VCDQuality Forums - Silent Hill *PROPER* *XviD* - DVDRIP

Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 31 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)
-- Silent Hill *PROPER* *XviD* - DVDRIP - TFF (http://www.vcdhq.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=71545)

Posted by X69 on 08-12-2006 01:02 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 dug123 on 08-12-2006 01:03 AM:

What a retarded proper reason
who cares if its 127 minutes on 1 cd when it looks as good as it does?

Yes, if this release looked like crap for video quality, then a 2 cd proper would be needed. but this looks just fine!
no s--- proper reason my butt.

Posted by guyver2k5 on 08-12-2006 01:09 AM:

i like this release better

9.5
9
10

Posted by K-FurY on 08-12-2006 01:13 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by dug123
What a retarded proper reason
who cares if its 127 minutes on 1 cd when it looks as good as it does?

Yes, if this release looked like crap for video quality, then a 2 cd proper would be needed. but this looks just fine!
no s--- proper reason my butt.

Sorry, but the DMD release looks like shit. XviD is supposed to preserve DVD quality at a smaller file size, not look drastically inferior. The DMD release suffers from a number of problems. Not only do blacks come out really crappy and grainy, but almost all dark colours. Lighter colours are also blocky, when viewed in full screen both problems are really obvious.

As for this release, I haven't seen it yet, I'm at work .nfo doesn't specify but I hope it has a higher res, and glad that it has AC3. Edit when I go home.

Posted by sar on 08-12-2006 01:15 AM:

do they have illiterate monkeys writing the nfos? or something less intelligent?

Posted by pedantics on 08-12-2006 02:09 AM:

judging by the sample, this is about on par with the internal. however, that did come first - and internal or not, it makes this release somewhat unnecessary.

to be honest, unless you're watching on a big ass plasma or monitor and 5.1 surround setup, diamond's rls is adequate anyway.

note tff: having a shit nfo with no technical details is fucking annoying.

9/8/?

Posted by skooter on 08-12-2006 02:31 AM:

*sigh* all xvid should be 1 cd anyways. It's pointless, because if your planning on downloading 2 cd why not just stick with svcd and get a bitrate in the 2000 range. I f your a quality whore you are probably going to download the dvdr anyways. I've never understood a 2 cd xvid. It seems useless.

v-9
a-10
m-8

Posted by pedantics on 08-12-2006 03:10 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by skooter
why not just stick with svcd and get a bitrate in the 2000 range

because mpeg2 is not as efficient a codec as mpeg4 - so bitrate comparisons between the two don't apply at all.

Posted by Redemption1980 on 08-12-2006 03:26 AM:

I do agree the Diamond release was pretty poor, but there was nothing that it could be nuked for, so there is absoutely no need for a Proper.

Yes an Internal is needed, but not a proper, so TFF as usual are being gimps.

skooter, most movies should be 2CD XviDs, SVCD's are shit, and most 1CD XviD's look better than a 2CD SVCD. also alot of people want or need 5.1 on movies these days.

TBH, the only people i see these days who are still fans of 1CD XviD's are people who have no TV, just a PC and are on low end Net Connections, ie, 512, 1mb.

This does appear to look and sound better, but it just mislabled.

9/9/?

Posted by jbm666 on 08-12-2006 03:59 AM:

"Qualitative propers are not allowed, nor are propers based on decisions made by a ripper (i.e. No. of CDs, AC3 or MP3, etc)"

taken from the The XviD Releasing Standards 2005

Posted by Vorph on 08-12-2006 04:44 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by jbm666
"Qualitative propers are not allowed, nor are propers based on decisions made by a ripper (i.e. No. of CDs, AC3 or MP3, etc)"

taken from the The XviD Releasing Standards 2005

Which is just further proof that the release rules are completely retarded. Making a minimum running time per cd but no maximum is completely ass backwards from how it should have been done.

Posted by Wanderer22 on 08-12-2006 05:01 AM:

The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual "rules"...

The "two hour rule" was put in place for films that are significantly longer than two hours. 150 minutes, 180 minutes, etc. 127 minutes? I can understand Diamond's choice.

Posted by Normanb on 08-12-2006 05:25 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by sar
do they have illiterate monkeys writing the nfos? or something less intelligent?

Yah did you notice that the "Plot" for this movie is actually for You, Me and Dupree.

Wonder how they made the leap there. haha.

Posted by chiv on 08-12-2006 07:19 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by skooter
*sigh* all xvid should be 1 cd anyways. It's pointless, because if your planning on downloading 2 cd why not just stick with svcd and get a bitrate in the 2000 range. I f your a quality whore you are probably going to download the dvdr anyways. I've never understood a 2 cd xvid. It seems useless.

v-9
a-10
m-8

a 1.4 gb dvdrip can tend to look only 30% worse than the actual dvdr, and i sure as heck dont need to download an extra couple of gigs just for 30% more quality, THATS why xvids arent useless. your obviously a diamond fanboy, or haven't actually downloaded their rip of this film, otherwise youd agree that it was pure rubbish, and given that its a good film and worthy of decent quality AND 5.1 surround, a proper wasn't just a good idea, but completely necessary.

Posted by torxxx on 08-12-2006 08:00 AM:

I really dont see why tff proper'd dmds release. I watched it last night, and it was great.

780 megs was fine for me, no reason for a 2 cd Xvid.. just my 2 cents

Posted by WaBasH on 08-12-2006 09:21 AM:

Having seen this movie in the theaters I have to agree with this release. I don't care about AC3 as I watch this on a standard TV and don't have a 5.1 system. But watching this video in fullscreen on my TV just looks bad especially in the dark scenes. I don't care about scene rules but anything over 90 minutes really needs to be a 2CD release for quality that's worthy of a DVDRip. However most poeple here are over reacting. DiAMOND's release is very watchable, if I was on a slow connection I'd have no problem watching there's instead but given that I have a fast connection I want the highest quality I can get for a DVDRip therefore I'm gonna get this proper or the internal (since the proper is technically nuked).

Posted by Jayhab on 08-12-2006 10:32 AM:

I have to agree with torxx, watched Diamonds copy last night on big tv - no problems at all.

Posted by ambientmike on 08-12-2006 11:38 AM:

Noone seems to have mentioned here that this release doesn't even have AC3...

It is still stereo MP3.

Invalid proper - waste of time (even though video quality is obviously better)

There is an internal going around with 2CD AC3 - that is really what diamond should've chosen in the first place to avoid all this rubbish...

Posted by Merle on 08-12-2006 11:52 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ambientmike
Noone seems to have mentioned here that this release doesn't even have AC3...

It is still stereo MP3.

Invalid proper - waste of time (even though video quality is obviously better)

There is an internal going around with 2CD AC3 - that is really what diamond should've chosen in the first place to avoid all this rubbish...

you mean the MOMO version?

Posted by pedantics on 08-12-2006 12:39 PM:

there's better versions around than the momo rls - that looked like a one pass rush job to me

you really seem to like posting about momo though! what's going on there?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:14 PM.

Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 31 posts from this thread on one page