VCDQuality Forums - Star Trek Nemesis *ReadNFO* - TELESYNC

Show all 32 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)
-- Star Trek Nemesis *ReadNFO* - TELESYNC - XV (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=13203)

Posted by tumtum on 01-05-2003 04:23 PM:

Why the *read nfo* ? If you're gonna proper someone then you're nfo will be read anyway. I tough *read nfo* was only supposed to be used if you had some sort of annoucment to make, but lately its just being used to bash other groups and their releases .

Posted by [RaZoR] on 01-05-2003 04:29 PM:

true , ReadNFO is often used without sence.

__________________
no idea

Posted by ZeroActive on 01-05-2003 04:38 PM:

It think it was better to replace ReadNFO with PROPER

Posted by crob on 01-05-2003 04:39 PM:

It's terrible, disgusting and out of order. Seriously, there should be a law against it. I am sickened by this continual use of *ReadNfo* Even typing this now I feel like a could chunder over my keyboard. I feel my life energy draining away... arggggg.. help....

Posted by rvwinkle on 01-05-2003 04:43 PM:

READ NFO

Proper means better right ? Maybe someone assumes that and doenst read the nfo, well unless of course its labeled READ NFO ,right? Everyone does read the nfo when they are labeled like that I would hope.

Anyways to the point... I think this is the part they wanted everybody to read below.

we do hope you enjoy this release and stop bitching about the releases.remember they are free if you dont like it dont download

Amen to that xv, but this is vcdquality you know.
Not that this messsage was just to us but i think it is ok to say wether or not we liked it and why here.

Posted by Ripper on 01-05-2003 05:05 PM:

The term read nfo is simple its for the site ops b4 they auto nuke
it since there is a (ftf ts) teg(subbed) some kiddies may just nuke it waiting for the dvd screener
And b4 anyone says check the sample out ,anyone with intellegance will tell you its easy to make a film look better than it is with selected parts of the movie

__________________
I was never caught!

Posted by The CandyMan on 01-05-2003 05:18 PM:

Has anyone actually seen this rls or a sample??

__________________

Posted by DJD4566 on 01-05-2003 05:26 PM:

ok the jpg looks good what r u bitches complaining about i know u r not supposed 2 judge by the jpgs but they help me decide 2 get the release or not i have not yet downloaded this release i think im gonna get this one unless its that bad can anyone give an actual review on this ?

Posted by ScabbyDoo on 01-05-2003 05:39 PM:

i have seen the sample to this,

the picture forom what i can see seems to be a bit blurry, FTF's rls was Crispy but quite block. there are 2 downfalls to this rls. the ennoying J on teh left and about 50-75 pixels of black on the right side.

i cant really jusdge it fully. it woudl of been better to see the action scene. but i am happywith the ftf rls for now.

although i do think it should be nuked for bad labelling. in the NFO it says that it is better than any other rlses all pointing to it being a proper but it is not. really it shoudl be considered as a dupe.

Posted by Xiphi on 01-05-2003 05:41 PM:

Just saw the sample..
Picture is good.. but a bit blurry, but good anough to watch.

Sound is a bit hard.. and not that clear tho but good anough to listen too.

There was only some singing and talking in the sample so could be that with explosions etc the sound will be very bad.. but other then that.. its good anough to watch... and its only 2 cds....

but i do get a feeling that there will be a better one soon.. but that can be said about every release hehehe..

Posted by cofferscuffs on 01-05-2003 05:45 PM:

the quality of the video is just as good as ftf, this is no proper, if you look closely at the video it seems it was from a vhs source... the audio is mildly better however... but still quite a pointless release, should of done internal imho

__________________
cC.

Posted by strawhair on 01-05-2003 05:50 PM:

voting privileges

maybe we should only be allowed to vote between 2/2/2 and 9/9/9 because i havent done all 10's or all 1's but allegedly i have done this and have been banned from voting?.
could somebody explain to me what is the point of having the out of 10 voting system if we are not allowed to vote for some releases how we see fit-it kind of renders the whole thing pointless?.
i await the usual mature replies
however- 3/4/3

Posted by ScabbyDoo on 01-05-2003 06:00 PM:

Re: voting privileges

quote:
Originally posted by strawhair
maybe we should only be allowed to vote between 2/2/2 and 9/9/9 because i havent done all 10's or all 1's but allegedly i have done this and have been banned from voting?.
could somebody explain to me what is the point of having the out of 10 voting system if we are not allowed to vote for some releases how we see fit-it kind of renders the whole thing pointless?.
i await the usual mature replies
however- 3/4/3

i dont hink it would matter if we ws only allowed to vote between 2/2/2 and 9/9/9 the biased people will still vote the worst or the best of a rls by a group even if it is a good or bad rls.

Posted by Natural on 01-05-2003 06:04 PM:

again with the goddamn read-nfo's. read-nfo should only be used to explain something specfic about the release. maybe the audio is fucked for 2 mins on cd 2, but it's worlds better than previous releases. that's when you put in a read-nfo, dumbasses, not to explain lame proper reasons..

Posted by Xiphi on 01-05-2003 06:08 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by cofferscuffs
if you look closely at the video it seems it was from a vhs source...

ahum... then it should be a vhs screener. but according to the sample its a cam.. a good cam...

about the sample:

there is a R in the screen on the left that stays there and its missing something on the left or its filmed too much to the right..

