VCDQuality Forums - Cars (2006) *PROPER* *xVID* - TELESYNC

Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 25 posts from this thread on one page

VCDQuality Forums (http://forum.vcdq.com/index.php)
- DIVX (http://forum.vcdq.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=23)
-- Cars (2006) *PROPER* *xVID* - TELESYNC - LRC (http://forum.vcdq.com/showthread.php?threadid=70638)

Posted by X69 on 06-14-2006 12:24 AM:

IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ

1 NO REQUESTING MOVIES OR SAMPLES (THIS INCLUDES REQUESTS FOR OTHER GROUPS TO RELEASE THIS MOVIE!)

2 DO NOT DISCUSS WHERE TO DOWNLOAD MOVIES OR SAMPLES

3 DO NOT ASK FOR "RAR PASSWORDS" COS WE DON'T KNOW THEM. CHECK WITH YOUR SOURCE

4 NO FLAMING

5 NO "SPOILERS"

6 NO SCENE-RELATED DISCUSSION/RUMORS (ESPECIALLY REGARDING BUSTS)

7 COMMENT ON THIS RELEASE ONLY (AND ONLY IF YOU'VE SEEN AT LEAST THE SAMPLE). THIS IS THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE THREAD!

8 NO "NOOB" QUESTIONS SUCH AS "HOW DO I WATCH THIS?" ASK IN THE APPROPRIATE PART OF THE FORUM

9 NO DISCUSSING TRADING/SELLING. IF YOU SELL COPIES, GO AWAY YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE

* Newbie questions? Want some weird term clarifying? Read our FAQ

* General questions unrelated to this release? Internet LOL's? Right here dudes

*** PEOPLE IGNORING THE RULES WILL BE BANNED ***

Posted by Arsenal_2005 on 06-14-2006 12:26 AM:

Just grabbed the sample. pic aint as nice as mavens But it is good slight haze to it but very good and well watchable.

audio is good nice and clear

V - 8
A - 8
M - 7 was ok

__________________
Please all newbies STOP Messaging me asking when you can download samples from or where to get the films from. i DO NOT give out this information. Thanks

Posted by Ekno on 06-14-2006 12:56 AM:

Why is more groups requesting for people who can get them silvers? A bit lame, it is like, who can't get silvers?

Anyway I don't see the big difference between this and mavens, if you have maven's xvid you don't need this one.

Posted by Rosco42 on 06-14-2006 05:20 AM:

PLUS

1) audio complete (no "come pick up your kid at the consession stand")

2) end credits complete (a must for a pixar release)

MINUS

1) not a good an image (little dark/fuzzy)

so.. a little slice.. a little dice... ends up nice

Posted by protekt0r on 06-14-2006 06:35 AM:

Give me a fucking break with this release. It's worse than maVen's and the "proper" reason is borderline bullshit.

Don't bother with this one- get maven's.

__________________
"Signatures Suck"

Posted by PimpDaddyWelf on 06-14-2006 07:14 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by protekt0r
Give me a fucking break with this release. It's worse than maVen's and the "proper" reason is borderline bullshit.

Don't bother with this one- get maven's.

Agreed maVens is much nicer n cleaner if yer gonna proper something at least make sure your source is better

Posted by iljs on 06-14-2006 07:31 AM:

I love LRC commenting on the ar error. AR error is nearly impossible to interpret in a camcorded release as the orginal cropping is only known to whoever did the encoding. So LRC are assuming that the movie is EXACTLY 2.35:1 (rare that a movie actually will be), and that maVen have not cropped anything at all. A great example of this is the the SubAtom CAM of The Break-up, which clearly is nearly 4:3 (im too lazy to actually check) while the movie i assume is much closer to 16:9. Judging AR error is impossible for Telesync's. More proof that beyond a nice source, LRC isnt much.

Posted by ambientmike on 06-14-2006 08:02 AM:

Why all the bitching??? I admit that the AR error is BS, but if maVen could learn to stick to the rules then they would be a much better group. As it stands they broke the rules and this is a valid proper.

Rules are there for a reason...

Posted by Eternity on 06-14-2006 08:35 AM:

oke, oke, yes maven video quality its better then LRC but its also true that they are very lamers like ever...

rip an xvid with a resolution of 704x mean that the ripper can changee his hobby and back to home..its crazy!

ar error? yea, true, ts don't have standard ar because in the 90% of cases they have much crop on border that cause the utilizing of "strange ar" for fix the correct image size. BUT anyway if a ripper ton't use the proper (also nont standard) ar the ts can be bad ar.

v6/a7/m7

Posted by dodgy368 on 06-14-2006 12:00 PM:

Isn't a proper supposed to be better?

LRC, next time you take on Maven make sure your source is better or at least just as good, this isn't!
Plus, LRC have lost more of the picture, so this proper should be nuked for stupidity!

LRC
V 8
A 8
M 8

Maven
V 9
A 8
M 8

Posted by ambientmike on 06-14-2006 01:08 PM:

Again - this isn't about video quality...

