 today.

New CDROM.SYS version = 10.0.18362.1 (169 KB).

Tested various DVDs, BDs and 4Ks with the following results:

4K = OK.
BD = OK.
DVD = same Disc IDs as Version 1809.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 88, Topic Views: 4562
I don't own the set but I have downloaded the profiles and studied them, so here are my thoughts.

The individual profiles are setup as follows:
- Box set  UPC#  (X-Men: 3-Film Collection)
- Alternate UPC#1 (X-Men)
- Alternate UPC#2 (X-Men 2)
- Alternate UPC#3 (X-Men: The Last Stand)

All the profiles have 4K/Blu-ray media type ticked.
All alternate profiles have missing Disc IDs and same covers as Box Set.
Box set contents is blank.
Box set is Digipak with slipcover and Alternates are Digibook.

On the surface, this appears to be a box set containing three (3) different films, but each film is available on both 4K and Blu-ray discs.  In other words, it's a box set containing three combo sets.

I believe the alternate profiles are invalid for the following reasons:

- firstly, the Box Set rules only allows alternate profiles for the scenario when more than one film is on the same side of single disc, there is no mention of alternative profile creation for each film on a single disc with the box set.

- secondly, the rules state we use alternate versions in three scenarios:
1. updated re-release of a title with same UPC/EAN/Disc ID
2. unrelated releases of different titles that share the same UPC/EAN
3. more than one film on same side of single disc

Option 1 is not applicable in our case.
Option 2 is not applicable as the different titles were related by virtue of being in the same release (box set).
Option 3 is not applicable in our case.

I would recommend you go ahead and create the profiles in accordance with the box set/combo set rules. In particular, I would focus on the 4K film discs first, as the Blu-ray disc child profile is optional (as per the combo set rules).

So you should end up with something like this, three 4K childs plus (optional) three Blu-ray grand-childs:
Parent
|--> 4K
|    |- Blu (optional)
|
|--> 4K
|    |- Blu (optional)
|
|--> 4K
      |- Blu (optional)


Some may suggest you add a separate profile for each disc in the box set, that is, you have six child profiles, but I am of the opinion the combo set rule overrules this suggestion.  Just my two cents.

Hope that helps.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 3, Topic Views: 586
Unfortunately, the LASER Model BD10803D is now discontinued and no stock is available:
https://www.laserco.com.au/BLU-BD10803D-blu-ray-player-bd-live-hdmi-3d-3-year-warranty

There are a couple of DVD region free Blu-ray players (non-3D support and set to Region B only) from TEAC and Pioneer, but they are an inferior option compared to the multi region LASER 3000 model.

Other than that, your only option is to buy a professionally modified Blu-ray 3D player.

And don't forget the life-span of your video platform as 3D support in TVs has nearly vanished.

Good luck in your quest.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 1747
Here are my thoughts on the matter, hope it helps.

COMBO SET
To answer CubbyUps original combo pack question, a set containing the same film on multiple media types (that is, a combo set) can only have child Disc ID profiles.

Any combo set profile with a UPC# child profile is invalid and should be removed and replaced with the correct child Disc ID profile (as per the combo set rules).

Checklist:
If the Disc ID already exists in a different profile for the same locality, then create an ALTERNATE Disc ID profile using the combo set parent cover.
If this Disc ID doesn't exist, then create a new Disc ID profile for the same locality using the combo set parent cover.


BOX SET
On the other hand, if we are talking about box sets, then the box set rules are quite straight forward.
The child profiles can be UPC# or Disc ID, and if they are individually packaged, you use the cover images from the UPC# or Disc ID packaging (as per the box set rules).

Here is a checklist I use to help construct the box set child profiles -

BOX SET UPC# CHILD:
With individual packaging:
1. If the UPC# profile already exists in the same locality and the cover scans are the SAME then there is no further work, just add it to the box set using the UPC# covers.
2. If the UPC# profile already exists in the same locality and the cover scans are significantly DIFFERENT then create an ALTERNATE UPC# profile and add it to the box set using the new UPC# covers.
3. If the UPC# doesn't exist in the same locality, then create new UPC# profile and add it to the box set using the new UPC# covers.

Without individual packaging:
4. Not applicable (no covers = no UPC#).


BOX SET DISC-ID CHILD:
With individual packaging:
5. If the Disc ID profile already exists in the same locality and the cover scans are the SAME, then just add it to the box set using the Disc ID covers.
6. If the Disc ID profile already exists in the same locality and the cover scans are significantly DIFFERENT, then create ALTERNATE Disc ID profile using new Disc ID covers.
7. If the Disc ID profile doesn't exist in the same locality, then create new Disc ID profile using the new Disc ID covers.

