VCDQuality Forums - Oceans Twelve *PROPER* *NTSC* - DVDRIP

Show all 17 posts from this thread on one page

VCDQuality Forums (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/index.php)
- DVDR (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=24)
-- Oceans Twelve *PROPER* *NTSC* - DVDRIP - ShinBet (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=56311)

Posted by porco556 on 03-07-2005 04:06 AM:

Ok... This release looks a bit "ThP"ish to me.

So, this NFO says it has "ALL" extras. The MPT version said extras are N/A. So, is this either there are none on the disc, or somethings wrong?

As for the bitrate. 4700 is impossible for this movie.

[(4700kbit/sec video + 448kbit/sec audio) * 125min * 60sec/min]/8 = 4,826,250KB on the disc for the movie alone. Which is too big to fit on a 4.7gig DVD-R (by 300megs).

So, I dunno. I guess I will check it out. NFO looks super ass shifty.

Posted by pjfan281 on 03-07-2005 06:51 AM:

mislabeled proper if other releases were nuked or fake but anyway

Posted by JoshNya on 03-07-2005 07:23 AM:

Boy I wasted so many credits on MPT the last few days I wanted to shoot someone.

ShinBet isn't my choice of fav groups, but what the heck... I tested...

DVD only has a handful of trailers for extras...

No visable flaws I can see except the WB logo starts up all squared out.

check
http://uploads.offtopic.com/files/shinbet-o12.jpg

So it tells me they may have encoded to high, then ran it through dvdshrink to reduce it. My guess... whos to say..

Def looks better then MPT garbage,

Posted by Little Raven on 03-07-2005 12:19 PM:

Hmmm ShinBet's stats.. 14 releases and of them 50% nuked..
porco is right if you do the math it can't be correct, I think I'll skip this one too ..

__________________
free is free at any speed

Posted by q2uantum on 03-07-2005 03:55 PM:

mm quality seems very bad on this release - couldnt turn of Subtitles on the laptop I tried it on and colours very washy - doesnt look like proper DVD qual to me

5/5/9 is the best i can offer

Posted by porco556 on 03-07-2005 05:58 PM:

Well, don't ask why. But I got this release. If this is a proper, then the MPT version must have been flat awful cause this one sucks.

I didn't get the MPT version because of the interlacing issues. But this version just sucks. Looks like a DVDShrink encode too. To people who don't know, even a 99% (1% compression) on DVDShrink looks like ass. NOW, I dunno what they used to encode this, but it looks crappy. I am either going to wait for a real proper myself or do it myself (which seems to be the trend lately as alot of these new groups suck goats [ThP, ShinBet, MPT to name a few]).

At least I just freed up 4.3 gigs off my HD

Posted by IRC_Moviefan on 03-07-2005 06:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by porco556
Looks like a DVDShrink encode too.NOW, I dunno what they used to encode this, but it looks crappy.

I agree, im not gonna say what progys ShinBet did/didnt use as noone knows, but its pretty obvious they didnt use CCE. Much less a 1 pass

(not only is the movie pixelated , but the menu is also)

quote:
Originally posted by porco556
I am either going to wait for a real proper myself or do it myself (which seems to be the trend lately as alot of these new groups suck goats [ThP, ShinBet, MPT to name a few]).

ThP & MPT arent new grps and have been around for years.

Obviously this movie was a bitch to encode if Centropy did the SVCD/XviD but not the DVDR. I find it hard to believe that both MPT & Shinbet beat Centropy on the DVDR unless there was issues with the DVD (cant encode properly) which happens time & again.

Im sure in 2 or 3 weeks a "COMPLETE" copy will be out (prob by a new grp also) , so if you dont like these copies , retail is soon or $3 at your local blockbuster !

6/7/?

__________________

Posted by Redemption1980 on 03-07-2005 08:46 PM:

Wish i never got this now, the quality is sub standard, and the movie is no better.

I think i agree with JoshNya on this one, it looks like a re-encode of a re-encode, probably DVD Shrink or some other quick compression program.

Sound is ok, though not the best AC3 track ive ever heard.

6/9/5

porco556, wouldn't say i agree with you on the 99% DVD Shrink thing, it usually only looks like ass once you go under 80%, but CCE at the same size will usually look better, though there are alot of people out there who think that programs like DVD Shrink/Clone DVD are better than CCE for low compression values, cant say i agree though, only ever use them if i need to re-encode menu's or rip out Audio tracks.

