Yes nuke it.
Top right hand corner has the edge the cinema screen permantly on show,sound is worse than the previous releases (and you nuked those) pic colurs look ok but for some reason all these release have the credits at the beggining totally off the picture.
CTP step up and show how it's done otherwise we all may as well wait for a screener.
Video 5
Audio 3
film 8

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

4/4/5. Hollow sound and bad AR.



NOX. Try reading this.

TELESYNC (TS) -
A telesync is the same spec as a CAM except it uses an external audio source (most likely an audio jack in the chair for hard of hearing people). A direct audio source does not ensure a good quality audio source, as a lot of background noise can interfere. A lot of the times a telesync is filmed in an empty cinema or from the projection booth with a professional camera, giving a better picture quality. Quality ranges drastically, check the sample before downloading the full release. A high percentage of Telesyncs are CAMs that have been mislabeled.


Number one... They even say its a cam in their NFO. They dont think a TS needs to have external audio source. You can just use a zoom mic. Tsk tsk.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

lol.. how can one bring a boom mic into the cinema without anyone noticin' ?? they might as well get into the projection room and ask to borrow a headphone jack.

5/3/6

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

the nfo says ZOOM MIC and its not a typo,
zoom mics are a special kind of mic made specially for camcorders, they mount on the top of the cam (kinda like a rifle scope), and are supposed to block out the some of the side noises and get the sound more directly in front of the camera.
this wouldnt be much of an advantage for a few reasons, main one being that there goes any STEREO imaging, but any ways, its ZOOM, not BOOM, and its still a cam, TS just means external audio source, I dont see the big deal with proper labelling but whatever...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

stop ragging on the poor bastards. they tried.

7/6.5/8

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I watched the whole thing.

Camera moves around a lot at the begining.

Cuts off at the end. No ending/No credits

I hate to rewatch a movie just for an ending.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I don't think you can expect too much, after all it is a Cam, and it shows some balls to make an SVCD out of one. Picture is ok, sound wasn't that great, but all together it is a good release.

7/6/x

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

indeed, nfo made me chuckle like a gopher.

zoom mics are handy out in the field when recording, but in a theater ? then its just gonna be a cam. i've never seen a group as dumb as to mention in their nfo that its a cam, and then label it a telesync, because they "think" (ie they're fuckin retarded) that other groups lie too. sure most of the silv groups lie because they dont have a fuckin clue, but any group who records their own stuff knows, and you'll notice a big difference between the groups who label their stuff CAM and those who have a proper (and i mean something a bit better than a mono seating jack) direct audio source.

learn from your mistakes, and drop the ego and bullshit "knowledge".

__________________
563-773-1880

<Dwaggy> i caught you a delicious Bass
<The404> This is because you are an idiot

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by pHo
indeed, nfo made me chuckle like a gopher.

zoom mics are handy out in the field when recording, but in a theater ? then its just gonna be a cam. i've never seen a group as dumb as to mention in their nfo that its a cam, and then label it a telesync, because they "think" (ie they're fuckin retarded) that other groups lie too. sure most of the silv groups lie because they dont have a fuckin clue, but any group who records their own stuff knows, and you'll notice a big difference between the groups who label their stuff CAM and those who have a proper (and i mean something a bit better than a mono seating jack) direct audio source.

learn from your mistakes, and drop the ego and bullshit "knowledge".

---

Couldnt have said it any better... 6/4/1... bleh

__________________

..::HiGHONASCii::..

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I'm a lot simpler when it comes to judging-- labels don't mean much to me, that's why we have samples, this forum, etc. The question I ask: is this release better than the previous release? Sadly, no. It's FS, it's pixelated and it's very dark... none of which the previous release was guilty of. I enjoyed the nfo-- and look forward to other releases (hopefully improved) from this group.

__________________
November 2, 2004. America shoots itself in foot, re-elects Bush. Recovery to take decades. Stay tuned.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Can anyone else Verify this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshNya
I watched the whole thing.

Camera moves around a lot at the begining.

Cuts off at the end. No ending/No credits

I hate to rewatch a movie just for an ending.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

nice..

6/5/9

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

God damn, this is the shitiest encode i have ever seen. very dark from the sample. and the sound is hollower then hell! i recoded the sample, and reencoded way better then the sample..i think ill do what mystic did and do my own reencode looking good from what ive done already!

5/5/?

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I would have liked it but I think if it is missing ending you might want to not post it as it way SUCKS!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

The quality was tollerable but where the hell was the ending....

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I think JoshNya, and houseman are the only ones who REALLY watched the whole movie. NOBODY else has even mentioned the cut off ending!!!! This was a big turnoff for me as that adds closure to the film. It seems the guy was either too close or he zoomed in too much, mostly all of the words at the bottom were cut off and it was at an angle. Great video quality aside from the angle and zoom. Anyway, i think it "WOULD" have been watchable but with the ending cut off i'd say no. And also it would be helpful if you guys would mention if your judging from the sample or from watching the actual release. I say this because in this particular situation if someone would have looked at the forums nobody on the first page mentioned the cut off ending but did comment on the movie quality so you have to assume they actually watched it. Great movie tho, guess a screener will be the thing to wait for.... or Centropy!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged