VCDQuality Forums - Spiderman 2 *XViD* - DVDRIP

Show all 37 posts from this thread on one page

VCDQuality Forums (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/index.php)
- DIVX (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=23)
-- Spiderman 2 *XViD* - DVDRIP - ALDi (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=47382)

Posted by Scorch on 09-29-2004 10:47 AM:

Ah, sure, right when I get the fullscreen.

Thanks for this, though. Great stuff.

Posted by chiv on 09-29-2004 03:34 PM:

yep, nice release, especially from a group that ive never heard of before... and its got ac3... i was dreading that someone would do another "harry potter 3 ws", a much awaited release, but with mp3 audio... erk. but nope, spidey 2, widescreen, proper ar, nice and crisp, ac3 audio... good stuff. dump your fullscreens and get this

doesn't seem to be a screenshot of it yet, heres a comparison i took (someone was saying that fullscreen would show more than widescreen, so i had to show him he was incorrect.. ) may as well post it here so ppl can see it. top one is obviously the widscreen

spider-man fs/ws comparison

Posted by inferno12 on 09-29-2004 05:04 PM:

i heard that the f/x scenes are pan&scanned, so the ws shows more picture and the normal scenes have more picture in the fs...
maybe someone can try to capture from diffrent scenes (an action scene and a normal one). thanx!

Posted by soundifound on 09-29-2004 09:34 PM:

it shouldn't matter which shows more, its all about which one is correct (its Original Aspect Ratio). The director filmed this in widescreen, and thats what should be watched.

Posted by Redemption1980 on 09-29-2004 11:04 PM:

quote:
doesn't seem to be a screenshot of it yet, heres a comparison i took (someone was saying that fullscreen would show more than widescreen, so i had to show him he was incorrect.. ) may as well post it here so ppl can see it. top one is obviously the widscreen

Im assuming you mean me, for a fair comparison you need several different scenes from the film, dialogue and special effects shots.

quote:
i heard that the f/x scenes are pan&scanned, so the ws shows more picture and the normal scenes have more picture in the fs...

That sounds about right, would cost twice as much to create them for both transfers, T2 was the first film i noticed this in.

Posted by DaNIsH on 09-30-2004 05:05 AM:

Any idea why it was nuked?

Posted by chiv on 09-30-2004 07:13 AM:

okie doke... well ill be the first to admit it. i was HALF right... kinda

took some fx comparisons, and well.. check em out... in some respects, the fullscreen release, has more in em than the ws (sometimes they have been cropped on one axis, but show more on the other...), for the fx shots...take a look, hope they help some people make up their minds (i still dunno which i prefer, cuz im only interested in spidey2 for the visuals!)

spidey 2 fx comparison 1
spidey 2 fx comparison 2

i picked some of the more fx intensive shots, so you could really see the diffs. hope they are helpful.

Posted by gordosRD on 09-30-2004 08:34 AM:

one question, why this release is posted as nuked??

Posted by chiv on 09-30-2004 11:29 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by gordosRD
one question, why this release is posted as nuked??

someone posted this:

NUKED!
[Nuked 1 hour 46 minutes 13 seconds ago Reason: RETAIL.is.12.40.and.this.one.is.12.35]

whatever that means...?

Posted by Pedro14 on 09-30-2004 12:27 PM:

Well this release seems very screwed up to me

I get lots of green s**t and the background pixels seem to be moving in a lot of scenes. Have I got a dodgy version?.

Posted by sander_kok on 09-30-2004 01:13 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by chiv
someone posted this:

NUKED!
[Nuked 1 hour 46 minutes 13 seconds ago Reason: RETAIL.is.12.40.and.this.one.is.12.35]

whatever that means...?

Nice release, great audio + video! (9/10/9)
Thought that numbers had something to do with the minutes (as in 124.0 minutes) but the total lengths is 127.25 or something like that so that isn't right

__________________
Kokkie

Posted by Hikari on 09-30-2004 01:45 PM:

lol RETAIL.is.12.40.and.this.one.is.12.35

actually 1:2.40 , 1:2.35

Posted by inferno12 on 09-30-2004 03:26 PM:

the sample looks great, but i will be sure when the dvd-r will apear. if a good rip doesn't show up, i`ll rent the retail and rip it myself... 3cds with ac3 will look good

Posted by mj- on 09-30-2004 06:03 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by chiv
someone posted this:

NUKED!
[Nuked 1 hour 46 minutes 13 seconds ago Reason: RETAIL.is.12.40.and.this.one.is.12.35]

whatever that means...?

That's probably the aspect ratio: Release has 2.35:1 instead of 2.40:1 which would have required 560x240 resolution. Ridiculous nuke.

Posted by chiv on 09-30-2004 07:49 PM:

your right, that is stupid. the ar looks fine to me!!

Posted by inferno12 on 09-30-2004 08:15 PM:

560 x 240 means 2.33 aspect ratio
for 2.40 (the retail ar) the perfect resolution is 576 x 240.
i see that this is nuked for cropped.
and the dvd-r doesn't show up, so something is not right with the source of this rip.

