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
Quoting deepred:
Quote:
- If not, maybe you unwillingly answered "no" when the software offered you to add the sub-profiles to your collection. In that case, I admit I'm not sure how you can download them afterwards.

In this case, i would recommend the following solutions:
highlight the parent profile and press CTRL+F12 keys together (that is, hold down the CTRL key and press the F12 function key).

• Alternatively, highlight the parent profile and use the DVD Profiler top menus:
  "Online" ==> "Refresh DVD from Invelos" ==> "Check for Child Profiles"
Posted:
Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 476
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
Same here, I have nine (9) new profiles approved on 02-Mar-2024 that have not been released.

I suspect the process for generating the online database file ("OnlineList.dod") is either off-line or broken.

The process for generating the online database file appears to be operational now.

All nine profiles approved on 02-Mar-2024 have now been released. In addition, another two profiles approved on 06-Mar-2024 were released.

I also carried out a complete download of the OnlineList.dod file (CTRL+"Refresh Online Profile List") successfully with no error message. One thing I noted during the download was the higher download speed I was getting from the new server (5Mbps).
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 683
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
I tested renaming my OnlineList.dod and OnlineListSel.dod, and sure enough I could not download new versions of these, and could not add new titles. Renamed back and everything worked.

So it would seem that unless you have uncorrupted versions of these files, you're currently out of luck. 

Hopefully this will soon be fixed.

There is another knock-on effect, any profile submitted that subsequently gets approved, will not get released, because the approved profile changes can no longer be parsed into the non-existent online database file!
Posted:
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 681
Same here, I have nine (9) new profiles approved on 02-Mar-2024 that have not been released.

I suspect the process for generating the online database file ("OnlineList.dod") is either off-line or broken.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 683
I suspect there is/was an alternate profile in the system.

Once that is released, you should be OK to submit your updates.

Cheers.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 683
I am running Windows 11 Home Edition (Version 23H2, OS Build 22631.3007) on my PC and the "Enable Audio Enhancements" check box is still available as an option. Realtek Audio is my default sound device. I would assume if your default sound device is incapable of supporting audio enhancements, it would be unavailable as an option, and be off by default.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 19, Topic Views: 19309
The box set overview rule is an addendum to the standard rule for overviews (re: "The following Clarifications to the standard Rules need to be used:"). The first sentence is not superfluous because the standard rule only covered a simple listing of the collection contents.

The correct process is use the overview from the cover (standard rule), followed by, if applicable, the box set rule.

The end result is what Danae Cassandra described.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 17, Topic Views: 1608
Added missing title:

Dark of the Sun: André Morell as "Bussier"
Posted:
Topic Replies: 30, Topic Views: 15840
Added missing film title:

Gidget Gets Married (James Sikking as Mr. Johnson).
Posted:
Topic Replies: 63, Topic Views: 15842
Quoting bigdaddyhorse:
Quote:
So, which cut is the Barbarella BD?
It carries that PG rating on back, but everything I see says it is the original "unrated" version.
Has the actual PG version been on home video?

I can only conclude that the PG rating was for the 98 minute film found on the Blu-ray disc, as CARA rules prohibit the distributor from using the PG rating for different versions of the film.

Please remember the film was never rated on its initial theatrical release in the US, so any re-release of the film in the US by a member of the MPA (that is, Paramount) needed to be submitted for a rating. There was no evidence that the film was cut in 1977 in order to get a PG rating from CARA.

Here is an example of a film (The Owl and the Pussycat) that was re-edited in order to get a PG rating:
https://www.filmratings.com/Search?filmTitle=owl+and+the+pussycat&x=0&y=0

On the other hand, Barbarella's PG rating was based on it being a re-issue (not a re-edit):
https://www.filmratings.com/Search?filmTitle=barbarella

The subsequent home media releases in the USA from 1979 to 2012 for Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy had the same rating (PG) and runtime (98 mins):

1979 Betamax
1980 VHS
1981 Laser disc (Pan & Scan)
1993 Laser disc (Widescreen)
1999 DVD
2012 Blu-ray

Hope that clarified the matter.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 1557
Quoting The Movieman:
Quote:
So I was wondering, if the rating on the back is Not Rated but going to filmratings.com (where they have a database of ratings, and is the site recommended by the MPA) has something different (in the case of Barbarella, PG), which do we go with? Just to note, the new 4K release does not have a different cut while the older Blu-ray does have the PG rating on the back.

In the past, like for the profile on The Art of War where it says PG-13 but the actual rating was R, we went with the latter. Would the same go here or do we go with Not Rated?

Barbarella was initially released in the USA on 10-Oct-1968, whilst the MPAA (now MPA) introduced the motion picture rating system on 01-Nov-1968. So, the film on initial release was unrated.

The CARA "PG" rating for Barbarella refers to the 1977 re-issue (https://www.filmratings.com/Search?filmTitle=barbarella). It was marketed as "Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy".

The 4K disc release was based on a 4K scan of the original camera negatives, not the 1977 re-issue print.

As per CARA rules, a rating certified by CARA for a motion picture may not be used in connection with the exhibition (theatrical) or distribution (home media) of any different version of that motion picture."

