I had the same impression until Debaser's comment.ptguardian wrote:first off i have to wonder if BLT's comment was because of playback difficulties or getting stuck looking at certain scenes that warrant several looks.
The rip, from my point of view: excellent! Close to DVD quality on a big screen, and at least on my system I can play some of it on my slow laptop computer, so it looks like this isn't as processor-intensive as some past rips. I love the fact that you started with a 720x576 anamorphic rip and in getting maximum quality you turned it a non-anamorphic one (i.e. square pixels). I had to use Handbrake to reencode one of your past anamorphic rips to view it on my TV, because my TV didn't pay attention to the display resolution and shoiwed what should have been 16/9 as 5/4. But I suspect that doesn't affect many people.
The fact it's big and doesn't need to be resized, in addition to having square pixels, means it can just be played directly, may be what makes it play better with less processor. The one thing I might have done differently was to experiment with it at 1024x576, which probably wouldn't have sacrificed much quality at all and might have helped the overall file size. But I am not sure with mp4 encoding how much 1280x720 actually increases filesize for the same quality, I have never done test rips of it. If I ever get a computer with more power than my poor old Altair 8800 I will do so
I will be happy to do so IF kev doesn't want to do an XviD rip like he often does, let's let him check in on this. I personally think hard subs are a waste and since we have good soft subs I'd rather not distribute a 1.1GB hardsubbed rip (especially if it's mp4) unless it's the only option.ptguardian wrote:i did make another rip at 1.1gigs with hard coded subs. but i am running out of bandwidth. i uploaded over 6gigs of the one already posted. debaser PM me if you want that one and i will send it to you or if FLL will volunteer some of his awesome speed i will send it to him to post
Thanks for this!