[REL] Stockholm (2016) [Argentina]

User avatar
Phuzzy4242
Site Admin
Posts: 7686
Likes:
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Stockholm (2016) [Argentina]

Post by Phuzzy4242 »   1 likes

1) Go to the YouTube page.

2) Click the Share button.
[Image]

3) Click the Embed button.
[Image]

4) Copy the YouTube Embed Code.
[Image]

5) Paste the Embed Code into your FLM post.
[Image]

6) Here is where each piece of the YouTube Embed Code fits in the bbcode. As you can see, we only use a few things from the Embed Code - width, height, and URL:
[Image]

7) Preview your post to make sure everything looks right.


8) Delete the YouTube Embed Code.

Hope this makes sense. It's easy to do it, not so easy to explain HOW to do it in a way other people can understand.
User avatar
Sully23
Posts: 1335
Likes:
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 7:41 pm

Re: [REL] Stockholm (2016) [Argentina]

Post by Sully23 »   0 likes

A strange case of a lost cut very similar to The Lipstick Stain, the record says 10 minutes but in reality 30 seconds left, I suspiciously think 30 more seconds of Sophie Lilis's bath, if I wonder what happened to the 10 minutes of Stockholm? :think

I was also unable to start the emule download. :wall
User avatar
deadman
Posts: 1026
Likes:
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: [REL] Stockholm (2016) [Argentina]

Post by deadman »   0 likes

Sully23 wrote:
emuler wrote:Imdb says 1 hr 19 min. :think

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10580458/
69 minutes I consider it a short film
Personally, I tend to think of anything less than an hour as a short.

According to The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences though, which awards the Oscars, a short film is defined as "an original motion picture that has a running time of 40 minutes or less, including all credits". The European Film Academy sets it at 30 minutes. The line between a short and a regular movie is a bit arbitrary.
User avatar
Sully23
Posts: 1335
Likes:
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 7:41 pm

Re: [REL] Stockholm (2016) [Argentina]

Post by Sully23 »   1 likes

Night457 wrote:This is strange. Multiple sites (imdb, filmaffinity, kinopoisk) claim it is 79 minutes, but any site with the video has it at 69:44. I did what I almost never do: went to Facebook, to the Official Stockholm Movie page.

That has it as 70 minutes at the premiere, which is what 69:44 rounded up would be.

Certainly there could have been a longer cut (maybe a workprint) prior to the premiere, but I suspect that the IMDB entry was and is incorrect and other movie sites have just copied that incorrect information. But if anyone has a Facebook account (I do not) and is interested, go ahead and post on the page and ask if there is a longer cut or if IMDB is wrong.
I handle an unlikely and serious theory there is more OT than was thought, in a movie about stockholm syndrome I associate it there is an interaction between kidnapper-hostage, that plot hole is never known the parents of the girl, or the Open ending only leaves many questions, despite the narrative was poor Malena Otta looked like a good hostage.
ALSAMAN69
Posts: 1
Likes:
Joined: Tue May 03, 2022 8:13 pm

Re: [REL] Stockholm (2016) [Argentina]

Post by ALSAMAN69 »   0 likes

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]
Male Otta
moisan4
Posts: 19
Likes:
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:07 am

Re: [REL] Stockholm (2016) [Argentina]

Post by moisan4 »   0 likes

You could also just download and use 4K Video Downloader. Works well for downloading YouTube videos.
User avatar
deadman
Posts: 1026
Likes:
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: [REL] Stockholm (2016) [Argentina]

Post by deadman »   1 likes

I tried downloading a link to an upgraded version of this movie, unfortunately my alldebrid account no longer works with file.al links. If anyone has the ability to download from that host and share here's the link:

Code: Select all

https://file.al/ci3xyv1fn1qp/Stockholm-2016.rar.html

As you can see if you load it, the file size is 2.3 GB so likely a major improvement.
User avatar
Night457
Global Moderator
Posts: 5221
Likes:
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: [REL] Stockholm (2016) [Argentina]

Post by Night457 »   2 likes

deadman wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:10 pm As you can see if you load it, the file size is 2.3 GB so likely a major improvement.
Not necessarily. At one time I had a 2.1Gb 1080p file for a 37 minute short. The quality was an improvement on the lower resolution files that I had before, but it was not as super-awesome as one might hope from the size. It could reasonably have been coded smaller.

I don't have jezevex's 625Mb file in the first post, but some time ago I downloaded 1080p from the Youtube link and it is about 818Mb. This is modestly sized for a 1080p 69 minute file, but 2.3Gb is also obviously inflated.

