VCDQuality Forums (http://forum.vcdq.com/index.php)
- DIVX (http://forum.vcdq.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=23)
-- The Notebook *XviD* - DVDRIP - DiAMOND (http://forum.vcdq.com/showthread.php?threadid=54334)

Nuked..

[NUKED]-low.bitrate.undersized-[NUKED]

ugh. the AR is fine, for one, nor is it undersized.


this is whats wrong with the scene + dupechecks - lame fucks believe whatever is entered, and ******* is wrong 99% of the time.


as for the release - 621kbit/s is lower then what i will download, but the release looks fine to me. as stated on DIAMOND's second NFO, not all DVD's are the same. AUTO CROP IS NOT WHAT GROUPS SHOULD USE.




that is all

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horton
ugh. the AR is fine, for one, nor is it undersized.


this is whats wrong with the scene + dupechecks - lame fucks believe whatever is entered, and ******* is wrong 99% of the time.


as for the release - 621kbit/s is lower then what i will download, but the release looks fine to me. as stated on DIAMOND's second NFO, not all DVD's are the same. AUTO CROP IS NOT WHAT GROUPS SHOULD USE.




that is all

---

2CDs AC3 under 110min is forbidden but 1CD mp3 low bitrate +2hours movie on 1CD is OK?

just trash the tdx rules then

TDX has always been a set of guideline, and any "rule" will always be excempted by a ripper decision. As much as everyone likes to quote TDX, they always forget to quote these parts:

Media usage is at Ripper's discretion, please use it.

and

Qualitative propers are not allowed, nor are propers based on decisions made by a ripper (i.e. # of CDs, AC3 or MP3, etc).

It's not because a movie is nuked for some moronic reason it justifies others should too.
The Bourne Supremacy was a fucking dumb nuke. Just like this.

I'd say fuck the rules. If it looks great, what's the deal? But oh well, some people need dumb rules (rules are without a doubt needed to keep things in proportion) but I fail to see the usefulness of rules like lenght/AC3 and the like.

If you read their second nfo on that and have any ripping experience you can imagine it would be even hard to aim for 1400 MB because source seems highly compressible.

I just checked the quality on this DIVX and it looks pretty good to me. I haven't realized the aspect problem before this NFO, but it makes total sense to me. I would rather have a full picture and correct aspect than a cropped, "standard," aspect. So this release is definitely ok. It sounds like they thought about what they did when they chose this resolution and single disc'd so this is not a mistake. I believe a PROPER of this release is totally unnecessary, esp. because they could have repacked it by now if they wanted. Think about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mj-
If you read their second nfo on that and have any ripping experience you can imagine it would be even hard to aim for 1400 MB because source seems highly compressible.

---

Perhaps you don't know that PAL/NTSC ITU.B 601 resolutions (720x576, 720x480) are not square pixels. So the format would not make sense for divx. And as it looks like not every movie is exact the same format, proper cropping can always result in different resolutions. But when the aspect is ok I'm fine with it.