In the US, Paramount is now issuing some films as pressed Blu-ray discs and as "manufactured-on-demand" BD-R-discs simultaneously. So it's not like they're being replaced by MOD-discs after a while, when a first batch of pressed discs has sold out, but it's immediate. On the disc's releasedate, there's both a pressed version and a BD-R available right away. It seems like Amazon.com consistently ships out the BD-R versions, while some other e-tailers are sending out pressed discs. Sometimes, the two different versions have different UPC's, but in more and more cases, the UPC is identical. While sharing that same UPC, these two versions differ from each other on three points:

- one is a pressed Blu-ray, the other is a BD-R;
- the Disc ID is obviously different;
- the pressed version has the official "Blu-ray Disc" logo on the cover, the BD-R version does not.

So both the profile (different Disc ID) and the cover (presence or lack of  official "Blu-ray Disc" logo) are different, but the UPC is the same. How do we handle this in DVD Profiler? Should the profile for such an UPC have the data for the pressed version, or for the BD-R? Or is it "first one in wins"? Does this warrant the use of an "alternate version" profile?

Quoting Wigram:

Quote:
(even if that functionality is broken at the moment).

Just FYI: That disc Id issue is only relevant for DVDs, not Blu-rays.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Wigram:

Quote:

Even if everything else is the same, a different DiscID is a significantly different content.

While I'd be happy to submit an "alternate version" for this, this is exactly one of the points which gives me pause. You say that the Disc ID is significantly different, but the contribution rules don't name a different Disc ID as a reason for an "alternate version". Instead, the contribution rules at http://www.invelos.com/dvdpro/contributions/Rules.aspx?display=dvdspecification explicitly explain how additional Disc ID's should be submitted into the existing profile. So if the Disc ID was the only difference, I wouldn't have immediately thought of creating an "alternate version". To me, the difference in cover art would be the bigger cue to think of creating an "alternate version", although there, one could argue about how significant the deviation is (being no more than either the presence or lack of the official "Blu-ray Disc" logo.

Agree with T!M's comments regarding re-contributing the Disc ID.

Since when does a pressed Blu-ray disc or a manufactured-on-demand burnt Blu-ray disc matter as far as the rules go.

You still need a Blu-ray player to play both discs and when DVD Profiler calculates the Disc-ID, it executes the same Invelos 4K/Blu-ray 64-bit CRC algorithm for both discs. The program doesn't discriminate, so why should we.

In any event, updated Disc-IDs in a UPC profile (since beginning of 2017) has limited functionality. It will still help you locate profiles in your local database file (DISCS.DAT) when you scan by DVD ROM drive, but don't expect to find it in the online profile list when using the Add by Disc option, you won't.

The rules talk about "the same title with largely different cover images".
I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that just the blu-ray logo would make them largely different.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that just the blu-ray logo would make them largely different.

Do you really?  And you've been here for so many years.

Actually yes. But I can imagine some people ignoring "largely" and claim it's important enough to warrant an alternate version anyway. 

Given you've spotted three differences, I think there's enough of a difference to warrant an alternate ID. Even if you want to argue that just one of the differences isn't enough. I think cumulatively there's enough of a difference. The cover difference will hopefully cue anyone want to add the profile which one they have if they don't know the difference between a pressed disc and a BD-R disc. I would note all three differences when submitting though so that if there's confusion later it's part of the contribution history.