Wanderer22
Aug 2003
Registered
|
I agree that it's definitely not at TC. If it is, it's one of those "digital telecines" that I theorized about a while back, taken directly from a digital projector (which could explain the reluctance to reveal the source). Definitely not a standard TC from film source.. contrast isn't near as high as TC's usually are.
It's definitely from a digital source of some kind, that much is certain. Since the original version of the film is digital, it doesn't really need the "remastering" that film sources have.
I think the fact that it's a non-scene/group release explains nearly every fault this thing has. Some lucky SOB got a hold of a DVD or whatever, and did a quick-and-dirty XviD encode. Problem is, they didn't know what they were doing. This explains the "soft" look of the video, the abundance of compression artifacts, hints of whatever de-interlacing technique they used (i.e. the "flickering" titles), and the improperly-compressed audio. And it may also explain the 2.0 audio instead of 5.1, and the fact that the left/right channels are reversed. The sort of mistakes a newbie would make with DVD2AVI or whatever.
So, in comparison to other DVDRips, my vote would be:
7/6/7.
:: Read the rules. Don't make request for other groups to do things. -K::
Last edited by kalvaitis007 on 06-07-2005 at 09:48 PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|