Alright fellow members, I believe I know the answer to my questions but wanted to confirm before contributing a new profile.

First a bit of background information ... TCM snuck out a re-release of The Lady from Shanghai BD/DVD after a bit of outcry from the internet forums.  Changes to the new release include:

- AVC vice VC-1 encode
- BD-50 vice BD-25
- English: Dolby True HD 2.0 vice English: DD 2.0 (Mono)
- Adds missing "Comments by Eddie Muller"
- Slightly darker picture/contrast
- HD Keepcase vice DVD Keepcase

Now the questions:

1) The re-release uses the same UPC as the original release, at least on the back cover, but the discs have different Disc IDs.  It appears TCM stuck a different UPC on the shrinkwrap probably since the slip cover is without a UPC; UPC is actual on the back cover.  Thus I presume the title should be added to the database by Disc ID?

2) The slipcover is sans UPC (the old slip cover had the UPC).  Since the release comes with a slip sans information I'm presuming we include a scan of the back slip cover although it has no pertinent info or UPC?  This is a case where it would be very nice if the database could accommodate scans of both the slip cover and cover/sleeve.  All of the pertinent information including UPC is on the back cover.

Pictures of the re-release can be found in this thread for reference:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=229479&page=49

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Is the UPC on the shrink wrap different than the one on the rear cover (under the slipcover)?

If it is, I believe I'd scan it while still in the shrink wrap and with the new UPC showing on the back.

---------------

Yep, the UPC on the shrink is different and is just a 1.5" x 1.5" sticker.  I've already opened the package not expecting the UPC code to be any different.  It appears to be a multiple purpose sticker given that it also has the following on the sticker underneath the barcode:

Quote:
Color:
Size:
Gender:

I'm guessing TCM slapped that on since the UPC is not accessible when it's shrinkwrapped.

The UPC on the sticker is 7-99861-18110-1 where as the UPC on the sleeve is 7-00867-90029-0.

According to the GS1 the company prefix on the sticker (7-99861) belongs to Littermate, Inc. where as the company prefix on the sleeve (7-00867) belongs to T. Barr Records.

http://www.gtin.info/check-company-prefix/

What's odd is the original release's slipcover was near identical to the back sleeve yet the new release is completely void of info.  Either they forgot to update the UPC or couldn't be bother with it.

You should vote No, as we both know this isn't simply a new disc ID but a completely new audio and video encode.  Explain that in your note.

---------------

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
You should vote No, as we both know this isn't simply a new disc ID but a completely new audio and video encode.  Explain that in your note.

---------------

This is a re-release with the same UPC. I'll highlight the relevant info from the contribution rules:

Quote:
Studios occasionally re-release titles with the same UPC, but with changed content – for example Cover Images, Case Type and Overview. All information in the main DVD Profiler database is to be for the Original Release version of the disc; do not contribute any information that is specific to a re-release. You can of course keep this re-release information in your local database profile, but do not contribute it to the main database.

Of course, you can always try updating the disc id in the original UPC profile, and see if people agree to that. It's always possible that more people have the new version.
Or, you can add the re-release disc id to the disc info field, with disc description "Main Feature (Re-release)". In that case, both disc ids are in the database. See also the disc specification section in the contribution rules:

Quote:
If your Disc ID differs from the Disc ID in the main database, you may change it and re-contribute it. All Disc IDs are stored in the main database and are used for disc identification within DVD Profiler.

In any case, a separate disc id profile is not correct.

Quoting marcelb7:

Quote:
This is a re-release with the same UPC. I'll highlight the relevant info from the contribution rules:

No, this rule is not at all relevant. You might want to re-read the rules and understand them.
This means only that you shall not overwrite the information in the original profile, it says nothing about creating a new profile.

Quote:
In any case, a separate disc id profile is not correct.

Quite the contrary, this is exactly the right way to do it.

@rdodolak: Vote No and explain the facts.


cya, Mithi

Quoting marcelb7:

Quote:
This is a re-release with the same UPC. I'll highlight the relevant info from the contribution rules:

This is a new release with a completely different Disc ID.  I'd guess the identical UPC was a mistake.  As far as I see it, a different Disc ID is the same as a different UPC given the contents are vastly different.  If the content and everything else about this release was completely identical, other than the Disc ID, then I'd agree with you but it's not.  Does this mean we should delete all of the rereleases or variants that have different UPCs but utilize the same Disc ID?  Because for all intensive purposes it would be the exact same disc other than a different UPC and/or cover art.

Quoting marcelb7:

Quote:
In any case, a separate disc id profile is not correct.

I'd respectfully disagree. I understand why DVDProfiler only allows one contribution per UPC but that is also one of its downfalls.  This is where the Disc ID comes into play.  It's not like I'm overwriting the original contribution.  This is a completely different Disc ID from the Disc ID of the original release.

BTW, do you even own this, or the original, release?

Anyway, for those wondering here's a picture of the re-release.  Unlike the original release the back of the slipcover is not identical to the back of the cover.  It has no UPC nor any specs listed on the slipcover.