If I remember correctly the file.al scam, files under 1Gb are free and larger ones require a premium account. So if their source is smaller than but still close to 1Gb, they recode it larger to make it a premium file so they can make money off of it. If they make it really large they may convince people that it is really high quality.

It might not be.
User avatar
deadman
Posts: 1026
Likes:
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: [REL] Stockholm (2016) [Argentina]

Post by deadman »   1 likes

Night457 wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:49 am Not necessarily. At one time I had a 2.1Gb 1080p file for a 37 minute short. The quality was an improvement on the lower resolution files that I had before, but it was not as super-awesome as one might hope from the size. It could reasonably have been coded smaller.

I don't have jezevex's 625Mb file in the first post, but some time ago I downloaded 1080p from the Youtube link and it is about 818Mb. This is modestly sized for a 1080p 69 minute file, but 2.3Gb is also obviously inflated.

If I remember correctly the file.al scam, files under 1Gb are free and larger ones require a premium account. So if their source is smaller than but still close to 1Gb, they recode it larger to make it a premium file so they can make money off of it. If they make it really large they may convince people that it is really high quality.

It might not be.

Anything's possible. But if it was captured, say, from one of the many subscription streaming movie services you can access through Amazon using a program like AnyStream, 2.3 GB is roughly the size range you'd expect. And the quality level would be equivalent to rips you see on rarbg of popular TV shows. I suspect Ghost gets some of his material by that very method.

It's not my experience that file.al actually messes with files, re-encoding them. Users can monetize downloads so there's a motive for uploaders to make files bigger and/or multipart. The company doesn't have to do a thing. Just like YouTube account holders often double or triple up a movie, joining it to itself several times to get a much longer file because ... more ad breaks. If a viewer triggers even one or two of them in the redundant portion of the video trying to figure out whether it's legit the account holder has managed to squeeze a few more ad views out of them. YouTube doesn't do that. They just have a reward structure that incentivizes it.

In all fairness to whoever runs that constellation of movie sites (clearly a member here) they don't tend to post low quality stuff unless that's the only thing available. You could always be right. The bigger file is usually superior to the smaller - but not always.
User avatar
Night457
Global Moderator
Posts: 5221
Likes:
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: [REL] Stockholm (2016) [Argentina]

Post by Night457 »   1 likes

If anyone CAN get the larger version, it IS worth checking out, no matter my suspicions.
deadman wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 3:24 am But if it was captured, say, from one of the many subscription streaming movie services you can access through Amazon using a program like AnyStream, 2.3 GB is roughly the size range you'd expect.
But we have not found this one on Amazon, have we though? So maybe there is a different explanation for the large size. Here, I call shenanigans because I am distrustful.

I have wondered why in heaven's name we get 3 to 6 Gb 1080p files for a 50 minute TV episode. That is MUCH larger than it needs to be for the quality, though in those cases I clearly see the quality IS definitely good. But still my point stands: larger size does not necessarily indicate better quality. It might just be the same. A 50 minute video can be 1.5Gb or 3Gb or 6Gb and still look the same.

I tried to find more detailed film specifications for this one but I could not. I can not tell whether the lower video quality of the 1080p YouTube video is due solely to the encode or if it is also due to the source. I suspect this was shot on a modest budget with basic digital cameras, not anything of extraordinary quality.
It's not my experience that file.al actually messes with files, re-encoding them. Users can monetize downloads so there's a motive for uploaders to make files bigger and/or multipart.
Aha! OK, I believe that. But since I am not a member I can not tell what file.al does and what users do, and since it is under the file.al name then they get the blame. (I don't accept protestations of innocence from social media sites, either, because those companies make billions from the content of their members.)
Just like YouTube account holders often double or triple up a movie, joining it to itself several times to get a much longer file because ... more ad breaks.
Again, you provide insight where previously I was in the dark! I could not understand why sometimes a 90 minute movie had a 3 hour video. When that was the best source then I downloaded it and snipped off the excess.

What I don't understand is how ads make anyone money when I never even see them because of my adblockers. But I won't ask that question too intensely because I don't want the entire "free" ad-driven system to break down.
In all fairness to whoever runs that constellation of movie sites (clearly a member here) they don't tend to post low quality stuff unless that's the only thing available.
In all fairness, I accept that people can provide downloads in whatever way they wish. I also realize that providing direct downloads costs someone money, so it is reasonable to charge people for that service. The few times I succeeded in getting small file.al downloads, I had no problem with the quality. Most of the file.al downloads SEEM to be a reasonable size. I just object to deliberately inflated file sizes when I encounter them, WHOEVER is doing it, because I can see through their fakery.

This is also the time of the year when I feel intolerant and ungenerous, so maybe I am too harsh. Bah, humbug.
Post Reply