VCDQuality Forums - The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King *XviD* *NUKED* - DVDRIP

VCDQuality Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.0

VCDQuality Forums > VCDQuality.com > Comments > DIVX > The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King *XviD* *NUKED* - DVDRIP - BRUTUS

Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Thread

[-BiG_W-]
May 2003

Member

Nuked for bad AR lol

CTP^H^H^H Brutus aren't having much luck with this one.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-03-2004 12:42 PM

Click here to Send [-BiG_W-] a Private Message

r0t3x
Mar 2004

Newbie

Or not?

Nuked or not nuked? Nforce seems to change it's opinion every 10 minutes

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-03-2004 02:46 PM

Click here to Send r0t3x a Private Message

JimRitchay
Feb 2004

BANNED

Damn the video's pretty nice and clear, too bad it has a bad aspect ratio

Still better than CTP though.

8/8/x

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-03-2004 04:44 PM

Click here to Send JimRitchay a Private Message

megara
Feb 2004

Junior Member

quote:
Originally posted by JimRitchay
too bad it has a bad aspect ratio

what aspect ratio do you want? reencode it

9/9/10

Last edited by megara on 03-03-2004 at 10:18 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-03-2004 05:39 PM

Click here to Send megara a Private Message

Wolter
Dec 2002

Member

is it interlaced?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-03-2004 06:33 PM

Click here to Send Wolter a Private Message

Famoso
Feb 2002

Junior Member

Nothing wrong with this one, AR is just fine. Nice release!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-03-2004 08:20 PM

Click here to Send Famoso a Private Message

luckyluke80
May 2003

Senior Member

LOOKs good to me i don't have a problem with will hold me over until aug or sept when i can buy it
9/9/10

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-03-2004 09:02 PM

Click here to Send luckyluke80 a Private Message

r0t3x
Mar 2004

Newbie

AR is FINE.
No reason for NUKE

9/9/10

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-03-2004 09:50 PM

vcdkrew
Not Yet

Guest

wow, looks super ws, which i like.

-ryan

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-03-2004 11:29 PM

kjeks
Jan 2003

Professional kid...

3 friggin CD's?!

2 is enough!

They shouldve had mp3 sound and kept it to two CD's!

__________________
What the fuck does WTF mean?!?

quote:
Originally posted by Kn!ghTMarE
mislabeled? wat is it then? if its not dumb and dumberer, then it is...?

::LOL! -FuzZ::

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-03-2004 11:59 PM

Click here to Send kjeks a Private Message

Scotpunk
Not Yet

Guest

Re: 3 friggin CD's?!

quote:
Originally posted by kjeks
2 is enough!

They shouldve had mp3 sound and kept it to two CD's!

mp3 sound blows...ac3 is a must for this movie

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-04-2004 12:44 AM

mrph
Not Yet

Guest

Was the movie really so flat in the theaters too? Or is this release cropped?

Nice video and audio quality anyway!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-04-2004 02:12 PM

kiris_mcleskey
Not Yet

Guest

hey

hey im stil l downloading this i can view my sample, but how do i view to see what cd 1 has downloaded into it so far windows media lpayer wont open any of the files

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-04-2004 03:29 PM

The Belgain
Feb 2003

Junior Member

Well, I haven't finished downloading this, but it says in the nfo that the res is 640x256. This is an AR of 2.5:1. Normally, "thin widescreen" films have an AR of 2.35:1, which means 640x272 for the correct AR with 640 horizontal pixels (max allowed by tdx rules).

I'm assuming the film itself wasn't released in this AR, so there is a mistake in this release. Does anyone know whether it's due to cropping (the original was cropped to 2.5:1, and then encoded to 640x256, causing loss of picture area, but no distortion), or to bad AR (the original was cropped to 2.35:1, and then encoded to 640x256, causing distortion but no loss of picture area)?

If the latter (probably more likely), then all you need to do is stretch the film on playback. If you're really that bothered you could remux into a container like Matroska which supports pixel aspect ratio.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-04-2004 06:47 PM

Click here to Send The Belgain a Private Message

mrph
Not Yet

Guest

quote:
Originally posted by The Belgain
Does anyone know whether it's due to cropping (the original was cropped to 2.5:1, and then encoded to 640x256, causing loss of picture area, but no distortion), or to bad AR (the original was cropped to 2.35:1, and then encoded to 640x256, causing distortion but no loss of picture area)?

Object dimensions seem to be more real with the ratio of 2.5:1 than when streched to 2.35:1. That would mean the release is cropped? Assuming it wasn't originally in 2.5:1 AR.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-04-2004 11:02 PM

junchul
Mar 2004

Newbie

when I watch the movie

it looks very choppy to me
I don't have this problem with any other movie

It's not horrible, but it is noticeable that there is some dropped frames.
Is it just me?
Or do I need a certain codec for this?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-05-2004 01:05 AM

Click here to Send junchul a Private Message

XeroFightsAlo
Dec 2002

Senior Member

quote:
Originally posted by junchul
It's not horrible, but it is noticeable that there is some dropped frames.
Is it just me?

Bad IVTC maybe?

__________________
soda box

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-05-2004 01:36 AM

Click here to Send XeroFightsAlo a Private Message

junchul
Mar 2004

Newbie

Sorry I don't know what IVTC is.

But it's the same copy you all probably have
it happens with all three files

and i got each file from three different sources

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-05-2004 01:39 AM

Mistar Muffin
Oct 2002

Junior Member

quote:
Originally posted by junchul
when I watch the movie

it looks very choppy to me
I don't have this problem with any other movie

It's not horrible, but it is noticeable that there is some dropped frames.
Is it just me?
Or do I need a certain codec for this?

Yes. You need the latest XviD decoder, which is 1.0 RC3. Get it from h**p://www.roeder.goe.net/~koepi/xvid.shtml

Do NOT use ffdshow unless you have the absolute latest build.

quote:
Originally posted by XeroFightsAlone
Bad IVTC maybe?

No, it's fine. As to the aspect ratio question, it LOOKS fine to me. But then again I definately don't think its right. Cropped has my vote, I agree with the guy who said the heigh should be 272 that should be right. Time to compare to the Chakra TC and see. Report back later.

EDIT:

Ok I simply took the JPG of the Centropy SVCD from here, cropped off the black bars and compared it to this release. The SVCD the right aspect ratio, when resized it is 640x272, just like the XviD release should be. I found the exact same from in the XviD release that is posted as the JPG of the SVCD and took a shot of it and posted to my host. When compared, you can definately notice that the XviD release is stretched wide because of its 256px height. Honestly it doesn't bother me that much, its only a 16px offset. I'm getting the DVDR and I'll prolly end up ripping to XviD RC3 myself. See the screenshot comparison for yourself here. (A good way to compare is save them both to a folder on your computer and use the WinXP picture viewer to quickly go back and forth between then to see the differences.)

http://www.muffinworld.org/images/r...cd-centropy.jpg
http://www.muffinworld.org/images/rotk_xvid-brutus.jpg

__________________
mmm...muffins

Last edited by Mistar Muffin on 03-05-2004 at 04:41 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-05-2004 01:44 AM