Without individual packaging:
8. If the Disc ID profile already exists in a different profile for the same locality, then create ALTERNATE Disc ID profile using box set parent covers.
9. If the Disc ID profile doesn't exist in the same locality, then create new Disc ID profile using the box set parent covers.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 860
It would have been much cheaper had you got the multi-region (Blu-ray and DVD) LASER Model BD-3000 from BigW or The Good Guys at $99.00 (AUD).

The company's web site for the product is here:
https://www.laserco.com.au/audio-visual/dvd-and-blu-ray-players/BLU-BD3000-blu-ray-player-multi-region-hdmi-digital-7-1-with-lan-for-bdlive
Posted:
Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 1747
The visual image may be striking or empowering, but its the music that stirs the emotions and creates tension.

Even the silent movies of the past had a piano player!

Give me Stanley Kubrick's "2001 - A Space Odyssey" with the music any day!

Done well, film music should be felt, not heard.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 1649
In order to gauge how capable your PC setup is for Blu-ray playback, I would suggest you download Cyberlink's Ultra HD Blu-ray advisor software tool:
https://www.cyberlink.com/prog/bd-support/diagnosis.do

Install the downloaded software and click on the "Blu-ray Disc" button.

It will check you setup and produce a table of results, and if everything is OK, you will see something like this:

Minimum Requirements                      Result

Windows 7 or above                            Pass
4 GB System Memory                          Pass
AVC/MPEG-2/VC-1 Codec (GPU)            Pass
HDCP (GPU/Display)                            Pass
Blu-ray Optical Disc Drive                    Pass
Windows Media Player 9 or above        Pass
Dual Video Hardware Decoding (GPU)  Pass

Please remember, this test assumes your are using HDMI connecting HDCP compliant hardware (say, GPU <==> Monitor).

You don't say which video connectors are being used (VGA or DVI) and if it is VGA to VGA, have you tried connecting using the DVI (monitor) to DVI (PC)?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 745
Katatonia:
Not being a box set could be the reason why the 4K + Blu-ray Bonus disc are treated as a normal 2-disc profile with optional child profile for the Blu-ray feature disc.

Just my thoughts.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 17, Topic Views: 2326
Seems to me there is some misconception of what is a film production company?

What is the connection between a film production company and a film investment company?

Historically, a key task performed by an independent production company was securing funds for the movie production. The funds covered all facets of film production, from development, pre-production, production (principal photography), post-production and distribution.  Acquiring finances and trading off components of the film's revenue stream was an on-going and complex task for the producer.

Typically in the past, an independent production company would secure funds using either its own money (from profits earned in previous productions) or obtain funds using debt finance (loans), equity finance (cash) or selling distribution rights (domestic and international). Either way, the company ended up exposing themselves to financial risk.

Over the last twenty to thirty years, film financing has become more complex, with large investment companies targeting movies for investment.

To mitigate risk, the large investment companies would enter a deal with a big studio to fund not just one movie, but a slate of movies of around 10-40 movies over a period of several years. Investors were either PASSIVE (use my money, no questions asked) or ACTIVE (use my money and I will question how it is used).

As a result, studios acquired several production companies as subsidiaries, whose job was to develop ideas, stories and scripts for movies and if green-lit by the studio, be given the funds (from the studio and investment company) to produce it.

So in-house production companies (a subsidiary company to the studio) had a significant advantage over independent production companies because their time spent in securing funds was essentially eliminated, and producers were freed up to focus on other production plans and activities.

Investment company(s) had, in effect, performed a key production company task, and as a consequence, are acknowledged in the credits as a production company with the attribute "in association with" to denote their financial role in the production process.

The Wikipedia link from DJ Doena and the IMDb rule for Production companies link from me, both corroborate companies with the credit attribute "in association with" as production companies.  No one has repudiated these links as invalid.

The significance of not having to secure funds for each movie production was significant for the producers of WORKING TITLE, a subsidiary production company owned by Universal.

In an interview with The Guardian in 2005, both producers (Eric Fellner and Tim Bevan) stated that as independent producers, they spent 5% of their time developing a script, 5% of their time finding a director and then spend 90% of the time juggling deals to finance the film. Read the following interview and note how the quality of their movies improved once their production company was freed of the onerous task of securing funds for each movie:
(https://www.theguardian.com/film/2005/apr/16/business.hayfilmfestival2005).

So if the producers of WORKING TITLE believe that film funding was an important and time-consuming task of the production company when making a movie, how can the point of view that "producing a film and funding a film are different jobs" have any merit?

