VCDQuality Forums - Star Trek Nemesis - SCREENER

Show all 57 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 - SCREENER - VERiTY (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=14945)

Posted by dphoenix on 02-10-2003 10:10 AM:

Not a bad rls, this is pretty old though.. still, this is probably the best rls of this so far, but at this point isn't it worth just waiting for the dvdrip?

Posted by spectra on 02-10-2003 10:25 AM:

nforce nuked for:
bad.quality.not.screener

Posted by TabascoJoe on 02-10-2003 10:46 AM:

You think we have a DVD screener by now

-- you'd think your a fucking idiot by now.

Posted by aXs-SVCD on 02-10-2003 11:01 AM:

Just got the sample, this movie is alot better Quality then first and 2nd rls!!!!, sound got alot better, Quality is alright worth downloading....

( NUKED EVERYWHERE )

- Not VCD complaint

VERiTY repak it please

Thanx for bringing a good movie VERiTY

__________________
Lets See What's New Today
( VCDQUALITY ROCKS )

OK, Please Stop asking for Movies, and Go and find it.

Posted by Jugalator on 02-10-2003 11:07 AM:

Hmm, this was nuked at nforce for being bad quality and not a screener. :-/

I really wish to see a high quality rls of this movie since I'm a Star Trek geek but never got around watching it at the movies... LOTR: TTT had to do.

Posted by HoldDaSalad on 02-10-2003 11:43 AM:

sweetness

I just got home from work, this is awesome, I have been waiting for a screener of this movie. i can't wait to get it. I'm off to get it. If your a star trek geek like me its worth getting.

Posted by sickdick on 02-10-2003 11:46 AM:

just dl'ed the movie, sample doesn't do justice to it, movie's alot better quality... bad choice of scene for sample

gonna watch it now... will inform if any glitch's... so far i noticed a few "property of paramount" messages.... very small line of text for a few sec's every now and then, so no biggie

Posted by DaGamler on 02-10-2003 11:48 AM:

haven't seen it yet, but it's getting nuked on a few sites i have for bad quality.

Posted by Arioch on 02-10-2003 12:09 PM:

Nuked.. PooR quality

Posted by Xiphi on 02-10-2003 12:19 PM:

aha nice one...
but ill just wait just a bit longer...

Posted by ali_c on 02-10-2003 12:21 PM:

seems its already been nuked everywhere

Posted by evoke on 02-10-2003 01:56 PM:

Nforce nuked it.

Posted by buttheaduk on 02-10-2003 02:05 PM:

Nuked for being

- Shite quality!
- Not VCD complaint

Posted by CinapS on 02-10-2003 02:16 PM:

nice telecine 7,5,8 ( shh dont tell no one buts its a telecine )

Posted by Beedle on 02-10-2003 02:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by CinapS
nice telecine 7,5,8 ( shh dont tell no one buts its a telecine )

Was thinking that myself. It's got that too-bright thing goin on that you usually see with TS', not screeners. Gonna wait till I watch the whole thing to submit my rating, but so far I'm thinking 6.7.? If it had been labeled as a ts or tc, then I'd give it a 8.8.?

__________________
It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Posted by sickdick on 02-10-2003 02:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by CinapS
nice telecine 7,5,8 ( shh dont tell no one buts its a telecine )

i doubt telecines have "property of paramount" messages

(shh dont tell anyone they have those its a surprise)

Posted by SBlack on 02-10-2003 02:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by buttheaduk
Nuked for being

- Shite quality!
- Not VCD complaint

Not on my site

Posted by pHizZ on 02-10-2003 03:24 PM:

8, 5, 6.

its PAL, but it doesn't really matter, as i'm going to convert it to DVDR, anyway. not bad.

Posted by CinapS on 02-10-2003 04:15 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by sickdick

i doubt telecines have "property of paramount" messages
(shh dont tell anyone they have those its a surprise)

If you weren’t so stupid you would know telecines are also made by production companies and some do have property labels you idiot. Get your shit straight before you post.

Posted by VCD_MAD on 02-10-2003 05:12 PM:

WOW about time we got a good release of this movie

keep up the good work .

p.s

can one of the vcdquality member fix my voting privileges out plz

Your voting privileges have been revoked for abuse...
click here to explain why you voted 1/1/1 or 10/10/10's..

