porco556
Jan 2003
Senior Member
|
Dunno where the above bitch-fest comes from, unless we are watching different versions of this movie.
Video 7/10 - Well, I know what the retails look like for the first 3, and I know this is far from it. Equally, all 3 previous Potter re-codes also get around 7 out of 10. This one is slightly worse (probably because the orig has CBR video which is common on DVD screeners). No macro blocking in this encode. Artifacting is frequent, but it is a 154 min movie. Video is not too dark either, looks just about right (it is a dark movie). But you can always up the brightness on your TV/monitor or PowerDVD or whatever you're playing it with. Also video is soft, but not grainy (well, there is a bit of grain, it's not a digital print... But nothing like what is described). You want grainy, check out Hustle and Flow, 21 Grams, those are grainy.
CURIOUS QUESTION: Which freeware encoders do a better job than CCE? Sounds pretty full of shit to me. Reason CCE is used because it is the best. Canopus Procoder is also pretty good (hence why it is also acceptable now).
DVD-R 10/10 - Upwards of 3 months early (March 7, 2006 R1 date), can't complain. Most of the DVD was used just for video (4.32g) to ensure best possible until the retail comes out.
It is a good job all things considered. This will hold me over until I buy it.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|