Applying T!M's interpretation to the opening credits I posted on Feb 24 for First Man (2018) and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) would lead to nonsensical results, namely, no production companies and CoO left blank for both movies.

Appears there are two solutions on offer at the moment, one that is consistent with Wikipedia and IMDb interpretation, and the other based on personal point of view.

T!M, there may not be a perfect solution, but that should not stop us from seeking a better solution and the one you propose is unsubstantiated and leads to erroneous interpretations.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 2705
Thanks AiAustria, it was just a thought.

What about IMDb, can we use the list of Production companies for each movie to verify whether the theatrical release studios were also production companies?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 2705
Here's a suggestion, can we use the animated company logos before the opening credits to verify the company is a production company?

Read the following link for a detailed history on the so-called vanity logos:
http://flavorwire.com/586204/why-are-there-so-damn-many-production-company-logo-animations-before-movies
Posted:
Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 2705
T!M, re your post on 2nd March:

My initial interpretation for CoO was made before finding the Screen Australia screen credit document, and in hindsight, I'm starting to wonder whether some of the theatrical release studios/companies are, in fact, production companies as well.

The point of the Screen Australia document was to illustrate what a particular government film investment agency does to obtain credit for their contribution. I neither stated nor implied it was a reference framework used by other companies.

Using Screen Australia's credit policy to interpret the opening credits would be valid if one of the hypothetical companies in your example was Screen Australia. So if you find a movie with Screen Australia credited as a production company, you have a reference to make some sense of the credits.

But what I found educational from this document was that:
- screen credit billing (pecking order) was based on financial funding levels and,
- different credit attributes were used to signify relative levels of financial contribution.


For those who still find it difficult to accept investment companies as production companies, check out this IMDb help screen on Companies data: (https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/industry-professional/companies-data/GM45NQ429VURNCSG?ref_=helpms_helpart_inline#)

Scroll down till you find the section titled "Production companies" and you will note the following line:
'Production companies include all financing entities. Common variants, like "in association with" or "participating" can be noted as attributes.'


So my revised interpretation for your original example is:
Company A = Theatrical Release Studio (and may or may not be a production company*)
Company B = Theatrical Release Studio (and may or may not be a production company*)
Company C = Production Company
Company D = Production Company

So CoO could potentially be A*, B*, C and D (in that order, as per the rules).

* subject to verification using other screen credits (pre-opening, end) or reputable reference(s).

I'm still thinking about the verification process and I'm open to suggestions.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 2705
Correct, that is what I wrote on Feb 23 and Feb 24.

They are still viewed as production companies because their investment resulted in the production of a product called a movie.

There is one fundamental rule for movie production:
  NO money ==> NO movie
Posted:
Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 2705
By industry standard, I mean the criteria followed by an industry to carry out an operation in their specific area of production.  For the movie industry, the generally accepted practice of displaying opening credits in a certain sequence is the practice that is followed by many members of the film industry.

In addition to DJ Doena's wikipedia reference above, the following online references explain the use of "in association with" in the opening credits:

https://newenglandfilm.com/magazine/2012/08/credits
https://web.archive.org/web/20101220075448/http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/1998/10/09feature.html

The only hard evidence I found regarding credit requirements from a production company came from Screen Australia:
https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/22a9d5e5-61ef-4abc-9d66-a6bcc4f4a17a/Screen-Australia-Credits-Policy.pdf

This document titled "Production Credit Policy - October 2018" describes in detail how the government investment agency, Screen Australia, should be credited in films (and other media).

In particular, it defines when and where it should be credited in the opening credits and what text should be used depending on how large their investment was compared to other investors. :
For Tier 1 (largest funder): Screen Australia and [other Tier 1 funders] present
For Tier 2 (2nd largest):    In association with Screen Australia and [other Tier 2]
For Tier 3 (3rd largest):    With support from Screen Australia and [other Tier 3]
For Tier 4 (4th largest):    With Screen Australia and [other Tier 4]

And this is just one production company negotiating its opening credits in a film (and don't forget there is also pre-presentation and closing credits that need to be negotiated).  Add unions and other company lawyers into the mix and you get credits that seem to go on for ever.

Please note Screen Australia has nothing to do with theatrical film distribution.

For Scottm:
Copyright is very important, more so from the Producer's point of view in securing funds for the film.  If the producer can lock-down all copyright/intellectual property issues early, it makes selling the movie production to potential investors that much easier.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 2705
Invelos Forums->Posts by ObiKen Page: 1 2  Previous   Next