Now You See Me Extended Version

[Elia Khensamphanh]

Customerson Dropbox Business, Business Plus, Standard, Advanced, or Enterprise get 10 years of version history with either the Extended Version History Add-On or the Data Governance Add-On. To purchase or remove either of these add-ons, do one of the following:

After presenting a paper at a conference, I have been invited to publish an extended version in a journal. The only requirement I have been told is that it must have at least 30% new material and an explicit justification of how it differs from the original version presented at the conference.

My question is: what title should I use? If I use the same title as the original version, I run the risk of confusing the audience with two papers with the same title. If I use the original title plus the expression 'Extended Version' I run the risk of devaluing the original publication. Could I use a substantially different title?

One pattern would be to use a "colon title" in which the part after the colon clarifies the content of the extended version. For example, let's assume your original paper was called "X" and presented the theory for "X", and that the 30% extension added an empirical evaluation. The title for the extended version could then be "X: theory and empirical evaluation".

Using a substantially different title would confuse people almost as much as using exactly the same title, because it would suggest that the two papers are greatly different. It would also probably result in a bad title, because you thought of the best one the first time round.

I am doing a major cleanup and deleted thousands of files. I wanted to use Dropbox to retain those deleted files for an extended period of time beyond the standard 30 days. I was all excited when I discovered "Extended Version History" on the Dropbox website. Reading the product description, it says "applies to any file deleted or modified after purchase". Huh? only the files I delete in the future? Am I reading correctly? Why can't it extend the lifespan of files already deleted? What are my options other than recover and delete again (which is not practical nor going to happen),

Did this post not resolve your issue? If so please give us some more information so we can try and help - please remember we cannot see over your shoulder so be as descriptive as possible!

I'm afraid there is nothing you can do - the deletion timescale on the files relates to the date of deletion. So, if you did not have a Paid account at the time you deleted them they are not recoverable after 30 days. Unfortunately upgrading now will not get you your files back.

Thanks! That was really useful! I was installing with scoop. But I had not realized there was an old conflicting version installed with chocolatey I uninstalled the chocolatey version and then hugo version picked up the right one. Thanks!

By default, Backblaze saves any old versions or deleted files for 30 days, with the option to enable One Year Extended Version History for free. For even more protection, upgrade to Forever Version History for just $0.006/GB per month.

Your Backblaze account comes with 30 days of Version History, with the option to enable One Year Extended Version History for free. And, you can upgrade to Forever Version History for just $0.006/GB per month.

Every Backblaze Computer Backup account comes with 30 days of Version History with the option to enable One Year Extended Version History for free. If you need more than one year worth of data history protection, you can upgrade to Forever for even more peace of mind.

I purchased 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets' from the iTunes store, and downloaded it. However, the downloaded file is the standard version of the move (2hr41min), and to access the extended version (2hr54min), I have to go into the 'iTunes extras' and select it.

As I stated, I can view the itunes extras fine, there is just not option to download the extended version of the movie, which at the moment I can only find in itunes extras. Its hard to believe that itunes would sell a movie which included the extended version of that movie but not allow you to download it.

In public use, a director's cut is the director's preferred version of a film (or video game, television episode, music video, or commercial). It is generally considered a marketing term to represent the version of a film the director prefers, and is usually used as contrast to a theatrical release where the director did not have final cut privilege and did not agree with what was released. ("Cut" explicitly refers to the editing process.)

Most of the time, film directors do not have the "final cut" (final say on the version released to the public). Those with money invested in the film, such as the production companies, distributors, or studios, may make changes intended to make the film more profitable at the box office. In extreme cases that can sometimes mean a different ending, less ambiguity, or excluding scenes that would earn a more audience-restricting rating, but more often means that the film is simply shortened to provide more screenings per day.

With the rise of home video, the phrase became more generically used as a marketing term to communicate to consumers that this is the director's preferred edit of a film, and it implies the director was not happy with the version that was originally released. Sometimes there are big disagreements between the director's vision and the producer's vision, and the director's preferred edit is sought after by fans (for example Terry Gilliam's Brazil).[1]

Not all films have separate "director's cuts", (often the director is happy with the theatrical release, even if they didn't have final cut privilege), and sometimes separate versions of films are released as "director's cuts" even if the director doesn't prefer them. Once such example is Ridley's Scott Alien, which had a "director's cut" released in 2003, even though the director said it was purely for "marketing purposes" and didn't represent his preferred vision for the film.[2]

Sometimes alternate edits are released, which are not necessarily director's preferred cuts, but which showcase a different visions for the project for fans to enjoy. Examples include James Cameron's Avatar, which was released both a "Special Edition" and "Extended" cuts, and Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, which were released on home video as "Extended Editions".[3] These versions do not represent the director's preferred visions.[4]

Within the industry itself, a "director's cut" refers to a stage in the editing process, and is not usually what a director wants to release to the public, due to the fact it is unfinished. The editing process of a film is broken into stages: First is the assembly/rough cut, where all selected takes are put together in the order in which they should appear in the film. Next, the editor's cut is reduced from the rough cut; the editor may be guided by their own choices or following notes from the director or producers. Eventually is the final cut, which actually gets released or broadcast. In between the editor's cut and the final cut can come any number of fine cuts, including the director's cut. The director's cut may include unsatisfactory takes, a preliminary soundtrack, a lack of desired pick-up shots etc., which the director would not like to be shown but uses as a placeholder until satisfactory replacements can be inserted. This is still how the term is used within the film industry, as well as commercials, television, and music videos.

The trend of releasing alternate cuts of films for artistic reasons became prominent in the 1970s; in 1974, the "director's cut" of The Wild Bunch was shown theatrically in Los Angeles to sold-out audiences.[5] The theatrical release of the film had cut 10 minutes to get an R rating, but this cut was hailed as superior and has now become the definitive one. Other early examples include George Lucas's first two films being re-released following the success of Star Wars, in cuts which more closely resembled his vision, or Peter Bogdanovich re-cutting The Last Picture Show several times. Charlie Chaplin also re-released all of his films in the 1970s, several of which were re-cut (Chaplin's re-release of The Gold Rush in the 1940s is almost certainly the earliest prominent example of a director's re-cut film being released to the public). A theatrical re-release of Close Encounters of the Third Kind used the phrase "Special Edition" to describe a cut which was closer to Spielberg's intent but had a compromised ending demanded by the studio.

As the home video industry rose in the early 1980s, video releases of director's cuts were sometimes created for the small but dedicated cult fan market. Los Angeles cable station Z Channel is also cited as significant in the popularization of alternate cuts. Early examples of films released in this manner include Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate,[6] where a longer cut was recalled from theatres but subsequently shown on cable and eventually released to home video; James Cameron's Aliens, where a video release restored 20 minutes the studio had insisted on cutting; Cameron also voluntarily made cuts to the theatrical version of The Abyss for pacing but restored them for a video release, and most famously, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, where an alternate workprint version was released to fan acclaim, ultimately resulting in the 1992 recut.[7] Scott later recut the film once more, releasing a version dubbed "The Final Cut" in 2007. This was the final re-cut and the first in which Scott maintained creative control over the final product, leading to The Final Cut being considered the definitive version of the film.

3a8082e126