VCDQuality Forums (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/index.php)
- SVCD (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=20)
-- Boat Trip - DVDRIP - TCF (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=18326)
Posted by Mystic Slippers on 04-29-2003 03:39 PM:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshNya
blahblahblahuselesscrap...
Less frames = better pic? LMFAO. MORON.
Smaller pic = better quality? LMFAO. MORON.
Badly mastered? Right, like that applies just for PAL releases. LMFAO. MORON.
You sir, are a MORON. 
Posted by JoshNya on 04-29-2003 03:45 PM:
quote:
Originally posted by Mystic Slippers
Less frames = better pic? LMFAO. MORON.
Smaller pic = better quality? LMFAO. MORON.
Badly mastered? Right, like that applies just for PAL releases. LMFAO. MORON.
You sir, are a MORON.
It's true, stake your claim why, insted of flaming.
Posted by bird on 04-29-2003 04:52 PM:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshNya
It's true, stake your claim why, insted of flaming.
How can you say less fps gives better quality? Imagine watching a movie at 1 frame per second, oh yes, wouldnt that give us the sweetest quality ever. I wanna buy 1fps movies today.
And just so you know, PAL was made after NTSC, just because NTSC has flaws, so they decided improve it. The flaws im talking about isnt a quality issue here, but rather something with the colors if i remember correctly.
Im not gonna bother commenting on the part about the smaller pic, if you really belive that yourself. good for you. Lets just go resize all our movies to small tumbnail sizes, for then again to maximize them on our tv afterwards, just to get better quality.
Posted by tasty_calyx on 04-29-2003 09:33 PM:
i agree LOL
quote:
Originally posted by manofice
wtf is wrong with some of you, you are surely judging by the jpeg. I just finished watching this flick and it was perfect quality, no one thing wrong with it. And this is a funny ass movie. Good job TCF 8/8/7
stoopid fux,
stop judging the Jpeg's
just cuz u can't find shit with yer Kazaa and Imesh <<--ha ha ha
its a perfect rip
9/9/7
Posted by Mystic Slippers on 04-29-2003 10:06 PM:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshNya
It's true, stake your claim why, insted of flaming.
Hey, it's not my fault you can't seem to realize you made a boo. I have no claim to stake. It's fact. *shrugs*
Posted by bertieg on 04-29-2003 10:22 PM:
You could read this here about ntsc and pal
http://www.yak.net/fqa/165.html
Posted by JoshNya on 04-29-2003 11:09 PM:
quote:
Originally posted by bird
How can you say less fps gives better quality? Imagine watching a movie at 1 frame per second, oh yes, wouldnt that give us the sweetest quality ever. I wanna buy 1fps movies today.
Yes 1fps would look better then 25fps per frame, if compressed, but it wouldnt play that smooth.
Ok imagine there was no compression, straight uncompressed avi format. Sure bigger pic and more FPS would be the best. Why? cause its from a pure source. But you would need about 500 gigs per cd and a supercomputer to play it.
Now compression comes in. We want the least amount of frames to compress right? Less means (more bitrate) more quality per frame. And for size? Smaller means better picture. Why? Less pixels means More bitrate per pixle.
ie: BitRate / FrameRate
2000k/25 = 80k per frame
2000k/23.976 = 83.4k per frame
2000k/1 = 2000k per frame
more bitrate perframe = better picture
Heres a little compression 101 for yaz. You guys can flame all ya want. But this is the truth. Deal with it.
PAL will never be sold in region 1, but NTSC is sold worldwide.
And... as far as the history goes, YES the USA came out with 30fps TVs (and still are) where overseas wanted better at 25fps TVs, but theaters run 23.976 (even better), and that why we use pulldown to display them on USA TVs.
