VCDQuality Forums - Darkness Falls - SCREENER

Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »
Show all 84 posts from this thread on one page

VCDQuality Forums (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/index.php)
- VCD (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)
-- Darkness Falls - SCREENER - VideoCD (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=14668)

Posted by KPJake on 02-04-2003 07:17 PM:

This release from VideoCD is great. The sound, video, and quality stay consistent throughout the movie. I accidently pressed 8 for how i liked the movie, and wanted to do a 6 because it wasn't the best movie, but good. I gave a 7 for video because it is clean and almost exactly like having the original videotape it came from. The sound was also great, and I gave it a 7 as well. Thank you for the quick & good release VideoCD

Posted by b00bie on 02-04-2003 10:42 PM:

my post achieved what i had wished

lo.pro is very intelligent or a very good actor, speculating , albiet with good reason is a far cry from actual knowledge and maybe experience in the field , he has further assured me that iam correct. Zcar calling me a fucktard was only funny ,yet name calling doesnt prove anything , i asked why was maid and manhatten and darkness falls the same source yet labled differently (i could give many more examples but this is the most recent) when you can anwser this qeustion with "i dont know" or "one is mislabled" then you will rise above your fucktard comment and earn some respect on this post, until you anwser thatquestion please save us all from your uneducated posts ....as far as Knweedo post in regards to mine.
"I'm better than you and that's why I have this movie and you'll never get it!" shit. I personally don't really care if this is a screener or not, it's damn nice quality, and it looks like a screener to me. I don't see why a group would lie about wether it's a screener or a telecine.
I never said any of you wont get it for the fact that you dont have the capabilities , but merely for the fact if things are labled wrong they get nuked and dont make there way down, if you dont care whether or not its a scr/tc then thats fine i hope you cna get it and enjoy the movie, as far as why a group would lie about something like that, a vhs scr is more tradable then a a telecine mind you not a huge difference, but if you were going to try to sell gold or silver and thought you could pass it off as either which would you do ?<--- (shit that was a good analagy) anyways videocd still lame, yet fast release , borkafatty how about sparking a convo or bringing up a new topic, rather then complaining about people who do, or if your worried about my puncuation you could just rewrite my forums and post them later so people can read something interesting

Posted by deathw on 02-04-2003 11:59 PM:

nice, keep up the good work ;]

__________________
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- Bill Gates, in 1981

Posted by Mr_Grinch on 02-05-2003 01:23 AM:

howdy folks.

Back from my mini-holiday. Quality of this is nice. Person who said it's a ts... look again. If this is a ts it's one of the prettiest ts's I've seen! Anyway, I loved the film but I'm a horror junkie, my friends found it pretty much average. Quality of this is very watchable, wasn't a scene in it where I had to strain to see what was going on.

Oh and to the guy getting SMR releases... or TMD... or whatever. They're pure shit. They don't give a good indication of the true quality, after all it isn't actually the VCD release.

Oh and if anyones noticed that I don't vote on here much it's because I only like to give comments on samples... I'd only vote on the FULL release and cos it normally takes me so long to get it I don't bother

Posted by johnnygetz on 02-05-2003 03:08 AM:

thankz alot dude

Posted by lo.pro on 02-05-2003 09:19 AM:

Re: my post achieved what i had wished

quote:
Originally posted by b00bie
lo.pro is very intelligent or a very good actor

can't i be both? :*(

but yeah, i wasn't actually disagreeing with you b00bie; like you say, if they label one one way and another just like it another way, it's inconsistant. but it's also true that whether something is a tc or screener, or the rules for how a tc should be handled by the scene, are themselves vague and inconsistant. really, a good TC can be far superior to a normal, blockbuster-type screener; but nevertheless, a screener can follow a tc, which in that case wouldn't make sense. so if a group has a tc that looks excellent, as good or better than a screener, they'll naturally label it a screener, because of the 'heirarchy of quality" that the scene assumes. i've maintained for some time now that we need a rethinking of that whole heirarchy, since we now have dvdscreeners, svcd ts's, etc etc (tho i don't claim to know exactly how it should be reworked to solve this type of problem).

that's why i don't really agree with you when you said something to the effect that the only proper answer to 'why are the two different' is either "i don't know" or "one is mislabelled". i.e., if a flick falls into more than one category, and there aren't any scene standards to dictate which a release should be labelled as, then it's hard to blame the group for labelling it one thing one time, and another, another. i mean, if the release is a telecine screener (and yes, such a thing does exist), then it's not really 'mislabelled' whichever you call it.

*shrug* seems that way to me, anyway.

__________________

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 _____________

.

Posted by knweedo on 02-05-2003 12:34 PM:

Your post achieved proving that you think you are superior than everyone else, and openly say so. It also proved that you don't know where the frikin period is on your keyboard. Tell me, *why* do you automatically assume that you are superior to everyone?

As for the debate of this being a TC/Scr, in the so-called scene, stuff isn't labled so much for actual source as it is for quality now. Groups call a crappy TS a Cam, and a good Cam at TS. If something is passable as a screener when it's a TS, then why not call it one? Really there's no way to tell.

