| Message |
Details |
Maybe check to see what plug-ins you have installed and disable them. You could try adding them back one by one to see if a particular plug-in is causing issues.
DVDP loads faster for me on Win11. | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 101 |
 |
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
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
KLSC is similar to The Criterion Collection's Eclipse label except they focus on the most popular hollywood classics for home video.
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
• 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 studios aren't publishing these titles though they retain the copyrights to any artwork created. Even if a label pays for a 4K restoration, the copyright holder maintains the rights to that new work. However, KLSC is the one that is publishing this new media, not the studio. KL is the one assemblying, paying for, and putting together this release and therefore publishing this specific release.
Some labels don't include a statement such as "under exclusive license from..." or "licensed from..." but that doesn't mean there is no licensor.
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
• The "Paramount Pictures" logo was on the back cover.
The Paramount Pictures logo is on the back cover because they are the studio and copyright holder of the film. It's quite common to include the logos of the studios and production companies on the back artwork regardless as to who is publishing the media. In this case Paramount Pictures is both the production company and the theatrical release studio.
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
• 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.
Agree. KL is the distributor of this media release. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 305 |
|
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
I believe they do film preservation, but I don't think they're a licensor or publisher. You can read a bit about their work here.
---------------
Agree. 3-D Film Archive focuses on film preservation of 3-D films and partners with other publishers to release those restorations on media. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 305 |
|
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
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.
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). | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 305 |
|
Quoting ccla:
Quote:
Movie_madness,
May I ask what you use to create the interface for your DB? I am pretty good at designing databases and sql programming, but it’s been a while since I prigrammed a front end. What I end up doing is using Access as a front end, but that can be limiting. I used to use Delphi ages ago, but again not sure what is available today.
claudio
He's mentioned that Microsoft Office is required so my guess is Microsoft Access. | Posted: Topic Replies: 99, Topic Views: 37453 |
|
Quoting dobrzpe:
Quote:
honestly, it was when i first got the program back in 2006 - and it wasn't obvious to me why they were declined, but there was NO cast or crew info. i was NOT about to type all that info in manually! LOL! i'm SURE there were 'rules' i hadn't followed, otherwise why would they all be rejected, right? i just remember not knowing back then what i had done improperly. it was basically disc ID, name, year, runtime, cover, and synopsis. (if i recall correctly...) you know, just enough basic info to get the title in the database. but, like i said, it wasn't obvious why they were getting rejected, and it was pretty few and far between to even HAVE to contribute back then! it's fine, i guess. it just sucks to put in all this work for myself and NOT be able to contribute.
and what makes it even MORE stupid: NOW I CAN'T! (because i've filled in missing info with CastCrewEdit2...)
right?
What's the primary country of the profiles you were contributing? There should have been some kind of reason in the No votes to help you ascertain what the issues were.
However, you could still contribute today, just don't check off the cast and crew when submitting a profile. | Posted: Topic Replies: 25, Topic Views: 4105 |
|
Quoting dobrzpe:
Quote:
yea. you are correct. and it SUCKS, doesn't it?? i can't remember how many i profiles i've submitted, but i can tell you that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of them were rejected. after a while, being told "NO" over and over, i stopped trying. and now NO ONE gets ANY benefit of the effort i've put in for the better part of two decades! and that SUCKS.
And why was that? I'm assuming you're specifically referring to cast and crew data. I've submitted lots of updates over the past two decades and have rarely had issues. | Posted: Topic Replies: 25, Topic Views: 4105 |
|
Ah, I know where this is coming from since I submitted that change. I can go back and look as I don't remember the specifics off the top of my head. But from my experience, it's much less common for a crew member to be listed twice in the credits (opening and closing). A lot of times the screenplay, writer, producer, DoP, composer, film editor, director, etc. are listed in the opening credits but not the closing. When the opening credits are lacking those credits then they're in the closing credits.
I went back and looked at the guidelines and for crew, unlike the cast, it only states "Take Crew Credits from the film credits only".
How common is it for a crew member to be listed twice in both the opening and closing credits? At least from my experience, I don't think it happens all that often. | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 670 |
|
Quoting cmoney:
Quote:
But there's no real way to submit it if there's no UPC and if you don't have a drive to get a disc ID, is there?
Nope. You'd need the disc ID. | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 1096 |
|
| List her common name which is Ellen. | Posted: Topic Replies: 10, Topic Views: 1630 |
|
| Yeah, I think those easter eggs on the new Panic Room 4K were original easter eggs that were hidden on the DVD release which they're now providing as extras. | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 606 |
|
Quoting Metalollie:
Quote:
I noticed a few days ago that the profile refresh seems to be working fine now, without the need for the CTRL key. Is this correct or is it not refreshing properly and just giving the impression it is?!
Yes, the incremental update is now working. It's been working now for approx. a month. | Posted: Topic Replies: 87, Topic Views: 22363 |
|
Quoting Re-Animator:
Quote:
Quoting Re-Animator:
Quote:
According to the overview "Owned" I have 3,229 movies, but in the list overview I have 3,230.
Where is the error and how do I find it?
