Mr_Grinch
Nov 2002
 STD Free
|
quote: Originally posted by reelnewbie
on another note, you finding lots of divx releases and no svcd releases of this movie on www.packetnews.com means jackshit to anyone who can understand the difference in quality derived from dvd->svcd and divx->svcd. in fact, packetnews.com implies that you are more of a newbie/lamer/<insert adjective here> douchebag than some of us.
Being a "Packetnews using lamer", I still understand the difference in quality between a divx -> svcd encode and a dvd -> svcd encode. Just cos some people don't spend half their life downloading films, don't assume they know shit-all.
On the same note, I used to work for Blockbuster video and do my own rips of dvd's, I use to encode to divx (version 3... it was a while back I worked there!), roughly encoding so that the films would fit on two discs. This suited me fine as I used my TV-Out to watch the films.
However when I wanted to watch the films at my mates I had no choice but to rip them to svcd and, yes, divx to svcd ISN'T as good as DVD to svcd BUT done right, the quality itself isn't that different to the original divx encode. And I suppose, if you had a crap connection (Which I'm unfortunately lumbered with) then it may be quicker to download a divx rip then convert to svcd. You're not gonna be losing out much on quality.
And on a second note, I realise this is vcdquality.com and not divx-digest.com so I'm gonna shut up and go and have a look on packetnews for Ballistic DVD rip whilst downloading a few music tracks off kazaa.
Oh and no-one call me a n00b, that word is stupid, everyone's gotta start somewhere.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|