| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009 19:23 Post subject: Why havnt release groups switched from 2cd xvid releases? |
|
 |
Seems so dated, I dont get why its still done, surely it would be better to just use one 1.4gb file??Anyone know any good reason why its still done that way?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009 19:36 Post subject: |
|
|
Because the scene rules say so.
From a realistic point of view the whole XviD-scene is completely dated and unnecessary. People should rather focus on x264 and so should you...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009 19:39 Post subject: |
|
|
i think its because of reluctance to change, because change one thing you change it all... 1.4 was always 2cd... but noone uses cds... so why bother with 1.4? why not 1.5? why not 2? do all releases now require ac3 since 700mb and 2x700mb are now archaic?
basically the scene is lazy, and more often than not the best rips are non scene anyway.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Mon, 28th Sep 2009 19:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Using Xvid and AC3 itself borderlines moronic, because they can achieve much better results using h264 and AAC. But what are going to do? Some people still use these silly Divx players which don't even support the entire MPEG4 ASP (Xivd, Divx, etc) spec. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Tue, 29th Sep 2009 12:55 Post subject: |
|
|
well im confused... i didnt think aac was better than ac3... apart from the size difference, the original file will always be superior....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 29th Sep 2009 14:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| chiv wrote: | | well im confused... i didnt think aac was better than ac3... apart from the size difference, the original file will always be superior.... |
yup even if ACC can do the same quality at a lower bitrate, a recode will always lose quality, for some time groups like devise would do ACC for x264 dvd rips , but they reminded themself ppl download x264 rips for the higher quality, and not for the smaller size.
ACC is popular though with the mini HD rips, since 640 kb/s AC3 and 1500 kb/s DTS tracks are quite big in size compared to the video.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Tue, 29th Sep 2009 16:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| chiv wrote: | | well im confused... i didnt think aac was better than ac3... apart from the size difference, the original file will always be superior.... |
This is true, but if groups were to make a lower quality blurary rips, there are higher fidelity tracks, which can be encoded with AAC to achieve a better quality track than the original DVD AC3. So imagine, a 700 MKV file with the same quality (video and audio) of a 1400 xvid + AC3.
An also, the only reason HD rips are not done with AAC is because people are stuck with some old receivers that do not support AAC - only DTS and DD. That's the only reason. AAC can achieve better results than DTS and DD/AC3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Tue, 29th Sep 2009 20:25 Post subject: |
|
|
yeah ok i get you... aac from a bluray ac3 track > ac3 from dvd source, and yeah that i can agree with...
but regardless... one thing that needs to die out, is mp3 audio. NEEDS TO DIE OUT. 2 channel audio on movies makes my cry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 29th Sep 2009 20:48 Post subject: |
|
|
for the large percentage of users who have a stereo setup and see little use for a surround setup a stereo mp3 is still better quality than ac3, if the source is
ac3 is plain shit as format and i'm surprised it's still deployed anywhere
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Tue, 29th Sep 2009 21:26 Post subject: |
|
|
DTS seems more popular these days (at least in the proper movie format - Bluray  ).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Wed, 30th Sep 2009 12:11 Post subject: |
|
|
im still using xvid on cd in my divx player. So why bother changing it?
you can DL the DVDr if u want
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 1st Oct 2009 01:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| spankie wrote: | im still using xvid on cd in my divx player. So why bother changing it?
you can DL the DVDr if u want |
same here if i want uber quality ill just buy it on blu ray or whatever.
for checking out a movie ill grab an xvid
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 1st Oct 2009 11:35 Post subject: |
|
|
or for movies that are worth a watch but not worth the extra download time.... you know... like MOST OF THEM....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 1st Oct 2009 13:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| snoop1050 wrote: | | for checking out a movie ill grab an xvid |
| chiv wrote: | | or for movies that are worth a watch but not worth the extra download time.... you know... like MOST OF THEM.... |
There is nothing wrong with 1,5 GB for a low res movie, the real question is why use XviD when x264 is roughly twice as efficient?
If you just want to check out a movie that most likely isn't worth the additional download time and you have to choose between a crappy 600x350 XviD release with blocking and artefacts all over the place and a x264 encode that can maintain the full DVD resolution at the given filesize and be almost transparent to the source (though I admit that high-motion action might need up to 2 GB to be really good) , why should you bother with XviD?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 1st Oct 2009 13:57 Post subject: |
|
|
It's simple really, untill cheap DVD players come with x264 support the scene will keep using Xvid. I have a 60cm CRT TV in my room, so Xvid is just fine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 1st Oct 2009 16:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mister_s wrote: | | It's simple really, untill cheap DVD players come with x264 support the scene will keep using Xvid. I have a 60cm CRT TV in my room, so Xvid is just fine. |
All right, if you want to ignore the two facts that resolution is not related to size and that your CRTs resolution is ~2x higher then the res of a XviD scene relese go on. I'm done.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 1st Oct 2009 23:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| me7 wrote: | | Mister_s wrote: | | It's simple really, untill cheap DVD players come with x264 support the scene will keep using Xvid. I have a 60cm CRT TV in my room, so Xvid is just fine. |
All right, if you want to ignore the two facts that resolution is not related to size and that your CRTs resolution is ~2x higher then the res of a XviD scene relese go on. I'm done. |
Where did I say anything about resolution and quality? It's an old CRT, so Xvid is fine. And since the DVD-player hooked up to it does not play x264, Xvid is the only way to go. Most movies don't deserve a 4gig DVD download.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
รber-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Fri, 2nd Oct 2009 00:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| nouseforaname wrote: | | Mister_s wrote: | | Most movies don't deserve a 4gig DVD download. |
even garbage deserves a 4gb download  |
By watching Hi-Def garbage you know exactly what kind of rotten stuff and maggots it contains, you can actually tell the difference
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Fri, 2nd Oct 2009 12:52 Post subject: |
|
|
I watch movies on PCs (either the desktop PC or a HTPC with the TV) and for me, if the movie is crap, at least I saw it in high quality. Transformers 2 - there is no reason to watch it at all, but if you do decide to watch it in a moment of weakness, at least you saw all the bits and pieces (and Isabel Lucas' ass ) in full 1080p glory. If you watch it in Xvid crap, what's the point? You don't enjoy the movie, and you don't enjoy the ass because it's all a blur. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zipfero
Posts: 8938
Location: White Shaft
|
| Posted: Fri, 2nd Oct 2009 14:24 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
