VCDQuality Forums Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show all 29 posts from this thread on one page

VCDQuality Forums (http://forum.vcdq.com/index.php)
- VCD (http://forum.vcdq.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)
-- Bewitched - TELESYNC - (http://forum.vcdq.com/showthread.php?threadid=64145)


Posted by Jrobi7114 on 06-30-2005 07:22 PM:

Group ???

N0Gr0up


Posted by Mollins on 07-01-2005 09:44 PM:

hmmm, not the best TS ive seen

Audio - 4 WAY too quiet
Video - 6 too bright, and orange tinted
Movie - 7 tis ok, nothin excellent though

__________________


Posted by DocVW on 07-02-2005 03:34 AM:

After watching full release on big screen:

Video quite bright and visisted the pixel palace quite a few times.

Audio was as mentioned, very tinny-hollow-echoy, quite annoying but you could listen to it.

Rating on full release:

V:6
A:5
M:8 Decent remake with good casting.


Posted by Fordirelifesa on 07-03-2005 06:20 PM:

The sound did seem sort of like a CAM, but it was still very good. Video is really good, a little too bright, and noticeable angle. Best release that I've seen, I suggest picking this up.

8/7/?

__________________
Return to the womb (new life).


Posted by acme420 on 07-04-2005 01:44 AM:

from sample.

video very bright colors are oversaturated, its watchable i give it a 7.

audio is hollow, sounds like a cam i havent heard any laughing in the background but still pretty hollow. i give it a 5

movie i havent watched it yet. ill let you know later .

7/6/?

__________________
eat me balls!!


Posted by BLUE-NEO on 07-04-2005 04:10 AM:

This is a good release...colors got back and forth about twice in the film also the contract jumps a few times...overall looks great on t.v. I watched full release....

8/8/7 movie was actually good.

__________________
Reality Is Only A State Of Mind...


Posted by verse on 07-04-2005 12:32 PM:

mpaa..

Is this the repack by oFFEND?
Is this the repack by oFFEND? It sure does look like it. I'v played them both at the same time, one on my standalone, and one on the puter, and they both look like the same video,ie. motion blur, cig burns. And both have the coughing in the same spots. So either this group stole the audio and got an identical video, or this is the oFFEND repack release without the name. Don't know why they wouldn't post here with a name, unless, and no flaming intended at all, since they release on b*tt*****t sites they aren't considered sceneworthy. Don't know but something is definitely amiss here.

I smell MPAA? keke


Posted by T2U on 07-07-2005 03:47 AM:

Very good quality..looks great on tv...sounds not to bad....movie wasnt to bad either....8/7/7.5


Posted by yukichigai on 07-09-2005 02:35 PM:

Meh, okay

Certainly could be worse, but not too horrible.

Video: 6

It's not unwatchable, not by any means, but whoever had the camera didn't know how to prevent it from auto-adjusting contrast between scenes. The best example is the credits right at the beginning; I was only able to read them as they faded out, for a span of about a half-second. It also makes the film seem a little blurrier. The cropping on it is mostly unnoticable, though there's minor screen distortions at the top corners; the camera position must have been towards the front of the theater. Motion blur -- that lovely symptom of recording a 23.976fps film with a 25fps cam -- is a bit worse than most releases due to the contrast issue.

Audio: 5

My rating is based on the assumption that it's a true TS, though the audience sounds seem to indicate that it isn't. There's a constant hum sound throughout parts of the film, particularly towards the end. The sound comes out tinny with very little bass, though this is to be expected from Cam audio. A few times I had trouble understanding the quieter lines, but this was very rare. 95% of the time the audio was perfectly audible and understandable, if tinny.

Movie: 7

I didn't really hate it, but I didn't really like it either. There were a lot of funny bits in the film -- easy to do with Will Ferrel in the flick -- but the plot was really badly executed. The basic premise was pretty good, but there was far too much time spent on little side-jaunts and setting up later events that the really good part of the film was only in the last 20 minutes of it. If there'd been less time concentrating on wacky setups -- oh, and some freakin' explanations of what the hell was going on with Aunt Clara and "rewind" and all that -- and more wacky witchery then I think the film would have turned out much better. It certainly wasn't a performance problem; everyone carried off their roles great. Just in a "this is a badly-written script" way.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:45 AM. Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show all 29 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.0
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2002.