Posted by porco556 on 03-07-2005 09:26 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Redemption1980
porco556, wouldn't say i agree with you on the 99% DVD Shrink thing, it usually only looks like ass once you go under 80%, but CCE at the same size will usually look better, though there are alot of people out there who think that programs like DVD Shrink/Clone DVD are better than CCE for low compression values, cant say i agree though, only ever use them if i need to re-encode menu's or rip out Audio tracks.

Well, of course this is open to discussion, and everyone has their own preference. But here is my take to further explain what I meant. *NOTE: Just in case, this post is not meant to harm anyone's feelings*

Even if a movie is 99% of the original, every frame has to be re-encoded with the algorithm/proggie of choice (whether it is DVDShrink or CCE). That percentage value DVDShrink spits out is completely irrelavent, as the video is re-encoded (either at 80% or 99%) and that is more of a percentage of the original size more than quality. Nobody can take a 4,590,000KB movie and make it 4,589,999KB movie and say it's quality is 99.9% of the original. Not even CCE or the greatest programs around. Most of these proggies used (including CCE) take the frame, uncompress it, and re-compress it from stratch as if it wasn't compressed at all (the algorithm fully chooses its bit allocation frame by frame and never looks at the original encode). As a result, all flaws which were found in the original retail, get re-encoded and usually become larger errors.

Basically what I am saying, if you don't like the work of DVDShrink at 80%, there isn't all that much difference at 99%. Granted though, I do agree that DVDShrink does get exponentially worse as the percentages go down as DVDShrinks encoding algorithm is cheap.

This really does go down to personal preference. My friends tell me also that DVDShrink "rocks" for small percentage downsampling, but I look at their encodes and I don't see it at all. But, if you like it and suits your needs, no need to spend 8 hours encoding a movie with CCE when you are completely happy with the 40 min job of DVDShrink.

Posted by BGspoonz1 on 03-07-2005 10:02 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by porco556 To people who don't know, even a 99% (1% compression) on DVDShrink looks like ass.

dvdshrink looks good to me...atleast upto 77-80%

V - 5
A - 6
M - 5 (spoiled by Os.11)

__________________
Remember when u too were a NooB?

Posted by TesTes on 03-08-2005 02:41 AM:

Hmm... Maybe this should be nuked also. This is from DVDinfoPro with the Shinbet image mounted. Aren't scene releases supposed to be encoded with CCE?? Anyway, quality is definitely lacking in this release. Is the MPT release any better?

Media Information
Disc Regions are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Media code/Manufacturer ID N/A Pressed DVD
Format Type UDF 1.02
Volume Name OC12_SHINBET
Application id
Implementation id DVD Shrink
Recording Date/Time (mm/dd/yyyy) 3/ 7/2005 1:45:58

Format Capacity 4.36GB(4.68GB)
Book Type DVD-ROM
Media Type DVD-ROM
Data area starting sector 30000h
Data area end sector 22E11Dh
Linear Density 0.293um/bit
Track Density 0.74um/track
Number of Layers 1

Posted by Hairyhamster on 03-08-2005 02:54 PM:

looks like heaps of probs with this release......

personally mine wont work at all..... stops after about 30 secs and wont restart..... burnt to dvd twice still the same... think ill give this up as a bad job!!!!

from first 30 secs....... looks ok lol

__________________
One Day The Dead Shall Walk The Earth.

Posted by DeViT on 03-08-2005 05:50 PM:

NUKE NUKE NUKE

Have to agree with you TesTes the rules clearly state CCE! So this should be nuked no question.

I just hope a reliable group is on the case and that only leaves a few.

I take my hat off to the few groups who still know what CCE & Scenarist are for!

