![]() |
Pages (2): [1] 2 » Show all 38 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)
-- The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King *XviD* *NUKED* - DVDRIP - BRUTUS (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=36475)
Nuked for bad AR lol
CTP^H^H^H Brutus aren't having much luck with this one.
Or not?
Nuked or not nuked? Nforce seems to change it's opinion every 10 minutes 
Damn the video's pretty nice and clear, too bad it has a bad aspect ratio
Still better than CTP though.
8/8/x
quote:
Originally posted by JimRitchay
too bad it has a bad aspect ratio
is it interlaced?
Nothing wrong with this one, AR is just fine. Nice release!
LOOKs good to me i don't have a problem with will hold me over until aug or sept when i can buy it 
9/9/10
AR is FINE.
No reason for NUKE
9/9/10
wow, looks super ws, which i like.
-ryan
3 friggin CD's?!
2 is enough!
They shouldve had mp3 sound and kept it to two CD's!
__________________
What the fuck does WTF mean?!?
quote:
Originally posted by Kn!ghTMarE
mislabeled? wat is it then? if its not dumb and dumberer, then it is...?
::LOL! -FuzZ::
Re: 3 friggin CD's?!
quote:
Originally posted by kjeks
2 is enough!
They shouldve had mp3 sound and kept it to two CD's!
Was the movie really so flat in the theaters too? Or is this release cropped?
Nice video and audio quality anyway!
hey
hey im stil l downloading this i can view my sample, but how do i view to see what cd 1 has downloaded into it so far windows media lpayer wont open any of the files
Well, I haven't finished downloading this, but it says in the nfo that the res is 640x256. This is an AR of 2.5:1. Normally, "thin widescreen" films have an AR of 2.35:1, which means 640x272 for the correct AR with 640 horizontal pixels (max allowed by tdx rules).
I'm assuming the film itself wasn't released in this AR, so there is a mistake in this release. Does anyone know whether it's due to cropping (the original was cropped to 2.5:1, and then encoded to 640x256, causing loss of picture area, but no distortion), or to bad AR (the original was cropped to 2.35:1, and then encoded to 640x256, causing distortion but no loss of picture area)?
If the latter (probably more likely), then all you need to do is stretch the film on playback. If you're really that bothered you could remux into a container like Matroska which supports pixel aspect ratio.
quote:
Originally posted by The Belgain
Does anyone know whether it's due to cropping (the original was cropped to 2.5:1, and then encoded to 640x256, causing loss of picture area, but no distortion), or to bad AR (the original was cropped to 2.35:1, and then encoded to 640x256, causing distortion but no loss of picture area)?
when I watch the movie
it looks very choppy to me
I don't have this problem with any other movie
It's not horrible, but it is noticeable that there is some dropped frames.
Is it just me?
Or do I need a certain codec for this?
quote:
Originally posted by junchul
It's not horrible, but it is noticeable that there is some dropped frames.
Is it just me?
__________________
soda box
Sorry I don't know what IVTC is.
But it's the same copy you all probably have
it happens with all three files
and i got each file from three different sources
quote:
Originally posted by junchul
when I watch the movie
it looks very choppy to me
I don't have this problem with any other movie
It's not horrible, but it is noticeable that there is some dropped frames.
Is it just me?
Or do I need a certain codec for this?
quote:
Originally posted by XeroFightsAlone
Bad IVTC maybe?
__________________
mmm...muffins
i do agree after watching it. it does seem choppy don't know why its choppy every once in a while o well im going to go on dvd anyways
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32 PM. | Pages (2): [1] 2 » Show all 38 posts from this thread on one page |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.0
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2002.