VCDQuality Forums - Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Mans Chest *NTSC* - DVDRIP

VCDQuality Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.0

VCDQuality Forums > VCDQuality.com > Comments > DVDR > Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Mans Chest *NTSC* - DVDRIP - EMERALD

Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Thread

X69
Aug 2001

Administrator

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 ***

Report this post to a moderator |

11-19-2006 10:44 PM

Click here to Send X69 a Private Message

chaotic646
Sep 2004

Member

I wasn't too impressed by the video quality judging by the sample. Noticeable artifacts around the edges but I guess its because of the movie length. I'll be putting this movie on a dvd9.
7/9/?

Last edited by chaotic646 on 11-19-2006 at 11:11 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-19-2006 10:46 PM

Click here to Send chaotic646 a Private Message

Dirty
May 2003

Member

is this R1?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-19-2006 11:11 PM

Click here to Send Dirty a Private Message

Chappy
Apr 2004

Member

quote:
Originally posted by Dirty
is this R1?

Going by the subs I'd say yes. I don't know why they wouldn't put that in the nfo as well as the number of encoding passes.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-19-2006 11:18 PM

Click here to Send Chappy a Private Message

XtremeX
Mar 2005

Member

APOCALYPSE is the best release of this so far, I think i'll stick with that one!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-20-2006 03:14 AM

Click here to Send XtremeX a Private Message

biggbyte
Mar 2006

Member

excellent work by emerald as usual.

video quality suffers a bit as a result of 2+ hrs being squashed onto a dvdr, but ya can't do anything about that. it's still a real nice copy. looked good running at 1080i and very acceptable at 480p as well.

the 5.1 sounds excellent and the movie is great.

8
9
9

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-20-2006 04:29 AM

Click here to Send biggbyte a Private Message

B1NG0
Oct 2006

Banned

Looks as good as the APOCALYPSE version, only differing slightly here & there.
The 'glitch' in the APOCALYPSE version appears at 1hr 16m, however, in this one there is a brief pause in exactly the same place in the movie but at 1hr 19m. Maybe this is due to where the layer break was/is - im not too sure at the moment, not had time to look a little deeper. (still watching it)
Although The run times do seem to be different,
APOCALYPSE = 2h 24m 30s
EMERALD = 2h 30m 30s
Can anyone confirm this?
Menu navigation seems odd on this, I hit play and I get this:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3949/vlcsnap2094743ld3.png

Then it jumps to this:
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9382/vlcsnap2093468wj9.png

Then it just 'hangs'
Maybe its a R2 source?
I tested with VLC & power DVD, but i had more success with powerDVD which worked 8/10 times, VLC does'nt like it at all!
Damm those disney fast play menu's, they suck'didley'uck, lol
I've not burnt it yet, so dont know if it works in the players.

V 8
A 9

Im looking forward to buying the DVD9 just to see why & what all these issues are for myself

__________________

Last edited by B1NG0 on 11-20-2006 at 12:46 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-20-2006 12:38 PM

Click here to Send B1NG0 a Private Message

indydandy
Feb 2006

Junior Member

quote:
Originally posted by B1NG0
Although The run times do seem to be different,
APOCALYPSE = 2h 24m 30s
EMERALD = 2h 30m 30s
Can anyone confirm this?

The difference in runtime is due to the difference in framerate between PAL and NTSC! PAL titles run approximately 4% quicker than their NTSC counterparts.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-20-2006 01:02 PM

Click here to Send indydandy a Private Message

ntscuser
May 2005

Mimzy

I'm guessing it's an issue with angles, as per Chicken Little? Disney use separate angles for each of the English, Spanish and French versions. Some players are more sensitive to the issue than others.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-20-2006 02:42 PM

A_T
Apr 2006

Junior Member

quote:
Originally posted by B1NG0
Looks as good as the APOCALYPSE version, only differing slightly here & there.
The 'glitch' in the APOCALYPSE version appears at 1hr 16m, however, in this one there is a brief pause in exactly the same place in the movie but at 1hr 19m. Maybe this is due to where the layer break was/is - im not too sure at the moment, not had time to look a little deeper. (still watching it)
Although The run times do seem to be different,
APOCALYPSE = 2h 24m 30s
EMERALD = 2h 30m 30s
Can anyone confirm this?

