VCDQuality Forums (http://forum.vcdq.com/index.php)
- DIVX (http://forum.vcdq.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=23)
-- Munich (2005) *PROPER* *XviD* - DVD SCR - INCiTE (http://forum.vcdq.com/showthread.php?threadid=68629)

IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ

1 NO REQUESTING MOVIES OR SAMPLES (THIS INCLUDES REQUESTS FOR OTHER GROUPS TO RELEASE THIS MOVIE!)

2 DO NOT DISCUSS WHERE TO DOWNLOAD MOVIES OR SAMPLES

3 DO NOT ASK FOR "RAR PASSWORDS" COS WE DON'T KNOW THEM. CHECK WITH YOUR SOURCE

4 NO FLAMING

5 NO "SPOILERS"

6 NO SCENE-RELATED DISCUSSION/RUMORS (ESPECIALLY REGARDING BUSTS)

7 COMMENT ON THIS RELEASE ONLY (AND ONLY IF YOU'VE SEEN AT LEAST THE SAMPLE). THIS IS THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE THREAD!

8 NO "NOOB" QUESTIONS SUCH AS "HOW DO I WATCH THIS?" ASK IN THE APPROPRIATE PART OF THE FORUM

9 NO DISCUSSING TRADING/SELLING. IF YOU SELL COPIES, GO AWAY YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE

* Newbie questions? General questions unrelated to this release? Internet LOL's? Right here dudes


*** PEOPLE IGNORING THE RULES WILL BE BANNED ***

A fair comment by INCiTE and deffinatly worth taking note for all the groups that intend to put out DVDscr in future. However.. It's not a valid reason to PROPER.

They would have been better off just releasing a scene NFO notice to warn others.

What would be a good proper reason would have been to mention that DVL's XviD (and booZers DVDR) where from P2P releases and NOT their own sources.

As those originated from P2P source and not scene does the watermarking in their screeners mean anything? Er.. nope. Do you think booZers or DVL are gonna be worried about a watermark that that isn't even from their own source? Erm.. Nope

booZers and DVL at the time of them releasing a p2p source needed something to release and that's why both took the lame root of doing it. You only have to look at the lack of releases by both groups over the last few months compared to what they used to release to know they have source problems and where pretty desperate i guess.

They do make a good point though even if their release is totaly a waste of time.

Quality looks the same as before nice (but pointless) release.

i'll give them 10/10 for the NFO though

Hey Anno, I guess you missed the part of the nfo that said DVL was nuked for Bad IVTC... They didn't proper because of watermarks... They were just informing the rest of the watermarks... I would agree with you if they had released Proper due to watermarking, but this is not the case. The reason was IVTC, which is a valid reason to proper. Good job iNCiTE

8/8/?

Ahhh.. makes sense now, Your right DigitaLSD i missed that part i was tunneled towards the watermarking comment.. I stand corrected.

Its not from p2p source. Its clear they have a screen source when king kong was released, so obviously they dont need to steal and respectable groups like DVL/booZers wouldnt do it anyway.

__________________
iNFiNiTY

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anno
Ahhh.. makes sense now, Your right DigitaLSD i missed that part i was tunneled towards the watermarking comment.. I stand corrected.

---

__________________
"Sure, Kill Bill's a violent movie. But it's a Tarantino movie. You don't go to see Metallica and ask the fuckers to turn the music down."

yeah, the DVL has qpel too

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anno
A fair comment by INCiTE and deffinatly worth taking note for all the groups that intend to put out DVDscr in future. However.. It's not a valid reason to PROPER.

They would have been better off just releasing a scene NFO notice to warn others.

What would be a good proper reason would have been to mention that DVL's XviD (and booZers DVDR) where from P2P releases and NOT their own sources.

As those originated from P2P source and not scene does the watermarking in their screeners mean anything? Er.. nope. Do you think booZers or DVL are gonna be worried about a watermark that that isn't even from their own source? Erm.. Nope

booZers and DVL at the time of them releasing a p2p source needed something to release and that's why both took the lame root of doing it. You only have to look at the lack of releases by both groups over the last few months compared to what they used to release to know they have source problems and where pretty desperate i guess.

They do make a good point though even if their release is totaly a waste of time.

Quality looks the same as before nice (but pointless) release.

i'll give them 10/10 for the NFO though

---

__________________

Is that why booZers released theirs less than 24hrs after the p2p release was on the net? and is it just a coincidence that they BOTH contain the same digital signature then?

As for research.. i did mine. Maybe you should do the same.

Then YOU tell me why the p2p sources had all the FBI warning and crap removed before the the movie starts.

While on BooZerS release they are all there and intact! If you can explain that to me then I'll gladly admit I'm wrong.


It might have been the same source in the begining but BooZers left that in just to prove that it was there own source and not from some P2P site.

__________________

LOL Athlon64, Those warnings you speak about are just added as an effort to to fool people like you

It's pretty much widly known those warnings were added from other screeners that have EXACTLY the same warnings. Fair play to booZers as it seems they fooled quite a few with that little trick. If only they had realised it was watermarked with a signature that only 1 DVD in the world had. And yes that same mark was in the p2p release that was on the net FIRST.

You can go on about it being different all you like but watermarks don't lie. Nor do release times.

PM me exactly where the watermark is and I'll admit I was wrong. You don't then I still don't believe you. It's that simple bud.

__________________