Posted by ScabbyDoo on 01-05-2003 06:09 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Natural
again with the goddamn read-nfo's. read-nfo should only be used to explain something specfic about the release. maybe the audio is fucked for 2 mins on cd 2, but it's worlds better than previous releases. that's when you put in a read-nfo, dumbasses, not to explain lame proper reasons..

they are not stating proper reasons because they didnt lable is as a proper

Posted by Mr_Grinch on 01-05-2003 06:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Xiphi

ahum... then it should be a vhs screener. but according to the sample its a cam.. a good cam...

about the sample:

there is a R in the screen on the left that stays there and its missing something on the left or its filmed too much to the right..

Maybe it was Cam'd, recorded to vhs and then converted to mpg.

Anyway, I didn't like this film much but judging by the sample it looks like the best release yet. As someone said though, sample's can be missleading.

Posted by Xiphi on 01-05-2003 06:36 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Grinch

Maybe it was Cam'd, recorded to vhs and then converted to mpg.

everything is possible these day's

Posted by backoff on 01-05-2003 07:16 PM:

I think this movie sucked really bad, so if you REALLY REALLY like stupid fucking Star Trek maybe you will like this, but I fell asleep when I went to see it in the theatres.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

Posted by Ragin on 01-05-2003 07:37 PM:

Nuff is Nuff!!

I happen to be one of THOSE who like the ST series, and have been waiting for the screener to come out. It's been long enough for a release, and the CAMS/ SYNCS are just there to mellow the masses when a movie first comes out. It's been out long enough, and no other cams or syncs or even propers are really needed, just a screener, and be done with it. But I guess someone has to try and get a very small piece of the 15 min fame thing trying to release a movie that did poor in the box office, and seems to have no interest even in the VCDQuality community even. But we all do love bithing about the poor quality of this release, it seems to give us a purpose here on the boards....sheeze!

Ragin!!

Posted by alundrety on 01-05-2003 07:45 PM:

i hate people who rate by picture

i got the sample and it looks only a little bit better then the ftf, better color but the picture is kinda out of focus as if it is a auto focused cam...

the sound is of a cam and not of a auz hookup(ts)

whatever

__________________
ehhhhh

Posted by Natural on 01-05-2003 08:09 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ScabbyDoo

they are not stating proper reasons because they didnt lable is as a proper

it's implied. there is no other reason for their read-nfo, other than to explain why it's better than the other ts'

Posted by Natural on 01-05-2003 08:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by backoff
I think this movie sucked really bad, so if you REALLY REALLY like stupid fucking Star Trek maybe you will like this, but I fell asleep when I went to see it in the theatres.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

yes, i will certainly heed your "unbiased" opinion. since you obviously hate st, then why did you go see it. furthermore, why even bother stating your opinion since no matter how good the movie was, it would still be negative. your post is useless

Posted by cofferscuffs on 01-05-2003 09:41 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Grinch

Maybe it was Cam'd, recorded to vhs and then converted to mpg.

Anyway, I didn't like this film much but judging by the sample it looks like the best release yet. As someone said though, sample's can be missleading.

ok ok non-dv cam then.... but look closely it does look like its been cammed with a non-dv cam

__________________
cC.

Posted by Serpentor on 01-05-2003 11:07 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Natural

it's implied. there is no other reason for their read-nfo, other than to explain why it's better than the other ts'

Implied Natural, or implode?

Posted by Natural on 01-06-2003 06:46 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Serpentor

Implied Natural, or implode?

if there's a punchline to that, i missed it. what does implode have to do with anything?

Posted by vcd fogie on 01-06-2003 06:57 AM:

why are you fools arguing about polotics? WHO CARES WHAT THE DAMN TAG IN THE RLS NAME IS??!?! maybe some anal jerkass nuker cares, but nobody else does. they just like quality releases. they're not gonna care whether someone put readnfo or proper.

i just checked the sample. great silver XV... the colors are almost perfect, it's much crisper than most telesyncs, there's no bleeding, and the sound is audible although a bit "tinny." thanks XV, i'll be downloading this for sure. and anything is better than an ftf cam. thanks!

8/7/haven't watched movie yet

__________________
retired from the scene, but still leechin!

Posted by Kazmir on 01-06-2003 09:15 PM:

Re: voting privileges

quote:
Originally posted by strawhair
maybe we should only be allowed to vote between 2/2/2 and 9/9/9 because i havent done all 10's or all 1's but allegedly i have done this and have been banned from voting?.
could somebody explain to me what is the point of having the out of 10 voting system if we are not allowed to vote for some releases how we see fit-it kind of renders the whole thing pointless?.
i await the usual mature replies
however- 3/4/3

Errm... you can still vote 1/1/5, the release sucks but the movie is average. 1/1/1 is an ubershitty release of an ubershitty movie, which is pretty unlikely to happen, ever. If you vote 1/1/1, you probably don't have a clue and do it just to dump on a group, so that's forbidden.

__________________
-- Kaz

Posted by Norco01 on 01-06-2003 11:43 PM:

Ya this release sucks pretty bad. Don't bother.

Posted by Twista on 01-07-2003 03:40 PM:

::::::The source is from a cam cuz there's peoples head in front of the screen during the movie.. On the 1st and second cd's, the last 20 minutes, the audio went out of sync and the video kept screwing....... I rate this 4/4/9::::::::::

(b) This makes sense to take time viewing what people take for granted.......

Posted by Jesus H Christ on 01-09-2003 12:13 AM:

The whole thing is messed up - shame, cos went to see this in the Cinema and it's rather good.

Posted by Natural on 01-09-2003 04:35 AM:

for the record it also has the same audio gaps that the ftf version had. well not gaps really, more like missing sfx...

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12 PM.

Show all 32 posts from this thread on one page