LRC said that maVen's vid quality was nice - proper is for technical flaw - breaking the rules.

If only maVen had an encoder with some brains they wouldn't be duped or nuked so often...

Posted by auvb80 on 06-14-2006 02:20 PM:

theres no point of releasing another TS of this, unless maven release another TS

maven = king

Posted by iljs on 06-14-2006 04:16 PM:

maVen rip to 700+ because their source is 700+. They're raw vid source is 720 wide, and they dont feel like sacrificing downsizing the video. Tons of groups all over the scene dont ahere to many stupid rules of the scene. XviD resolution size is one of them, though not many groups break it. Almost every group breaks tagging rules for each section, a lot of groups break DVDR rules all the time if they dont agree to them. Seeing as maVen didnt sign the tdx2005, i personally dont see why they have to adhere to them, if they have a different opinion on what the standard should be. Groups who decide that they need to pre over them, with a worse source for a few errors that dont adhere to certain really unimportant rules (res size) are the real problem here.

Posted by Roger on 06-14-2006 05:32 PM:

My point of view is this one.

All group releasing XViD.TS with a small ass & blury picture should be nuked. The idea of preing with the mpeg-4 codec is to actualy use the potencial of the high defenition codec for high resolution video.

People saying maVen encoder is crap or don't know what he is doing. Maybe he don't, but there is one thing for sure, after comparing both of theses release, the only thing i can see on the maVen rip is a way better picture, Colors and sharpnest.

The LRC picture has motion blur, blury,it is small,has over saturation on colors and the grain of the rip make the picture look like there is a too much sharper filter made with TMPGENC. For a 2CD rip with a 1hr56min movie ( 116min ) wich is 5min more then 111min ( 1CD rip ) the rip does look like a 1CD rip to me, but extended to 2CD.
I am not here to bitch since i never did better myself, but more to explain my disagree with this so called *proper*.

I personaly think maVen was right with their choice of preing with a big ass resolution even if it doesn't conform on this kind of rules.

Also, who said this been caped with a 720x576 camera ? if we look at the quality of the picture compared to what other group produce, it smell hdv to me ... 1440x1080 resize to 704x320 with the crop ??? does the hdtv HR group get propered by TVRiP groups ????

Defenitly LRC is trying to insult maVen.

Posted by VonRashniek on 06-14-2006 06:13 PM:

I dont think they are tryin to insult anyone. Maybe they had a homebrew ts they wanted to release and lost the race. They feel it was a worthy release, and had a reason to proper. I dont know how thats a insult to anyone. But I think we have all seen groups release garbage after garbage. At least they release halfway decent stuff. This release would be more than good enough if the maven video wasnt so dam good. And you all would be sayin good release thanks if that were the case. (Dont get so spoiled with mavens res until they do superman :P )
This release is watchable and doesnt deserve the 4 for video its getting. Audio is good as well.

__________________
Opinions are like azzholes, everyones got one, and yours stinks.

Posted by iljs on 06-14-2006 07:27 PM:

Roger your awareness of maVen's rips is so slim i dont think i would ever assume you are part of maVen.

/end sarcasm.

Posted by Roger on 06-14-2006 08:16 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by iljs
Roger your awareness of maVen's rips is so slim i dont think i would ever assume you are part of maVen.

/end sarcasm.

awarenest os maVen's rips require just to look at the specs of their rips, i don't see your point.

As for the hdv i am asuming, i really don't know, wish i knew tho.

Posted by crapper on 06-14-2006 09:47 PM:

whore fuckin cock suckers.. BAD!!!
well that was a bit over the top
but its not as good as mavens..

great try... love to see indi filmers..

not bad at all

but maven does have much better picture..

so no reason for this 2 disk

pic 7 nice yet a slight blur
sound 8 nice

movie donno

Posted by Avenue_1 on 06-14-2006 10:01 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Roger
awarenest os maVen's rips require just to look at the specs of their rips, i don't see your point.

As for the hdv i am asuming, i really don't know, wish i knew tho.

lol, you tease us with your ins and outs of mavens ways..then ya deny knowing

Posted by Mongoloid on 06-15-2006 06:21 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by iljs
maVen rip to 700+ because their source is 700+. They're raw vid source is 720 wide, and they dont feel like sacrificing downsizing the video.

Well.. thats a non-remark ofcoz I can see your point, but you saying encoding to a lower res would be bad, because the source is at a higher resolution doesnt make sense. That's like saying that any NTSC or PAL DVDRip encoded to 1024 960 would be even better than the source coz it would be at a higher res.
IMO downsizing to an acceptable value within the tdxrules is a perfectly fine thing to do - in fact thats pretty much the only rule in there which isnt outdated and even makes sense. But thats another discussion and I'm not even here to chop your balls off because of this Let's continue...

quote:
Tons of groups all over the scene dont ahere to many stupid rules of the scene. XviD resolution size is one of them, though not many groups break it. Almost every group breaks tagging rules for each section, a lot of groups break DVDR rules all the time if they dont agree to them. Seeing as maVen didnt sign the tdx2005, i personally dont see why they have to adhere to them, if they have a different opinion on what the standard should be. Groups who decide that they need to pre over them, with a worse source for a few errors that dont adhere to certain really unimportant rules (res size) are the real problem here.