This is what i mean. <-- (use Link)
Re-Animator
The number assigned to a profile is static. However, one of those main profile entries might have the "count as" set to zero. You could try sorting by "Count As" to see if you have any entries set to 0 instead of 1. | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 2014 |
|
Quoting dobrzpe:
Quote:
yea, but you are failing to realize: i bet people (MYSELF INCLUDED) would rather have info in the profile than NO INFO WHATSOEVER. i, too, have been using it since it was Invocative. i've submitted several profiles back in the day and they were rejected. so i said to myself, fine - i won't help out. now, for the last 18+ years, if it's not in the database, i have to go through the pain of putting in BASIC info and cover image myself. (no cast info, which REALLY sucks...)
i'd just be nice to have the info there, THEN if someone sees a mistake, and wants to fix it - GO FOR IT!
pulling from IMDB or even TMDB would be better than NOTHING.
It's a user contributed database and we all go through that with the database. If you're not contributing then it means someone else would have to. It doesn't help if more people choose not to contribute and just take from the system. | Posted: Topic Replies: 25, Topic Views: 4105 |
|
Is the item still in print? There's not one single site, the distributor, or label, could be a good reference as long as the item hasn't had a SRP reduction. Otherwise, I attempt to go back and find a press release for the item. You can also try using one of the Alliance Entertainment listings if all else fails and the item is still in print.
I avoid using Amazon (and Blu-ray.com by extension since they just use Amazon data) since Amazon is notorious for having wrong SRPs or making up their own with their price fixing.
If you mention the title, I could attempt to see if I can find the original SRP too for you. | Posted: Topic Replies: 1, Topic Views: 657 |
|
| 760137153900 is for the Blu-ray release whereas 760137153887 is for the 4K. Are you sure you have the 4K? | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 913 |
|
Quoting Clark G. Flipper:
Quote:
It says "premature end of file" or some such thing, I don't have the exact phrase now.
Try deleting the OnlineList.dod and OnlineListSel.dod files, restart, and try the download again. | Posted: Topic Replies: 87, Topic Views: 22363 |
|
| Uncheck the "download profile from Invelos" checkbox. Another option would be to download one of the existing profiles and then create an alternate profile by going to DVD -> Change UPC/Locality ->Select/Create Alternate Profile (right arrow). | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 1543 |
|
Quoting cassiusdrow:
Quote:
The "No" voters said the covers were already correct and that I should create an alternate version.
The disc ID is shared with "A Clockwork Orange: Anniversary Edition" (883929-157761), but the existing scans are also wrong for that release according to the contribution rules.
Since the existing cover scans are from the "Stanley Kubrick: Limited Edition Collection" box set, I would say this disc ID belongs to that box set, and an alternate version should be created for use by the "A Clockwork Orange: Anniversary Edition" release. The contribution notes support this. The disc ID profile was created on Aug 14, 2011, with comment "Cover scan using actual flap from boxset". The disc ID was not added to the Clockwork Orange profile until April 29, 2013.
"Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures / O Lucky Malcolm!" contribution notes
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=551647
"A Clockwork Orange: Anniversary Edition" (883929-157761)
http://www.invelos.com/onlinecollections/dvd/PlumPeachy/DVD.aspx?U=883929157761
"A Clockwork Orange: Anniversary Edition" contribution notes
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=516071
Unboxing video for "A Clockwork Orange: Anniversary Edition"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRDFY5asIW0
Agree. The release date for the Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures / O Lucky Malcolm! disc also uses the release date from the Stanley Kubrick: Limited Edition Collection box set.
In theory, A Clockwork Orange: Anniversary Edition (883929-157761) should use an alternate ID for this disc since the date is different for this set. Not to mention, as you've stated, that the current images don't even match the Clockwork Orange set, but are taken from the interior page of the Stanley Kubrick set.
I would disagree with the "no" voters that you should have to create an alternate version since the current cover art is incorrect to begin with. The question is whether those no voters own the Kubrick set or the Clockwork Orange release. Either way, it doesn't really change what should be reflected on that Disc ID profile. | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 1506 |
|
Quoting cassiusdrow:
Quote:
The new covers were the covers from the box set profile while the existing covers are scans of the digibook page for the discs.
I think that's the crux of the issue right there after looking at the current profiles. Although I believe you're correct based on the rules, some people just have a preference and prefer something else. Unfortunately, not everyone follows the rules and they try to interpret the rules into what they want them to say.
What was the reason provided by the three no voters? You can also try again. | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 1506 |
|
Quoting The_Fox:
Quote:
I have a contribution with 10 yes votes standing since Dec 27. Another one from Jan 01 with no votes at all was approved on Jan 05. So, really difficult to find a pattern. I think the first one is pending as it concerns an uncredited cast addition. But just guessing.
As said, I haven't had a lost contribution so far. So it takes time but it still is alive.
I had one that was from 7 Dec that was just approved today so yours may be a while.  | Posted: Topic Replies: 34, Topic Views: 15526 |
|
| This seems to have affected some of the titles that were pending approval at the time of the server crash/rebuild. | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 1676 |
|
| Wow! I don't know if me attempting to notify Invelos by submitting emails to both Ken's email address and to the hosting technical contact email, over the holidays, helped at all, but I'm happy that this has been fixed! | Posted: Topic Replies: 87, Topic Views: 22363 |
|
| I wasn't sure what he was talking about either, but now I'm wondering if he's asking something about the banners. | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 1521 |
|
I have one contribution that seems to have been skipped while newer contributions contrinue to be approved. This one has all yes votes so that shouldn't be delaying approval.
Little Women: 30th Anniversary
043396-637641 | Posted: Topic Replies: 34, Topic Views: 15526 |