NOT TRUE

cos i allways vote fair

Posted by Heflink on 02-10-2003 08:54 PM:

Quality is not the best. The sound is okay but the video is grainy. Looks like a vhs screener to me, but I dont know enough about telecine to say whether or not it is one.

Best release so far, thats all I can say.

5/7/6

Posted by buttheaduk on 02-10-2003 09:07 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Heflink
. Looks like a vhs screener to me, but I dont know enough about telecine to say whether or not it is one.
5/7/6

Maybe it is a VHS Screener

btw who said it was a telecine?

Posted by CaptainPooHat on 02-10-2003 10:52 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by buttheaduk

Maybe it is a VHS Screener

btw who said it was a telecine?

CinapS did

im not gettin this rls simply because of the commercials ..'AS GOOD AS STARWARS' ..my ass. theres no way its that good, but i'm easily persuaded i suppose so ill wait for a better rls or...dare i say...the dvd ..might be worth the rental.

6/7/waaaaaiting~

__________________
Saving the world from danger with a piece of shit on my head.

Posted by daz..griff on 02-11-2003 12:21 AM:

not bad alot better than the last 1.. thats about it.

Posted by X400 on 02-11-2003 01:25 AM:

the last star wars sucked.. even phantom menace was eghhh but not as bad as this last one omg it was sad last 45mins was the only good part in the star wars flick

star trek on the other hand this isnt one of their stonger movies but its still a better watch then the last star wars movie

release kinda looks like it was recorded from a shitty vhs tape
but still worth it if you cant wait another month? for the dvd
7/7.5/7

Posted by pHizZ on 02-11-2003 01:33 AM:

i'm pretty sure its VHS screener. Looks like a copy of a copy; the ripping could have been a lot better.

Posted by CcZ on 02-11-2003 01:54 AM:

This is, no matter what it is (ts, tc, scr, cam), the best release of this movie yet. It is not excellent quality and property signs get in the way and it's a little grainy, but it's definitly the best release yet. As for a dvd screener or rip, this movie is supposed to come out on dvd/vhs on May 13th as says this web site: http://www.trektoday.com/news/070203_01.shtml
The dvd rip and screener shouldn't be that far away so i'd suggest waiting (expect it late feb-early april) until a better one comes out unless your a die hard fan!

Posted by LiQuIdMuNkY on 02-11-2003 05:56 AM:

I see that it has been nuked on numerous sites that i am on, but not all, very strange, I thought it was alright quality, definatly watchable.

__________________
I dont know, whats a good sig?

Posted by FOS on 02-11-2003 07:27 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by VCD_MAD
WOW about time we got a good release of this movie

keep up the good work .

p.s

can one of the vcdquality member fix my voting privileges out plz

Your voting privileges have been revoked for abuse...
click here to explain why you voted 1/1/1 or 10/10/10's..

NOT TRUE

cos i allways vote fair

fag.

Posted by coathanger on 02-11-2003 08:25 AM:

Just saw the sample, If thats a screener then they need to let someonlse rip it

Posted by sickdick on 02-11-2003 09:18 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by CinapS

If you weren’t so stupid you would know telecines are also made by production companies and some do have property labels you idiot. Get your shit straight before you post.

lol what a dork
go read the definition of telecine
its a copy made digitally from the REELs!!
which stupid production company puts copyright messages on the REELS ? u have any idea how much that cost?
haha, idiot

Posted by alundrety on 02-11-2003 10:30 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by TabascoJoe
You think we have a DVD screener by now

ditto

__________________
ehhhhh

Posted by blacks on 02-11-2003 12:56 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by sickdick

lol what a dork
go read the definition of telecine
its a copy made digitally from the REELs!!
which stupid production company puts copyright messages on the REELS ? u have any idea how much that cost?
haha, idiot

No offence, but he is right. Production companies do make telecines.
What you fail to see is the bigger picture. the copyright messages are not on the reels, but rather a post-telecining addition. Btw, most screeners are made from telecine method. Just a data transfer.
And as for your costs argument, come on, we are talking about the big players here. Not some porn film production crew.

Posted by sweetsour on 02-11-2003 01:15 PM:

I don't think that nowadays any production company makes telecines... The telecines around are pirate stuff.
So the property msgs mean that it is a screener..