Couldnt agree more and I would even like to add something.
The TDX rules don't even cover TS -nor TC- as source for a xvid-rip. TDX rules always focused on the dvdrips.. wether retail or screener. So nuking it for non-scene-rule-compliant can only mean two things:

a) The nuker is a sheep. Approx. 96% of the non-valid nukes are done by these nukers - it's like nagging long enough at siteops that u would be one hell of a nuker, and the moment they actually give u a chance, being scared shitless, because you suddenly realise you don't know jack shit of what would be an actual nuke - or worse - you don't even think actually downloading and testing is really necessary to be a nuker.
These people tend to flock in so called "nuke"-nets or "nuke"-channels on irc which are pretty much open to everybody, and managed from the beginning that they started to pop up, to be even lamer than a nazi-esk run crappy tv-show fserve channel. Just my 2cts ofcoz

b) The nuker has been too long in the scene. Redefined being pissed alot and sinicism for himself by now, and turned into a lazy rule-nazi, who basically goes by a gutfeeling to nuke a release of which he thinks it might be nukeworthy. He doesn't actually check the "rules", because he knows those are basically bullshit and can vary heavily on even which group released the stuff, which really pisses him off, because in the old days.... !!!! (You know the drill when you meet one of these nukers :P)
Positive: these nukers almost always actually download the release and test these. These nukers are actually 99% of all the time right in nuking a release - they actually know what they are doing.
On the downside.. gutfeeling CAN be wrong from time to time, but don't even DARE to discuss such a nuke with these people because it's time wellspent on fun things (and boy.. these discussion can take a looooooooong time), and the outcome will always be that the unjust nuke will still be a nuke.. even if it's just to piss the person off nagging against the mighty nuker - most of the time they will still think they are right tho and won't unnuke it.. EVER... worst case scenario is getting a +6 flag for whining

Basically (and following opinion is my own ofcourse) I applaud the fact that decent TS's and TC's are encoded to xvid these days. Thats even the biggest and most sensible development we can see since last let's say 1.5 years. XViD as a codec makes sense size-wise for the release, and by now pretty much every diehard-moviefan should be able to also play movies in this format from a rewriteable dvd+-r on their standalones, since the market is flooded with cheap, even decent, standalone dvdplayers which support these new standards (some better than others, but c'mon, these puppies go for as low as 35 euros these days).
This welcome development for cams, telesyncs, telecines, screeners, dvdscreeners, retails, which has been happening more and more over the past several months, ofcourse also means that vcd and svcd are basically dead as formats to release stuff in, and I would even state that these are solely still done to be able to creditwhore, OR to prevent others from reencoding and stealing the source. Groups releasing vcd or svcd for the latter reason should phase this paranoia out, because if stated that there wont be any other release than the xvid one, it should be clear to all that groups that still reencode something that isnt their work, dont deserve the light of day and shouldnt even be able to land a site as affiliate. Lameness will precede their releases - everybody will know - and if treated correctly by the complete scene, they'll know they are the laughing stock of this very same scene

Getting back to the fact that the tdxrules don't even cover releases of this kind. Altho this basically means that groups who deliver quality and aren't afraid to develop themselves and their releases to be the next -non-forced, yet sensible- standard in the scene, ARE allowed to experiment around towards a point they feel comfortable with the quality of their releases encodingwise, they sure as hell won't get any weird ideas and introduce stuff in their encodes, of which they know that it will make their release impossible to watch on alot of standalones etc.
Rest assured that these groups really WANT to deliver the best they can, and take pride in the fact that they've done EVERYTHING in their power, to make their release as enjoyable as possible for everyone. So you won't suddenly see a huge grow in encodes which have QPel.. or GMC.. or packed bitstreams.. because these groups, altho they have all the freedom to experiment around, still follow the biggest rule of em all : common sense!!

Conclusion: propers like these of which the actual proper-reasons are based on false assumptions AND where it's clear that even the group that propers the release KNOWS and SEE with their own eyes that their release doesnt have any added value at all to the scene, nor fixes anything in the release they proper, should be treated as what they are : an unnecesary dupe, which should have been pred as internal if at all been pred. If you lose a release, be a "man" about it, take the lost time in your effort, and think of it as a great training for your next release, and be proud of your product the moment you win that one.
This is nothing more than creditwhoring, where the releasing group tries to ease their own minds for doing it, by means of lying to even themselves.

Last words: I respect the effort made by everyone - dont get me wrong there - I just respect groups making right sensible deciscions, and who take pride in what they do, more...

By the way: I (ofcourse) typed all of this not even caring who did the initial release.. it's maVen now, but as far as I'm concerned it could have been any group. I was just giving my own opinion, because I thought it might add something for some people to the discussion. Wether they agree or not ofcourse. Thats the fun of having a discussion in the first place innit ?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:33 PM.

Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 25 posts from this thread on one page