I've got a question about whether something is a duplicate or not. Below are the links for two images that are the same except one is slightly bigger. I'm only asking because it's not the only one like this. Is this something that should be ignored, or should one of them get the heave ho?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm1357879552
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm1876136448
And just so you can see it's not just a one off, here are two more that are the same duplicate type:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm3939601664
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm1374656768
and there are others.
thanks
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm1357879552
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm1876136448
And just so you can see it's not just a one off, here are two more that are the same duplicate type:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm3939601664
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm1374656768
and there are others.
thanks
Posted 1 year ago
Hi, MikeTheWhistle.
The images in your example are duplicates but of different quality, so it is good to report the worse quality for deletion (at least, I always prefer this way).
The first thing I do in such cases: compare dimensions of both images:
The "better" dimension was the first step to analyze, and it may be enough to explain the difference in quality when such is obvious. But very often the images of low resolution (as result of fast web-search) are blown-up to larger dimensions and contributed with such poor quality to IMDb. In view of the latter, when the difference is not so obvious, I also examine how the pictorial details are preserved in both images. And in rare cases, among the IMDb images we can find a worse quality in the larger image resulted from the blow-up "enhancing".
The pictorial details is better to examine off-line. But also, there is a primitive way for an image opened in mediaviewer (desktop browser): right-click on image and choose open image (picture) in new tab (window), then focus the opened image and left-click to maximize.
I hope this very short explanation is enough for common understanding.
The images in your example are duplicates but of different quality, so it is good to report the worse quality for deletion (at least, I always prefer this way).
The first thing I do in such cases: compare dimensions of both images:
- If the images are stills taken from a video sequence, then I expect to find a better quality in those which dimensions are closer to existing original sources (DVD, BD, and so on... as I've explained for you earlier);
- If the images are posters (as in your example) or other production art, then a better quality is expected in those having larger dimensions.
The "better" dimension was the first step to analyze, and it may be enough to explain the difference in quality when such is obvious. But very often the images of low resolution (as result of fast web-search) are blown-up to larger dimensions and contributed with such poor quality to IMDb. In view of the latter, when the difference is not so obvious, I also examine how the pictorial details are preserved in both images. And in rare cases, among the IMDb images we can find a worse quality in the larger image resulted from the blow-up "enhancing".
The pictorial details is better to examine off-line. But also, there is a primitive way for an image opened in mediaviewer (desktop browser): right-click on image and choose open image (picture) in new tab (window), then focus the opened image and left-click to maximize.
I hope this very short explanation is enough for common understanding.
MikeTheWhistle
The first two in your initial post is very easy to compare, so I take the second pair to show the example here.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm3939601664
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm1374656768
rm3939601664 has dimensions: 672 x 1000
rm1374656768 has dimensions: 450 x 668
The second image is the candidate to delete, but the overall quality of both is not high so I prefer to compare the pictorial details. Finally, I see the larger image is also of greater quality:
(rm3939601664)
(rm1374656768)
One complex of details: Hanks needs some shaving as we can recognize in the first image, but the same details is blurred in the second image where his skin is simply grey and we can only imagine that he might be not shaved for a day or two )))
The first two in your initial post is very easy to compare, so I take the second pair to show the example here.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm3939601664
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/mediaviewer/rm1374656768
rm3939601664 has dimensions: 672 x 1000
rm1374656768 has dimensions: 450 x 668
The second image is the candidate to delete, but the overall quality of both is not high so I prefer to compare the pictorial details. Finally, I see the larger image is also of greater quality:
(rm3939601664) (rm1374656768)One complex of details: Hanks needs some shaving as we can recognize in the first image, but the same details is blurred in the second image where his skin is simply grey and we can only imagine that he might be not shaved for a day or two )))
(Edited)
this was helpful. I stumble across ones like this, but usually only bothers me when it's a title when a gazillion images and the dups make it a pain.
This raises a 2nd question I wonder if anyone knows an answer for. Is it possible from the image to tell if it's been submitted as a still, production, behind the scenes, etc. in other words the type?
A lot of dups I see are I think of different types and the only way I know of to figure that out involves likes of clicks that I simply don't have the patience for.
This raises a 2nd question I wonder if anyone knows an answer for. Is it possible from the image to tell if it's been submitted as a still, production, behind the scenes, etc. in other words the type?
A lot of dups I see are I think of different types and the only way I know of to figure that out involves likes of clicks that I simply don't have the patience for.
It's a real headache in desktop browsers, but for now the only type that is easy to recognize is the events images: "at an event for" is added for them in main descriptions. However, you may navigate them by types and persons in the title galleries:
PS: I would not say that dups have a tendency to appear among different types, but sometimes this happens.
PS: I would not say that dups have a tendency to appear among different types, but sometimes this happens.
(Edited)
Michelle, Official Rep
Hi MikeTheWhistle -
Just chiming in here to confirm that you should be reporting the removal of these duplicate poster images, however, if the duplicate poster is localized for another country (ie. with country and language tags near the footer) these should remain listed as we do allow these and any reports to remove them would be rejected.
Also worth noting, when you are reporting a duplicate poster removal, if the removal is for a duplicate of a primary image, make sure to suggest the new, better image as the primary image before requesting it to be deleted; otherwise your deletion request will be rejected.
Just chiming in here to confirm that you should be reporting the removal of these duplicate poster images, however, if the duplicate poster is localized for another country (ie. with country and language tags near the footer) these should remain listed as we do allow these and any reports to remove them would be rejected.
Also worth noting, when you are reporting a duplicate poster removal, if the removal is for a duplicate of a primary image, make sure to suggest the new, better image as the primary image before requesting it to be deleted; otherwise your deletion request will be rejected.
Hi, Michelle.
Thank you for this explanation I mostly agree with, except one thing: "if the duplicate poster is localized for another country (ie. with country and language tags near the footer)". This part either needs a deeper explanation, or may produce non-optimal results, IMHO.
As I understand, when two posters are visually duplicates then one of them should be deleted and its tags (if any) must be previously copied to the remaining one. When a poster includes visual localisations, then it can not be a duplicate to another language poster.
Thank you for further explanation
Thank you for this explanation I mostly agree with, except one thing: "if the duplicate poster is localized for another country (ie. with country and language tags near the footer)". This part either needs a deeper explanation, or may produce non-optimal results, IMHO.
As I understand, when two posters are visually duplicates then one of them should be deleted and its tags (if any) must be previously copied to the remaining one. When a poster includes visual localisations, then it can not be a duplicate to another language poster.
Thank you for further explanation
(Edited)