Posted by nikelrah on 02-11-2003 04:02 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by sweetsour
I don't think that nowadays any production company makes telecines... The telecines around are pirate stuff.
So the property msgs mean that it is a screener..

well, if they don't shoot the whole thing digital they have to transfer it from the reels -> vhs/dvd etc at some point

[general rant]

but i don't really see the fuss about the whole Screener/Telecine issue. Quality wise a Telecine can be better than a commercial Screener (JP3 anyone?) and vice-versa. Also in most cases Screeners are still made by telecining the reels, so it's technically the same.

I think VideoCD(?) just introduced the Telecine-Tag for low-standard/very early/heavy watermarked screeners. I also find it rather amusing that some people even claim a release is a Telecine just because it has a counter/serial. Some Screeners have counters, some don't, some Telecines have "property of" messages, some don't. So everyone please stop pulling things out of your ass when you obbiously don't really have a clue. Imho it's almost impossible to tell if something is a "real" Screener or "just" a Telecine just from the encode itself.

[/general rant].

Posted by Mak Man on 02-11-2003 04:16 PM:

Who cares if it's nuked, it's still the best copy i've seen out there.

Good job VERiTY!

Mak.

Posted by sickdick on 02-11-2003 07:07 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by aXs-SVCD
Just got the sample, this movie is alot better Quality then first and 2nd rls!!!!, sound got alot better, Quality is alright worth downloading....

( NUKED EVERYWHERE )

- Not VCD complaint

VERiTY repak it please

Thanx for bringing a good movie VERiTY

this is how i fixed it
extracted mpg from bin/cue using vcdgear then followed by extracting the mpg in tmpeg and remuxing in tmpg by selecting mpeg1 vcd compliant, then burning the mpeg in nero
works fine for me that way

Posted by WeBMaSTeR on 02-11-2003 11:23 PM:

VERY poor quality for a screener. Looks like a TS (I know it isn't).

While the best out there - it still sux !!!

Should have viewed it before I burnt it - just wasted a couple of CD's

Posted by elmo on 02-12-2003 12:34 AM:

damn webmaster WASTED cds? geeze i aint seen you out on any street corners *flicks you 50p* i know i know cd's are oh so exp

Posted by coathanger on 02-12-2003 12:50 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by WeBMaSTeR
VERY poor quality for a screener. Looks like a TS (I know it isn't).

While the best out there - it still sux !!!

Should have viewed it before I burnt it - just wasted a couple of CD's

Have you ever heard of cd-rw. If the quality is crap all you have lost is burning time.

Posted by CcZ on 02-12-2003 01:04 AM:

CD-R's are cheaper than cd-rw's btw, you can buy like 5 for the price of 1 cd-rw...in bulk it's even better...
it's been "proven" that cd-rw's lose the data quite often and aren't as "dependable."

Posted by MinisterSiniste on 02-12-2003 03:54 AM:

So I've been watching everyone argue about the screener/telecine issue, and here's what I have to say. This release is shit. In my opinion it looks as if the group took a crappy ass TS and put counter, LAS and occassional Property of messages over top of it. This wouldn' be that hard to do. I mean come on look at the brightness and contrast issues. This wasn't taken from a VHS source (and if so a VERY VERY fucked up one)I've watched VHS copies of HBO movies I taped with a top loader in 1983 that look better than this. Regardless of what they call it and how much you fight over TC/Screener, it isn't even the quality of a decent TS, so who cares?
Video=2
Audio=4
MrSin

Posted by lo.pro on 02-12-2003 04:03 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by blacks

Btw, most screeners are made from telecine method. Just a data transfer.

i don't think that's really true. i think most screeners are made from telecines. (i'm assuming what you meant was "made using the telecine method", whereas i mean "2nd generation copies made from telecines".)

__________________

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 Heflink on 02-12-2003 12:00 PM:

I never argue on these forums, but there is no way that this is a TS. First off why would someone rename it, most groups would probably be proud to have a telesync thats this good of quality.

Sure in the bright scenes where they are looking for b4 it looks so bright it's hard to tell the source, but in the darker scenes it's obvious that this is a screener. It's 3rd generation at least but a vhs source.

