quote:

---

Originally posted by kling0n
is there such thing as a dvd5 xvid. id rather burn an xvid to dvd than cd and have to flip between discs..

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

cant remember if the end credits are white text over black but if they are these need encoding at .8mbit avg with a max of 1.2
that will save 200+mb of space for the movie portion
And with a bit of avisynth filtering here and there it should look pretty good., well alot better than this release anyway.

__________________
over and out!

Last edited by mooveebuff on 03-10-2006 at 07:52 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

BALLS

Had this downloading last night, woke up this morning to find out it was nuked, flipped through the img, I can see the pulsing that redemption1980 was talking about, doesn't ifoedit have an option in vob extras to split a dvd9 onto 2 dvd5s? Wouldn't that have been even quicker than recoding it with nero? I'm definitely gonna wait for a version done by a group that doesn't brag about doing 50 internals in their nfos...

V-4
A-8
M-?

__________________
testicular cancer

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Happy13178
4/9/8.... How did you get (3000+448)*186*60/8....I get the 3000kb, the 186 minutes of film, and divided by 8 for kb/KB...what are the other numbers?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Has anyone who criticised this release actually watched it, in full I mean? I have, all three hours. There were two or three glitches on my DVD-RW test burn which might not have had anything to do with the transfer. Apart from that the picture and sound quality was fine.

Personally I don't care what the bitrate was, I was watching the movie not the bit rate counter. Who makes these "rules" anyway? Every rip is stolen property to begin with so at best any rules are merely "honor among thieves".

I haven't liked any Peter Jackson film up till now so there was no way I was going to pay money for this one. Now thanks to Bocca I was able to watch it for free. Turned out to be the best movie I've ever seen. Sure I would have preferred a break at the half way stage plus a DTS soundtrack and if one becomes available I'll download that. In the meantime I'm perfectly happy with this release as I suspect will be most people who watch it.

10/10/10

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by ntscuser
Has anyone who criticised this release actually watched it, in full I mean? I have, all three hours. There were two or three glitches on my DVD-RW test burn which might not have had anything to do with the transfer. Apart from that the picture and sound quality was fine.

Personally I don't care what the bitrate was, I was watching the movie not the bit rate counter. Who makes these "rules" anyway? Every rip is stolen property to begin with so at best any rules are merely "honor among thieves".

I haven't liked any Peter Jackson film up till now so there was no way I was going to pay money for this one. Now thanks to Bocca I was able to watch it for free. Turned out to be the best movie I've ever seen. Sure I would have preferred a break at the half way stage plus a DTS soundtrack and if one becomes available I'll download that. In the meantime I'm perfectly happy with this release as I suspect will be most people who watch it.

10/10/10

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by elamericano
I am not trying to pick a fight, but I rate the releases based on other releases of the same category, SO, for a DVD the video is not good, and its not, period, now is it watchable? of course its watchable, its slightly better then an XViD, and thats the truth, if this was an Mpeg 4 encode, I would give it a 9, for the video because it deserves that, but this is not an Xvid release, this is a DVD and for a DVD you have to expect more.....now, TY BoCCa admirable effort

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

ntscuser, My rating was based on the first 20-30mins of the release, as i gave up at that point, and decided i would wait for a better release as the pulsating and blockiness was distracting me too much for me to properly concentrate, i am quite fussy and this reminded me of what most of the UK's Digital TV looks like.

porco556, you meaning this, which is in the 2005 rules.

"Minimum average bitrate allowed is 3000 kbit/s (2800 kbit/s for tv show). If minimum average bitrate cannot be achieved, a valid explanation is required in the NFO."

Not sure an explanation is needed, as the movie length should be the explanation, but it doesnt apply to this release anyway, as proper use of CCE and avisynth would produce better results than is on this release.

As i said earlier, probably acceptable for most people, but TBH most people are happy with a 700mb XviD of most movies, there has to be some sort of quality control or it would turn into a mess.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redemption1980
Not sure an explanation is needed, as the movie length should be the explanation, but it doesnt apply to this release anyway, as proper use of CCE and avisynth would produce better results than is on this release.

---

Well, if the explanation isn't there, and people see 2700kbit/sec in the NFO, they will bitch But you are correct, the length SHOULD speak for itself.

I am REALLY surprised that this garbage ass poorly encoded one click jobby is standing. No wonder my Blockbuster account was upgraded to Gold (rented more than 100 movies per year I believe is the cause...) There is just no aim for perfection these days. I guess you get what you pay for Ah well, I'll be visiting BB and getting out my DLs for this one.

And ya, the 3 CD XViD is what I kept myself. Ironically, it was probably made FROM this release haha

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I'm not as smart as some of the people on here, but this dvd is a great rip for me intill the retail comes out.

9/9/10

__________________
Coming soon....

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

There were no pulsing or other video artefacts visible on my monitor. Believe me I am very sensitive to that sort thing and would have noticed. I suspect different players and monitors react to this particular transfer in different ways. For the record I was playing on a Pioneer DV-575A and watching on a LG 32" W/S tube set.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by ntscuser
So is your opinion based on having actually watched all three hours of this release or is it based on what you think the almighty bitrate figure should be?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

is it me or is that dodgy screener/rip whatever it was by god better quality than this? how soon till we get a proper kong dvd rip? at this rate it looks like we will be waiting for the retail.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I burned it and watched it. It looked good to me. I think peoples opinions are like buying a video card. Nvidia is supposed to be the best (Which I agree). But an ATI card can do all the same things a Nvidia card can do. The only way to tell the difference is to benchmark the two. In real world you could not tell them apart. Same with this movie. It looks good when watched on a TV. You people just overreact to shit.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

well screeners are generally movie only, so it would make sense that the quality of that would be a bit better. i really dont think youll get a better quality retail rls than this on 1xdvd5.

edit: I just watched the entire movie on my 32" 1080i hdtv. didnt noticed any artifacts or discrepancies. I give the video an 8. surprised it looked so good for the length.

Last edited by kling0n on 03-13-2006 at 04:28 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged