On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 04:01:14 GMT, "Straight Man"
<straight.man@straight.org> wrote:
>Hi Lurker!
>
>My system includes the major actors in a film in the film's filename.
>Sometimes I add actors of interest (and in rare instances, the Director).
>The reason is, if I'm looking for films with a certain actor, it's easy to
>filter just those films in my database.
>
>My next post will be in the pre-1960 group, and it's a prime example. The
>file title is "Rear Window (1954, Hitchcock- James Stewart, Grace Kelly,
>Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter, Raymond Burr)." I included the Director's
>name: Hitchcock. If I want to see all of the Hitchcock movies I have, his
>name is in all of my Hitchcock film file names. It's easy to filter for
>them.
>
>IMDb almost always lists three Stars. In this case: James Stewart, Grace
>Kelly, Wendell Corey. But I also like both Thelma Ritter and Raymond Burr.
>If I felt like watching a Raymond Burr movie, for example, by including his
>name in the file title, it's easy for me to filter and see what Raymond Burr
>movies I have.
>
>Another example is "Breakfast at Tiffany's." IMDb lists three Stars: Audrey
>Hepburn, George Peppard, Patricia Neal. But I also like three other actors
>in the movie: Mickey Rooney, Buddy Ebsen, and Martin Balsam. So I included
>all six in my filename. If I feel like watching a Mickey Rooney movie, for
>example, I can easily filter for Mickey Rooney. "Breakfast at Tiffany's" is
>one of the movies that pops up. If I didn't include his name in the file
>name, I don't know how else I could efficiently search for my Mickey Rooney
>movies.
>
>There is a lot of work involved in uploading a file. You have to make rar
>files, par files, make a Sample (which is time-consuming and doesn't always
>come out with a given technique), make an nfo file, and finally, post it.
>What you are asking me to do is re-name my file first (to make it shorter),
>thus adding even another step.
>
>In addition, I don't want to have to start counting how many characters are
>in a filename. That would be still another step, and a long one at that. An
>alternative is I could just include the film's title and year. But people
>may not be familiar with a given movie. They wouldn't know whether to get it
>or not. Back to our example, if I titled the movie just "Rear Window
>(1954)," would that be as informative to people who weren't familiar with
>the movie, as if they saw it was a Hitchcock movie with James Stewart, Grace
>Kelly, et al.?
>
>I appreciate what you're saying. I really do. I used to use Forte Agent, and
>remember having similar issues. I don't want to get into a Newsreader
>discussion here, but I thought Forte Agent was a good newsreader, and in
>some respects, was better than the newsreader I currently use.
>
>I will try to shorten some titles, but you probably will see a difference in
>just a few movies. Two examples in what you may have seen a difference in,
>from what I've posted, are "The Guns Of Navarone" and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad,
>Mad World." Can't promise much. I really don't want to start playing with
>file names, renaming files, and then worrying about renaming them back.
>
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>Hi film fan!
>
>You mentioned you "haven't actually been trying to d/l these posts since
>(you) already have better copies." That's fine. I know everyone wouldn't
>benefit from each of my posts. But if I can bring some cheer and joy to even
>just one or two people, that makes it worthwhile to me.
>
>My question is, if you have better copies, why don't you post them? I am
>always looking for upgrades. I'm sure a lot of other guys in the group are
>too.
I posted for several years (under another nym) and may do so again at
some point.
>
>You mention that "it is helpful to indicate something about quality and
>source (bluray, dvd, vhs, etc) since often you want to get a better copy of
>a classic if that can be determined from the nfo." In principle, I agree
>with you.
>
>I think I post more information in my nfo than most posters. But the problem
>is, I don't know where the files came from. I could probably guess the media
>source, but there are bound to be inaccuracies. For example, I've seen files
>where trying to describe them as (an old) TV rip, or a VHS rip, is no more
>than guesswork.
>
>I'm a long-time lurker. Most of the time the files' origin wasn't specified
>in the post when I downloaded them. (That type of description has become
>more prevalent in more recent times.) All I know is the files came from a
>newsgroup. In all of my posts I indicate "Not My Rip." I also include two
>nfo files. The first says: "Thanks to the Original Poster!" Besides not
>taking credit where no credit is due, I'm also saying that I have no more
>accurate information to give.
>
>As far as quality, I give a Sample of each movie I post. It's usually a pain
>to make, but I make a Sample for the very reason you mentioned. If you think
>you might want to upgrade your movie, you don't have to d/l the entire post.
>Just d/l the Sample to see if it's a "Better," and to see if you like it.
If you don't know the source, then you might just say "appears to be
sourced from " e.g. "dvd or from tv" (if you see a tv logo) or
"appears to be vhs" if you see the vhs artifacts. And if what you
downloaded is 720p that gives some info also which you can indicate.
But however you want to do it is fine, I'm certainly not criticising
your posts, to the contrary, I'm glad to see you posting, and do
regularly look at your posts to see if there's something I want.
|
|