Posted by JoshNya on 03-08-2005 07:23 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by TesTes
...This is from DVDinfoPro ... 1

Dude! I went and got this ap. It's freakin sweet... tested it on several releases I d/l... I was able to spot em before, but now its so much easier

Closer.DVDR-MPTDVD
Implementation id DVD Shrink
Recording Date/Time (mm/dd/yyyy) 3/ 8/2005 3:25:05

Oceans.Twelve.PROPER.DVDR-ShinBet
Application id
Implementation id DVD Shrink
Recording Date/Time (mm/dd/yyyy) 3/ 7/2005 1:45:58

Being.Julia.LiMiTED.DVDR-MPTDVD
Implementation id DVD Shrink
Recording Date/Time (mm/dd/yyyy) 3/ 5/2005 22:44:25

The.Outer.Limits.S03.D01.1995.NTSC.DVDR-ThP
Implementation id mkisofs
Recording Date/Time (mm/dd/yyyy) 12/ 4/2004 1:07:48
(this is a shocker, thought for sure it was DVDShrink)

Taxi.DVDR-CORRuPT
Implementation id mkisofs
Recording Date/Time (mm/dd/yyyy) 1/27/2005 6:13:51

Oceans.Twelve.DVDR-MPTDVD
Implementation id DVD Shrink
Recording Date/Time (mm/dd/yyyy) 3/ 6/2005 1:02:36

Posted by TesTes on 03-08-2005 11:57 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by JoshNya
Dude! I went and got this ap. It's freakin sweet... tested it on several releases I d/l... I was able to spot em before, but now its so much easier

WOW! That's freaking alarming how many groups are using Shrink! Whatever happened to just taking your time and doing it right with the Big 3?

Posted by hoozdapimp on 03-09-2005 06:32 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by porco556
Well, of course this is open to discussion, and everyone has their own preference. But here is my take to further explain what I meant. *NOTE: Just in case, this post is not meant to harm anyone's feelings*

Even if a movie is 99% of the original, every frame has to be re-encoded with the algorithm/proggie of choice (whether it is DVDShrink or CCE). That percentage value DVDShrink spits out is completely irrelavent, as the video is re-encoded (either at 80% or 99%) and that is more of a percentage of the original size more than quality. Nobody can take a 4,590,000KB movie and make it 4,589,999KB movie and say it's quality is 99.9% of the original. Not even CCE or the greatest programs around. Most of these proggies used (including CCE) take the frame, uncompress it, and re-compress it from stratch as if it wasn't compressed at all (the algorithm fully chooses its bit allocation frame by frame and never looks at the original encode). As a result, all flaws which were found in the original retail, get re-encoded and usually become larger errors.

Basically what I am saying, if you don't like the work of DVDShrink at 80%, there isn't all that much difference at 99%. Granted though, I do agree that DVDShrink does get exponentially worse as the percentages go down as DVDShrinks encoding algorithm is cheap.

This really does go down to personal preference. My friends tell me also that DVDShrink "rocks" for small percentage downsampling, but I look at their encodes and I don't see it at all. But, if you like it and suits your needs, no need to spend 8 hours encoding a movie with CCE when you are completely happy with the 40 min job of DVDShrink.

I'm not trying to start a war here, but you need to get your facts straight....DVD Shrink does not re-encode the video, it transcodes it....transcoding is much different than re-encoding and when used in the right situations is obviously faster than re-encoding but can also give better results...go ask any of the experts on the forums at doom9

Posted by porco556 on 03-09-2005 07:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by hoozdapimp
I'm not trying to start a war here, but you need to get your facts straight....DVD Shrink does not re-encode the video, it transcodes it....transcoding is much different than re-encoding and when used in the right situations is obviously faster than re-encoding but can also give better results...go ask any of the experts on the forums at doom9

This is good stuff. I never knew much about the technical aspect of DVD-Shrink (and DVD2One for that matter which I never used). And you are correct that the 2 cannot be compared. I did read up on the stuff on Doom9 forums, and I did learn more about transcoding. But I didn't get a feel that DVD-Shrink was better (if anything it looked like this InstaCopy 8 was best for Transcoding). There are some fanatics that keep saying it stuff like "DVD-Shrink is much better than CCE at high percentages". But they usually get barraged by attacks from CCE users.

But I do have a friendly question (non-war starting question), if DVD-Shrink is so good, why were there 3-4 DVD-Shrink nukes in the past week, and people rejoicing over the CCE propers coming out? This beside the interlacing facts.

You were right of course about Shrink being a transcoder, but I still feel CCE is superior over Shrink (personal preference). I've seen many Shrink jobs from my friends and they all looked like ass to me (personal preference again). BUT, I can see the advantage of maybe using DVD Shrink when you do really have to do a 20 meg reduction. Thanks for the info, I always thought transcoding was cross encoding (DVD to XviD), or real time recording on TIVO or something.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:54 PM.

Show all 17 posts from this thread on one page