Posted by Redemption1980 on 09-30-2004 08:26 PM:

Ah the nukers have got they're dunces hats on again.

I think someone better ask Sam Raimi on this one, imdb claim this was shot for 2:35:1, but Amazon claim the DVD is 2:40:1, obviously the nukers source of information.

But if you check all over the web, then you'll see half say 2:35 and the rest say 2:40, so who is right?

To be honest, even if we all had the DVD, it would be really difficult to tell, the difference is that minimal.

I ended up getting this through impatience waiting for the DVDR.

8/9/9

Posted by LaLooLa on 10-01-2004 01:37 AM:

5.1 audio does not work

Posted by mj- on 10-01-2004 10:18 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by inferno12
560 x 240 means 2.33 aspect ratio
for 2.40 (the retail ar) the perfect resolution is 576 x 240.

lol strange typo by me.

Posted by chiv on 10-01-2004 11:18 AM:

ok, i made these extra 'comparison images' mainly for myself, as i was unsure which version (fs or ws) i wanted, and also for those who werent sure which showed more, either... oh, and also for people who wanted more 'variety' in the comparison shots. i took heavy vfx shots and also shots where there are non (no obvious ones, atleast...).

plz dont think this is spam, i think its kinda useful.. it was very helpful to me, and somewhat opened my eyes as to how different versions are delivered.

ps, as for aspect ratio, it looks fine to me. if anyone wants to nuke it, well whatever, this release and its ar look bloody fine to me.

and finally, for the record, ive now decided to stick with the ws, over the fs, mainly because it is the intended way to view the film, the release looks 'neater', and overall, just gives a better view of the film. hope you enjoy/find use for, these comparison images

right, now the images:

spidey 2 comparison #1
spidey 2 comparison #2
spidey 2 comparison #3
spidey 2 comparison #4
spidey 2 comparison #5
spidey 2 comparison #6
spidey 2 comparison #7
spidey 2 comparison #8
spidey 2 comparison #9

dont worry, these are the last comparison images. hope this once and for all is all the material people need, to decide which release they want. laters.

Posted by aka_r on 10-01-2004 02:01 PM:

nuked because it is a cropped 16:9 FS

just wait for the real ws, which wont have anything missing neither from above/under neitehr from the sides

Posted by mj- on 10-01-2004 05:50 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by chiv
ok, i made these extra 'comparison images' mainly for myself, as i was unsure which version (fs or ws) i wanted, and also for those who werent sure which showed more, either... oh, and also for people who wanted more 'variety' in the comparison shots. i took heavy vfx shots and also shots where there are non (no obvious ones, atleast...).

plz dont think this is spam, i think its kinda useful.. it was very helpful to me, and somewhat opened my eyes as to how different versions are delivered.

...

dont worry, these are the last comparison images. hope this once and for all is all the material people need, to decide which release they want. laters.

No spam but nice and enlightening work mate! Thank you.

Posted by chiv on 10-01-2004 06:06 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by aka_r
nuked because it is a cropped 16:9 FS

just wait for the real ws, which wont have anything missing neither from above/under neitehr from the sides

this is the real widescreen - you are probably mixing this one up with ANOTHER release a while back (svcd release, i think), that was cropped from fs...)

Posted by Ribert on 10-01-2004 07:34 PM:

This is really strange.
I compared your images in photoshop and made this thingy:

spidey shot

Not only does the fs got more height.. it even has in this particulary shot more of the image on the left side.

Posted by Ambient Mike on 10-01-2004 08:09 PM:

Noone is nuking for bad aspect ratio.

The image is in the correct aspect ratio.

It is nuked here because the nukers, whoever they may be, seem to think that it should have more picture to it ie 2.35:1 instead of 2.4:1 which means they think that there are 6 pixels cropped off the vertical resolution.

6 pixels!!! I can live with that even if they are missing pixels.

As for WS Vs FS - it was shown in the cinema in cinemascope format (ie 2.35 or 2.4:1) so I will have it in that format please.

Mikey

Posted by Redemption1980 on 10-02-2004 02:04 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by chiv
this is the real widescreen - you are probably mixing this one up with ANOTHER release a while back (svcd release, i think), that was cropped from fs...)

Neither this or the SVCD are cropped, that was nuked because the nukers didnt know any better then, im assuming/hoping they do now.

Alright mikey, i totally agree on that, especially when theres so much contradicting information out there regarding the original AR, some sites say, 2:40 others say 2:35, to be honest it doesnt matter, as you wouldnt be able to tell.
WS is how i saw it at the cinema, and thats how i want it on DVD.

Posted by DaNIsH on 10-02-2004 06:00 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Pedro14
Well this release seems very screwed up to me

I get lots of green s**t and the background pixels seem to be moving in a lot of scenes. Have I got a dodgy version?.

Try upgrading to the latest version of Xvid. If that doesn't work I'd say the latter.