As per Invelos rules, Not Rated with blank rating descriptor in the 4K profile. Hope that helps.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 1557
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Just FYI, Kvack, MonoCheck is a good tool for finding out if a two-track encoding is actually mono.

Yes, MonoCheck is a very simple and effective tool for 2.0 audio tracks, however, there is one small caveat when using it.
On Windows 11, make sure "Enable audio enhancements" for the speakers is DISABLED.

To verify the setting on Windows 11, follow the procedure described below:

Press Win + R keys to open the Run Command dialog box.
Type mmsys.cpl and press Enter key.
Select Speakers and click Properties button
Select Advanced tab

In the section titled "Signal Enhancements", make sure "Enable audio enhancements" is DISABLED.

If its enabled then when the audio track is 2.0 mono, MonoCheck may end up displaying false-positives for stereo (that is, the left and right channels may appear non-identical in magnitude and asynchronous in changes).

This is no fault of the MonoCheck program, rather, it accurately reflects the consequences of Microsoft's manipulation of the 2.0 mono track into a pseudo-stereo track.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 1768
NCIS: The First Season ==> MICHAEL EDWARD ROSE  [.... Walter Richter] in Episode 10 "Left for Dead" end credits.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 17, Topic Views: 4584
Who Was That Lady?: Harry Stradling @ 00:02:54 (Director of Photography)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 28, Topic Views: 18392
The rules do not specify just the opening credits, release/production companies can also come from the end credits. In some instances, particularly with more recent films, there are no opening company text credits.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 11923
Quoting Nosferatu:
Quote:
... Even so, an edition would be unnecessary because there is no need to distinguish this from other releases of the same name, nor to indicate that this is a special release of this title.


Doesn't the rules for edition also specify collections?, namely:

"The Edition field is for distinguishing between DVDs, and for indicating special versions and collections (for example The Criterion Collection, Widescreen, Full-Screen Edition, Director's Cut)."

My understanding is "3-Movie Collection" complies with the edition rule and it is no different to other valid editions such as "Double Feature" or "Triple Feature" and it also tells us there are three DIFFERENT movies in the box set, which adds significant value to the cover titles, particularly when two titles are exactly the same.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 5116
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Anyway, the reason for this update is two-fold. First, I realized that the Exclude fix from version 4.4 had somehow been unfixed (or, perish the thought, it was never really fixed at all). Now it is really fixed.


I'm not sure if this is relevant, but the program has not worked for me since version 4.3.

When I run version 4.4 or 4.7 (I did not download 4.5, 4.6), the program displays zero people, but when I run version 4.3, the program displays 888 people.

I have not installed HTTPJollie on my PC and all BYC installations were based on the full installation files.

As a further test, I used the smaller "4.7.0 update" and copied those files (3 in number) to the version 4.3 program files, and the result was negative, zero people displayed.

A penny for your thoughts.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 66, Topic Views: 21160
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
BirthYearCheck 4.0



The Possible invalid BYs tag has been extensively updated.

BirthYearCheck 4.0 is gobsmacking good, like a hot knife through butter, one can quickly run the gauntlet of splicing or slicing birth years in a precise and confident manner. Another gun tool to be carried in my DVDP holster - many thanks.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 66, Topic Views: 21160
Quoting GreyHulk:
Quote:
Looks like this will be an ongoing thing. I just had all mine finally released a few days ago, and now I've had three skipped for no reason again.

Not sure if this is going to be an intermittent issue, but at this point in time, I have profile updates that were approved on 07, 09, 10, 15 and 16 May and all are listed as RELEASED.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 5908
My Mum had her cataracts successfully removed several years ago. Her symptoms were slight blurry vision and a yellowing of colors (for example, green traffic lights looked blue). The opthalmologist set one lens for short distances and the other lens for longer distance, so my Mum no longer needed reading glasses.

The only downside was everything looked much brighter, so she needed to wear sun glasses when outdoors.

Here's hoping for a speedy recovery, and dare I say it, a very bright future 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 22, Topic Views: 17006
I believe the problem has now been fixed.

Just received updated profiles that were approved on 07 May.

My profile updates that were stuck on "Approved" now show "Released".
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 5908
Probably conducted tests to confirm "DVD Profiler Online" was working again after the server crash.
He is, after all, a professional.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 2986
Same problem here in the southern hemisphere, so that eliminates the Coriolis effect as the cause.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 5395
Fast & Furious: Hobbs & Shaw: STEVEN CHASMAN (Executive Producer @ 02:02:08)
Wrath of Man: STEVEN CHASMAN (Executive Producer @ 00:05:27)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5449
After checking company records, I would have to say no as it will depend on the film's production year.

Clint Eastwood's original "The Malpaso Company" (California jurisdiction) was incorporated in 1967 and dissolved in 1980.

Eastwood's new production company was "Malpaso Productions, Ltd." (California jurisdiction) which was incorporated in 1983 (and is still active).
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 11923
Invelos Forums->Posts by ObiKen Page: 1 2  Previous   Next