| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | As the beta is nearing release, there are some small things I would to see added to the program: an uncredited checkbox for crew. I don't care if it's local only, just the ability to handle crew that are uncredited would be a nice inclusion. The other is the ability to see the Original Title on the General Info tab. It would be also nice to be able to Modify the General Info tab to remove the fields that I don't use from displaying. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | Not against any you mentioned... not something I personally would use... but no reason to be against them.
My top wishes for this release would have been...
- Play All check box in features (for TV Eps., Shorts collections, Etc.)
- Cast/Crew linking
- better handling of 2 movies on 1 side of disc
- Links for Trailer, imdb, rotton tomatoes and such for manual profiles
- when clicking on actor name... showing all in our collection with said actor/crew member... have it so we can choose either owned only.... owned, ordered... or all three. In any combination (check box for each section to include)
- Television from Genre and give us a Filterable/Sortable field for...
Television
Theatrical
Direct-to-Video
Etc. (as needed... not sure if I missed any) | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
- Cast/Crew linking
- better handling of 2 movies on 1 side of disc Small, late additions?? I don't think so, but otherwise I agree with you. Those were top on my wishlist too. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | I just copied and pasted from another thread... didn't really re-read it.  | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting synnerman: Quote:
an uncredited checkbox for crew. Yes please Quote:
I don't care if it's local only Why not do it correctly in the first place and make 'em contributable? I understand that this requires detailed contribution notes about sources. Quote:
Original Title on the General Info tab And the other way around too. If you have chosen to view Original Title, it would be nice to see localized title without opening edit windows. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
Quoting synnerman:
Quote:
an uncredited checkbox for crew.
Yes please
Quote:
I don't care if it's local only
Why not do it correctly in the first place and make 'em contributable? I understand that this requires detailed contribution notes about sources. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer it to be available for contribution. But if allowing it into the database would cause a delay that would prevent it from making 3.8 at all, I'd gladly just take it locally, if it meant being in the next release. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | My wish, smaller that small. Please add option 'varies' for aspect ratios. There are several short film collections where each film may have a different AR. Then we need a rule if this should be used for 2.35:1 films that include IMAX AR in some scenes or not. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,338 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
- Television from Genre and give us a Filterable/Sortable field for...
Television
Theatrical
Direct-to-Video
Etc. (as needed... not sure if I missed any) This for me would help greatly... TV is just not a genre... and I'm tired of using bulk edit to ensure it remains in the first slot. | | | | -JoN |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | Funny, for the same reason I try and put it in the last slot...
BTW, Classic is not a genre either. |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,737 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
- Cast/Crew linking
- better handling of 2 movies on 1 side of disc
Small, late additions?? I don't think so, but otherwise I agree with you. Those were top on my wishlist too. Also top of my list. | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,737 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
My wish, smaller that small. Please add option 'varies' for aspect ratios. Unfortunately, I'm anal about accuracy. I even have an atomic wristwatch, along with several clocks in the house. If you measure the actual image presented, you will find that even though a film is listed as 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 most are not exactly that AR and vary all over the place, mostly to the minus side. I wish the industry would get their crap together or list the actual AR. Or for DVDP, we could contribute the actual ARs. | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,849 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mreeder50: Quote:
If you measure the actual image presented, you will find that even though a film is listed as 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 most are not exactly that AR and vary all over the place, mostly to the minus side. I wish the industry would get their crap together or list the actual AR. Or for DVDP, we could contribute the actual ARs. Do you often find yourself choosing to watch a film (or not) because of it's aspect ratio? I get kind of tired of contributions that change the aspect ratio from 2.40:1 to 2.39:1 and vice versa. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | So do I Scott. Go with the cover, unless we see something obvious like a 235 film in a cover marked 185. For those who say they are AR about ar tty an experiment. Find out how many pixels it takes to go from 1.77 to 1.78 or even 235 to 239. I think you will find very small numbers, well within any rational margin of error. So don't ever try and convince me that you can correctly measure each and every time without fail...I will say one word..bull. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote:
So do I Scott. Go with the cover, unless we see something obvious like a 235 film in a cover marked 185. For those who say they are AR about ar tty an experiment. Find out how many pixels it takes to go from 1.77 to 1.78 or even 235 to 239. I think you will find very small numbers, well within any rational margin of error. So don't ever try and convince me that you can correctly measure each and every time without fail...I will say one word..bull. So it seems that there's at least one issue that we agree  My point was collections for example short films on a same side of the disc which we cannot profile correctly (using separate profile for each short). Now one might have AR 1.33:1, another 1.85:1, third 2.35:1, fourth ...... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've had this with one or two TV Series... where the season is Full Framed... but then they have 1 special episode in widescreen. For at least that one disc level profile there is more then one aspect ratio. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,217 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I've had this with one or two TV Series... where the season is Full Framed... but then they have 1 special episode in widescreen. For at least that one disc level profile there is more then one aspect ratio. Very recent example: "Tron: Legacy" which is a mix of 2,35:1 and 1,78:1 Or "Galaxy Quest": starts in 1,85:1 and then literally opens to 2,35:1 on the space ship. cya, Mithi | | | | Mithi's little XSLT tinkering - the power of XML --- DVD-Profiler Mini-Wiki |
|