VCDQuality Forums - Minority Report - TELECINE

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
Show all 57 posts from this thread on one page

VCDQuality Forums (http://forum.vcdq.com/index.php)
- VCD (http://forum.vcdq.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)
-- Minority Report - TELECINE - TCF (http://forum.vcdq.com/showthread.php?threadid=7472)

Posted by Cory on 09-01-2002 03:07 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Schock

For someone with a scanners avatar you seem like you are a person with some taste in horror, but i guess you are from the scream generation and only chose that avatar because you think its "cool". I bet michael jackson's thriller video scares the shit out of you. LMAO!!!!!!!!!

Eh, Scanners is a great movie and as for taste in horror I don't think a good horror flick would be "Fear Dot Com". The plot sounds childish and stupid but thats just my opinion and others may think different. And as for the "LMAO!!!!!" I seriously hope you weren't laughing your ass off because I don't think anyone on this board even chuckled at your post. Thank you, come again.

Posted by Dr. Poo PhD on 09-01-2002 05:47 PM:

I thought this release was pretty decent, but yeah, the frame rate problem did show a bit. Anyway, definitely the best release so far so take it if you haven't seen it... December should be the month for this on DVD though...

I'd give this release a 8/8/10.

Thanks TCF.

Posted by djkoolaide on 09-01-2002 07:40 PM:

hmm well i have the workprint, i was dissapointed with that, but if i do get another version of this movie then i will just wait for the dvd

Posted by Subzeroed on 09-01-2002 10:55 PM:

Audio is terrible....

You can not even watch this movie the audio is so bad. Video is pretty good but the screener already released by TCF is much better. Why even try to beat a vhs-screener. Especially if you are TCF who has the best rls with vhs-screener. Loved the screener and hated this.....

Posted by plonk420 on 09-01-2002 11:55 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Cory
Ew, Fear Dot Com. That movie looks as fucking corny as Michael Jackson. I would probably dl it but it looks stupid as hell.

FearDotCom was good... if not almost great (considering the genre) save for the fact that Malone ALWAYS fucks up the end with special fx...

Posted by desertboy on 09-03-2002 04:50 PM:

Frame rate, frame rate, frame rate.

Posted by fluffykiwi on 09-04-2002 02:53 AM:

The frame rate was a bit choppy but not bad enough to spoil the movie, picture quality was fine otherwise, and i had no problems with the sound either.
not perfect but still definitely worth a look.
I enjoyed the film.

Posted by Schock on 09-04-2002 03:55 PM:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cory

Eh, Scanners is a great movie and as for taste in horror I don't think a good horror flick would be "Fear Dot Com". The plot sounds childish and stupid but thats just my opinion and others may think different. And as for the "LMAO!!!!!" I seriously hope you weren't laughing your ass off because I don't think anyone on this board even chuckled at your post. Thank you, come again. [/QUOTE

I'm laughing my ass off at your dumbass

Posted by Antarctica on 09-04-2002 11:32 PM:

I agree the frame rate makes it drag a bit, Ill stick to the screener till the dvdrip.

Posted by Bynemz on 09-05-2002 07:08 PM:

TCF does it again

Once again another awesome release from 1 of the best groups in the biz. U guys are always rockin us with great quality. keep up the good werk. This kills the workprint which was borderline crap but watchable if u want to see it one time and toss the disk away.

Posted by desertboy on 09-05-2002 09:59 PM:

Having watched the film, I can say the sound is poor, nothing a good amp with noise reduction can't help, but I've already posted about the frame rate, but having watchewd the whole thing I can say that the "Workprint" is better even if the picture quality isn't a patch on this one and it is missing 30 secs.
PS. I was going to drink 24/7's beer but I found out it was actually Kaliber

My advice stick with the "Workprint" or even better go to the cinema and watch it as god intended

Posted by Angkor Wat on 09-05-2002 11:22 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by desertboy
Having watched the film, I can say the sound is poor, nothing a good amp with noise reduction can't help, but I've already posted about the frame rate, but having watchewd the whole thing I can say that the "Workprint" is better even if the picture quality isn't a patch on this one and it is missing 30 secs.
PS. I was going to drink 24/7's beer but I found out it was actually Kaliber

My advice stick with the "Workprint" or even better go to the cinema and watch it as god intended

I agree plus you know a dvdrip is coming soon

Posted by xer0mark on 09-08-2002 01:50 AM:

1 - Frame Rate. If you have to convert it to 23 or 29fps in order for it to comply with VCD standards, why the hell dont you shoot it in that framerate in the first place? Maybe TCF was using a slower shutterspeed to achieve the brilliant colors that were achieved in this Telecine, however what is the point when the framerate conversion ruins the watchability of the VCD?

2 - Audio Quality. Crappy encoder? Crappy technique? The audio just plain sucks.

I cant believe anybody would consider releasing this after viewing the final disc.

Posted by gruvn on 09-11-2002 05:24 PM:

not bad

picture quality is great, but strangly jerky.. sound could be much better considering it's a telecine.. 'sounds like you're listening to it inside a barrel or something.. vid = 7 : aud = 6

Posted by VCD XP on 09-13-2002 05:54 AM:

I agree with the others. The framerate is noticeably low, and the audio is difficult to hear. Stick with the Workprint release for now.

Posted by Devnull on 09-15-2002 02:32 AM:

Are we all watching the same VCD? I must say this is very disapointing from what the pics made me think. They should not have released it. First the frame rate is really messed up, isn't that apparent on a computer but sucks on a DVD player. Second the aspect ratio isn't even close. And third the audio is bad to the point where it is painful to watch. I never had the workprint but it had to be better.

Posted by lo.pro on 09-15-2002 10:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by xer0mark
1 - Frame Rate. If you have to convert it to 23 or 29fps in order for it to comply with VCD standards, why the hell dont you shoot it in that framerate in the first place? Maybe TCF was using a slower shutterspeed to achieve the brilliant colors that were achieved in this Telecine, however what is the point when the framerate conversion ruins the watchability of the VCD?

2 - Audio Quality. Crappy encoder? Crappy technique? The audio just plain sucks.

I cant believe anybody would consider releasing this after viewing the final disc.

this post is ridiculous.

first of all, this is a TC, not a TS, so why you're talking about 'shooting' it in the first place is beyond me.

secondly, when you find a video camera that shoots at a frame rate of either 23 OR 29 fps, you let me know. although shutter speed is variable, afaik all video cameras have a framerate of either 25 or 29.976 fps.

the "point" of framerate conversion (if any is done; usually, if the source is ntsc vhs, the framerate is left alone) is to make the vid compliant with vcd standards. in order to do this, it must be either at 23.976 (ntsc-film), 25 (pal), or 29.976 (ntsc).

__________________

This perceived misuse of Internet resources caused former Dutch education minister Loek Hermans to comment: "It would be nice if the students at Twente University would use their fast connections for information and education purposes, instead of downloading huge amounts of porn."

____________________________________ knowing is the easy part _____________

.

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:49 PM.

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
Show all 57 posts from this thread on one page