Posted by chiv on 10-02-2004 11:07 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Ribert
This is really strange.
I compared your images in photoshop and made this thingy:

spidey shot

Not only does the fs got more height.. it even has in this particulary shot more of the image on the left side.

thats what i was trying to point out. sometimes the fullscreen shows more than the widescreen does in SOME aspects (usually vertically) but the widescreen shows more horizontally.... youll find it varys through-out the film. its interesting to watch both versions if you can, to see what your missing with the ws

Posted by pHo on 10-02-2004 01:22 PM:

but you're not missing anything. with the FS print you might be seeing more, but nothing you were meant to see. if you were meant to see it, it would've been in the 2.35:1 guidelines on the monitors when they were filming it. if it wasn't for the fact they release the FS version for "traitors of cinema" to lap up, there'd probably be lots of things creeping into the frame that weren't supposed to be there.

seriously, read the aspect ratio it was intended to be shown in, and watch that. more isn't always necessarily better.

__________________
563-773-1880

<Dwaggy> i caught you a delicious Bass
<The404> This is because you are an idiot

Posted by Pedro14 on 10-02-2004 05:58 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by DaNIsH
Try upgrading to the latest version of Xvid. If that doesn't work I'd say the latter.

Thanks for that, I updated to latest (1.0.2) and it works now. I dont think the quality is perfect but its not bad, is this a telesync?.

8/8/?

Posted by Redemption1980 on 10-03-2004 01:19 AM:

quote:
wasn't for the fact they release the FS version for "traitors of cinema" to lap up

That made me smile, remember when i was younger sitting watching the WS Star Wars trilogy on a 14" TV, cause I believed it was better, even then, when most people thought u were weird if you watched WS stuff, and the VHS WS copies were alot more expensive than the FS ones.

Star wars is proper WS unlike this, but i still believe i should be watched in the ratio it was inteded for, no matter your TV shape or size.

Posted by andybno1 on 10-03-2004 03:08 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by chiv
spidey 2 comparison #1
spidey 2 comparison #2
spidey 2 comparison #3
spidey 2 comparison #4
spidey 2 comparison #5
spidey 2 comparison #6
spidey 2 comparison #7
spidey 2 comparison #8
spidey 2 comparison #9

After seein these comparisons I see the widescreen gest rid of unneeded picture frame on the top an bottom so I dont see what ppl bitch about the ws and fs for

Posted by chiv on 10-03-2004 08:25 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Pedro14
Thanks for that, I updated to latest (1.0.2) and it works now. I dont think the quality is perfect but its not bad, is this a telesync?.

8/8/?

?? telesync?! the quality in this is quite allright - its a long(ish) movie, at a large resolution, and with ac3 audio... not many could do a noticibly better rip of this film, so perhaps you grabbed a different release and got mixed up or something...

Posted by inferno12 on 10-03-2004 01:41 PM:

if this was ripped from a real retail source, where is the dvd-r release ?? i also noticed that the harry potter 3 ws dvd-r is not released so it's very possible that we will see a proper release of both movies in the future.

Posted by bravo90078 on 10-05-2004 03:42 AM:

Well Spidey2 was shot in "Super35mm", which is a home-video "friendly" format. It basically uses a larger size film stock and shoots the whole film in fullscreen and then just crops it to widescreen aspect ratio for the theatre.

Then later when the studios release the dvd, they can just uncrop the picture and they have the extra top and bottom to fill the whole screen, as opposed to the old pan-and-scan method.

However with FX shots, they are usually rendered in the widescreen aspect ratio for theatrical release and they rarely render both a widescreen and fullscreen version (there are expections of course)... so basically for spidey2 since all the FX footage was in widescreen they HAVE to pan-and-scan it. But since all the other footage was shot in Super35, they don't have to pan and scan anything they just uncrop the picture.

So it looks like this no name group, thought they could be smart and just crop the fullscreen rip and pass it off as a widescreen release.

Damn studios and their super35! Just do OAR and make the people accept it.

Posted by Redemption1980 on 10-05-2004 11:35 AM:

quote:
So it looks like this no name group, thought they could be smart and just crop the fullscreen rip and pass it off as a widescreen release.

This isnt what this group has done, unless they magically created some extra footage at the side, as this has parts that aren't in the FS release.

Where the DVDR is of this, that is a good question.

Super35 is a pain in the arse for WS TV owners and most big films are made this way, but anything made before the mid eighties should be ok.

Posted by Ribert on 10-06-2004 07:39 PM:

quote:
However with FX shots, they are usually rendered in the widescreen aspect ratio for theatrical release and they rarely render both a widescreen and fullscreen version (there are expections of course)...

Evidently this is an exception and they did render the FX for the whole screen.

And for the dvd-r, I just think this group is for some reason not able to release it. Doesnt look like a group with to much experience...

ps.
I'm now convinsed this rip has the same AR as was show in the cinema. I'm new here, but can nukes be unnuked?

[Edit:: We don't nuke, we just report what's been nuked

- Neversoft]

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Show all 37 posts from this thread on one page