Posted by Phantasmical on 02-05-2003 07:19 PM:

I just got done watching this, and for all the post debating what it is, its a screener theres a few black and white bits with property of messages during it. The video isnt too bad a little dark in parts but its watchable, as for the movie itself, I give it 2 out of 10 it fucking sucked.

Posted by MinisterSiniste on 02-06-2003 05:19 AM:

OK, so this was an OK screener. The colors are a little washed (looks like a BBC film or something) but that is normal for the screeners. As for the movie, they have a creepy kid the bad woman is after, like in the ring, they can't get out of the light, like in PItch Black, they are obsessed with drawing their nightmare image, like in Mothman Prophecies and Dragonfly, The bad guy looks like the killer in Scream, and was burned for killing little kids and is back to terrify the children (Yes that is Nightmare on Elm Street).
I was unable to find anything original in this movie. I thought at least special effects might make up for it. No. The bad girl just flies around in her Scream outfit, and I swear to God David Copperfield does a more convincing fly through the air on stage in person than they do in this movie.
I'd say 6.5/6.5/2
Mr Sin

Posted by Jc100 on 02-06-2003 05:56 AM:

Ok copy of movie. A few scenes where motion appears odd and like trailing.. IE fucked up framte rate. ALso, 3 40 sec- 1 min areas where property of shows, and movie goes B&W. Rather annoying since on is in a vital scene. Aside from that, movie itself is ok. Nothing to write home about. Id say 6/6/4, though i might be a little bit dvdscr spoiled. Tops on video is 7 if i wanted ot be lenient.

Posted by Mak Man on 02-06-2003 05:22 PM:

This was a decent looking release, can't complain for watching a movie free either.

My only beef with VideoCD is, why don't you update your version of winrar? Your release is 55 rar files. When I compressed the bin/cue with the most current version of winrar I only had 46 rar files. Go figure.

Other then that, well done VideoCD. Finally a movie that should fit on 1 disc isn't spanned onto 2.

Thx.

Mak.

Posted by flipp0r on 02-06-2003 05:46 PM:

most groups don't compress the rar's. They just use normal compression rather than fast, or best.

thats why if u looked at the unpacked size its like
844mb and the compressed size is also 844mb
rather than 798mb compressed

__________________
They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."

Posted by Mak Man on 02-06-2003 05:55 PM:

Ummm....I used normal compression too. Are you sure they aren't using fast?

Mak.

Posted by flipp0r on 02-07-2003 12:25 AM:

usually they dont use any compression.
other than just splitting up the archive into
15mb files.

__________________
They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."

Posted by lo.pro on 02-07-2003 01:29 AM:

yeah, normally video groups use "store". this comes from the mistaken belief that you can't really compress movies (while it's true that you can't compress an mpeg all that much, you *can* compress a bin file significantly).

maybe another reason theirs is bigger is because they added a recovery record and you didn't. recovery records are a good thing. i have one every morning with my breakfast.

Posted by ergibson83 on 02-07-2003 09:26 AM:

Can whole movie Truly fit on 1 Cd???

Why is it that I have the videoCD screener and it is 766mb? I thought the average cd can only hold 700mb. Can someone please explain to me (I'm kinda lost)?

ergibson83

:: next time do a search

Posted by phoR20 on 02-07-2003 11:30 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by OzZyOz
Just snagged a sample on kazaa but it looks more like the TS I dunno but thanx I will be dling this one on Kazaa tonight! 7/7/?

-

kazaa...junkaa.. very surprised to hear of a decent rls is on that garbage....i put my $ on it that its a fake....a AVI file that dont do nothin or infects yer dumbass-

Posted by cx on 02-07-2003 11:45 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by lo.pro
recovery records are a good thing. i have one every morning with my breakfast.

lol

I need one of those

__________________
"He had a plan. Maybe you just didn't see it 'til it hit you between the eyes. But, it started to make sense... in a Tyler sort of way. No fear. No distractions. The ability to let that which does not matter truly slide." -Fight Club

Posted by Gorax on 02-07-2003 01:03 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by OzZyOz
Dude Kazaa is great I just picked this up from SMR its awesome! I got the sample Kazaa has 0-sec shit and if u dun dl from there all ur movie needs are missing! Kazaa rules 10/10 I am dead serious. Now this movie is kew as hell am watching the SMR right now thanx dudez!

Finally someone that really knows what he's talking about! SMR is the way to go, i already have a huge collection of SMR reencodes (got them via Kaazaa/Edonkey of course). I usually convert them to DVD-R so i can watch them on TV and have better video quality. And I sincerely hope to see all the big groups switching to SMR in future as well... quality is the only thing that matters.

Posted by lo.pro on 02-07-2003 07:08 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Gorax

Finally someone that really knows what he's talking about! SMR is the way to go, i already have a huge collection of SMR reencodes (got them via Kaazaa/Edonkey of course). I usually convert them to DVD-R so i can watch them on TV and have better video quality. And I sincerely hope to see all the big groups switching to SMR in future as well... quality is the only thing that matters.

sing it, brudda!

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:49 AM.

Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »
Show all 84 posts from this thread on one page