VCDQuality Forums - Dirty Dancing Havana Nights - DVDRIP

Show all 7 posts from this thread on one page

VCDQuality Forums (http://forum.vcdq.com/index.php)
- DVDR (http://forum.vcdq.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=24)
-- Dirty Dancing Havana Nights - DVDRIP - Replica (http://forum.vcdq.com/showthread.php?threadid=42060)

Posted by vip3r on 06-19-2004 03:26 PM:

Dirty Dancing Havana Nights - DVDRIP - Replica

Well i don't know if it's just me..but the picture on this doesn't seem all that great for a DVDr. Sound is fine, but geez, i don't know about the pic..

8/10/?

::edit:: Now that i looked back at the Cold Mountain forum of the dvdr from replica, i saw some others discussing/complaining about the quality and encoding methods of their releases. So..maybe it isn't me. Someone let me know.

Posted by JoshNya on 06-19-2004 09:19 PM:

NUKED-Dirty.Dancing.Havana.Nights.DVDR-Replica
NUKED 1x by xxxxxxx - crc.error

Ya, I'll wait for a proper, video sez untouched, dunno..

Posted by porco556 on 06-19-2004 10:16 PM:

Ya... I can't trust Replica either anymore... Looked at the video and it was soft/blurry. Not impressed.

But then again, look at the movie. I seriously doubt the retail DVD was going to get special treatment either.

Not a huge loss IMO.

Posted by initial on 06-19-2004 11:33 PM:

Are you two stupid, aside from there being no actual reason for a group to make up a movie is untouched when it isn't. The movie is 86 min long common sense would dictate that a movie with that length only containing trailers as extras would most likely be untouched. Only thing wrong with this release is the crc errors and the content of this ridiculously dumb prequel/sequel.

Posted by vip3r on 06-20-2004 01:35 AM:

Well, whatever they did to it, it looks like shit compared to other dvdrs..whateva

Posted by initial on 06-20-2004 01:38 AM:

Considering its untouched, it would most likely be a source issue, the dvdscreener of dirty dancing was horribly interlaced.

Posted by porco556 on 06-20-2004 07:13 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by initial
Are you two stupid, aside from there being no actual reason for a group to make up a movie is untouched when it isn't. The movie is 86 min long common sense would dictate that a movie with that length only containing trailers as extras would most likely be untouched. Only thing wrong with this release is the crc errors and the content of this ridiculously dumb prequel/sequel.

As I mentioned... Video looks like crap. And also the movie sucked balls, so maybe the retail looks like shit to match film quality.

Anyways. As for your theory on 86 min movie means untouched video. It don't always work that way. Station Agent (most recent example) was 88 mins and the movie was 6 gigs on the retail. I had to downsample it to fit on a DVD-R without menu. So you never know what you're going to get...

And of course, you can't always trust what a group writes in their NFO. I myself have caught many lies (especially in bitrates) in NFOs, and I'm not talking about the innocent forgetting to change the name of the movie mistakes, talking obvious fumbles.

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41 AM.

Show all 7 posts from this thread on one page