PAL speedup.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-20-2006 03:09 PM

Click here to Send A_T a Private Message

DeViT
Mar 2004

Member

__________________
www.dvdrfixes.com

Last edited by DeViT on 11-20-2006 at 05:16 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-20-2006 04:56 PM

Click here to Send DeViT a Private Message

B1NG0
Oct 2006

Banned

Thanks peeps, was'nt sure about that one

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-20-2006 06:42 PM

_jadakiss
Jul 2005

jada

well.. we all know for a fact this isn't an R1 rip... maybe R2 ? ... who knows.. the bitrate is not that bad neither.. i mean considerin this movie over 2 1/2 hours isnt bad... im goin to hold off on this one till an R1 comes along...

Video-8
Audio-9
Movie-10

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-20-2006 08:46 PM

Click here to Send _jadakiss a Private Message

ntscuser
May 2005

Mimzy

quote:
Originally posted by _jadakiss
well.. we all know for a fact this isn't an R1 rip...

...and how do we know that?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-20-2006 09:00 PM

Reeves25k
May 2006

Junior Member

correction to B1NG0's post the scene skip would be to the exact of 01:20:08 01:10:23 jumps to 01:22:05 01:108:26 for the emerald version

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-20-2006 11:44 PM

Click here to Send Reeves25k a Private Message

XtremeX
Mar 2005

Member

quote:
Originally posted by indydandy
The difference in runtime is due to the difference in framerate between PAL and NTSC! PAL titles run approximately 4% quicker than their NTSC counterparts.

I think you mean 4% slower

25 fps - 30 fps

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-21-2006 12:23 AM

ntscuser
May 2005

Mimzy

quote:
Originally posted by XtremeX
I think you mean 4% slower
25 fps - 30 fps

NTSC movies are recorded at 24fps, not 30 fps

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-21-2006 12:50 AM

Resistance
Nov 2006

Newbie

quote:
Originally posted by ntscuser
NTSC movies are recorded at 24fps, not 30 fps

Actually, NTSC movies run at 30 fps.

Saw this in theaters but looks good on my 50" TV upconverted to 720P.
V-9
A-10
M-10

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-21-2006 03:36 AM

Click here to Send Resistance a Private Message

indydandy
Feb 2006

Junior Member

quote:
Originally posted by XtremeX
I think you mean 4% slower
25 fps - 30 fps

Conventional film runs at 24 fps, a NTSC TV signal runs @30 fps (60 fields) and a PAL TV signal runs @25 fps (50 fields).

Normally, one half of an image is displayed and then the other half of the image is displayed. The net result is that 60 fields/sec become 30fps and 50 fields/sec become 25fps.

For a PAL display, the simple method when transferring film is to present the film frames at 25/second instead of 24 (the 4% speedup as mentioned in my previous post) and speed up the image to be synchronous with the images.

The solution for a NTSC display is to spread the 24 film frames across the 60 video fields by alternating the display of the first film frame for 2 video fields and the next film frame for 3 video fields.

That's the reason why PAL titles run 4% quicker and NTSC titles run for the same duration as the film.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-21-2006 05:37 AM

Redemption198
Jul 2004

Senior Member

Decent release, saw better, but not as bad a previous release.

Sound is spot on as expected though.

Too much of a Kids movie in parts, and sent me to sleep in the last 45mins

8/9/5

Film is recorded 24fps, PAL DVD's are sped up to 25fps, and NTSC DVD's are telecined to 30fps, but internally is still 24fps.

So PAL DVD's run faster than NTSC ones, not slower, which is why alot of people cant watch PAL stuff that hasnt been pitch corrected, and alot of people cant watch NTSC stuff as panning can be stuttery.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-21-2006 02:47 PM