Posted by blacks on 02-12-2003 08:17 PM:

This isnt a TS obviously, but I might add the quality is so bad its almost as unwatchable as a TS.

Kind of reminds me of TWC's WPTs.

Posted by petrocs on 02-13-2003 04:00 AM:

quality is subpar for a screener ..way subpar

nice try Verity good thing I am not a big Star Trek fan

6/7/6

__________________
"If somebody said to me, in twelve years you’ll be in a band with your brother and two carrot munching geezers who don’t like football, I would've said 'fuck off, I’m not joining the Bee Gees." -Noel Gallagher 2005

Posted by The CandyMan on 02-13-2003 11:45 AM:

Has anyone else had problems with audio on cd 1? When I play it on my comp, it seems fine, but in my dvd player (stand alone) it goes in and out, and my receiver seems to have problems with it, cutting in and out of the center channel. Going to rip the audio, check it and then re-encode, but did anyone else have this prob??

My vote: for a screener, I give it a 6/6/?

__________________

Posted by synchron on 02-13-2003 02:03 PM:

Saw this complete yesterday. Sound was very good on a normal 2 channel system. Much better release than FTF but real fans should await a DVD screener. The entire footage of the planet with the dunebuggies (or whatever it's called) is too bright and barely watchable (it wasn't too watchable in theatres either). Aside from that, decent release.

6,8,8 <--- yeah, I guess I'm a trekkie

synchron.

Posted by synchron on 02-13-2003 02:12 PM:

Non standard VCD

Oops, forgot to mention, Verity must have encoded this as XVCD which has higher bitrate than the standard 1150 bitrate for VCD. Probably done on purpose to eliminate Artifacts on all the dark scenes. Most DVD players accept this format so it doesn't really need a repack.

Posted by coathanger on 02-13-2003 03:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by CczuAzul
CD-R's are cheaper than cd-rw's btw, you can buy like 5 for the price of 1 cd-rw...in bulk it's even better...
it's been "proven" that cd-rw's lose the data quite often and aren't as "dependable."

Yes cdr is cheaper to purchase but when it comes to burnig anything but a dvd rip why would you want to maintain a copy.

Next point, I dont know how many times you can reuse cdrw but I have burned 50+ movies to 5 cdrw purchased for 5 bucks and some change (paid a little extra to get 12x) and have had no trouble with them at all. If I'm burning 1 to check quality, divx re-encodes and such, when I get the quality I'm looking for I just burn it again.

Anyway it helps prevent producing some trash which is worth something to me.

Posted by The CandyMan on 02-14-2003 02:02 PM:

Was able to rip the audio and video seperate with Virtualdub, and re-encode using Tmpgenc. Filtered and such it now sounds great, no screwed up sound and video even looks a little better too. Definitely was not VCD compliant.

__________________

Posted by Vtec on 02-14-2003 02:33 PM:

The release lacks color and sound is eh, it's ok for trekkie fanatics but I'd wait for a proper.

Posted by lo.pro on 02-14-2003 04:19 PM:

jesus christ, vtec, why don't you just make extra sure that that fuckup doesn't get overlooked by anyone, i'm sure you've really put their supplier's mind at ease :/

Posted by Virgil2U on 02-16-2003 12:44 AM:

E.niG.M@ idiot poster

Again another idiot posted a movie without first checking it out to see what it is and claiming it to be a Screener when it was in fact a very poor quality cam job. If I had gotten this from my normal road runner account I would not be so offended but I had to use my easynews account to get it and it costed me dearly in time and money for a POS, this fecal pile of excrement that calls itself E.niG.M@ should be banned from ever posting anything again but what is worse is the thing used the -=VPR=- emblem to give it credibility. At least I was able to clip out the logos and other foul stuff and will work on enhancing the color and sound quality.

Posted by scousethief on 02-16-2003 09:45 PM:

this movie is not compliant pic is ok on standalone audio is intermittent groups should stick to standards and not fuck around when they dont know what theyre doing

Posted by Doughnuts on 02-24-2003 03:52 AM:

Damn Trekkies.... :")

Posted by vcdflow on 02-24-2003 06:50 PM:

Man, this movie sucked, good thing I used (2) cdrs instead of 20$ to watch this. Great release though! Nice quality.

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16 AM.

Show all 57 posts from this thread on one page