Redemption198
Jul 2004
Senior Member
|
I gotta disagree IRC_Moviefan, why would KEG claim it was a TC, if they knew it was a DVD-Screener, it dont make sense, also TEG's proof is kinda laughable, 2 Bitmaps that could easily been done by them, or whoever supplied this to them, is hardly proof, also the so called "proof" says that there would be marketing Information displayed throughout the film, I couldn't find any watermarks or messages, at least not from CD1, they're either lying, or have been fooled by they're supplier.
Not to mention both releases look practically Identical, this is a bit better encoded though, and KEG's was a DVD2SVCD encode, but both are definetly TC's, the Warner logo on both releases is riddled with dirt and the colours are off.
Rated as a DVD-Screener.
6/9/?
The same frame below of each release
Keg TC
http://img113.exs.cx/img113/8222/keg1ea.jpg
Teg's DVD Screener
http://img238.exs.cx/img238/9779/teg0fh.jpg
As you can see, theres little to no difference, both have the same scratch, and both look the same, if you look closer you can see that Teg's is slightly better encoded, but not by much.
Last edited by Redemption198 on 03-11-2005 at 08:03 PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|