|
Please login to reply
| 2 of 2 |
|
|||||
|
NovaKing (Administrator)
Posted at 03/10/2007, 11:29
|
|||||
|
they left? *blinks* |
|||||
|
skumlerud
Posted at 03/10/2007, 11:35
|
|||||
| admin : please use sticky. thanks. | |||||
|
Jeenyus
Posted at 03/10/2007, 13:03
|
|||||
| admin : please use sticky. thanks | |||||
|
s2001s
Posted at 04/10/2007, 11:24
|
|||||
thanks for all the hr and x264 releases. we all appreciate eztv being an easy place to find the shows we like. i hope that we will continue to get 720p releases for shows like house because last season we inconsistently got the hr's. some weeks eztv would distribute it, and for weeks on end only the 350mb would be here. |
|||||
|
7mod
Posted at 07/10/2007, 14:25
|
|||||
|
what is the excuse?? most people d/ling these episodes in hr versions are playing those files on their hdtv's using their divx dvd players & they get the best quality! name one device can playback the x264 .mkv codec on your tv! i for one would never waste my time watching my favorite show on my pc! |
|||||
|
7mod
Posted at 07/10/2007, 16:02
|
|||||
don't let me think about placing my pc under my tv again, i have a 42" philips plasma as well & i thought about that one day, but i recently bought an mvix hd wireless media player which takes control of all my media on my pc & unfortunately it doesn't support .mkv files! but on the other hand it does support the rest (ts,tp,divx6,wmv9. etc..) so i can't give up on hr releases! & so are some others. |
|||||
|
realdiamond
Posted at 07/10/2007, 22:14
|
|||||
|
ok if you have got access to a private tracker you'll see one reason, why there are less hr xvids is because ctu are trying to use x264 for hr, if they stay doing hr with x264 the other groups might move to x264 as well to show ctu how to do them, lol. |
|||||
|
Zank
Posted at 08/10/2007, 01:35
|
|||||
my mac |
|||||
|
Zank
Posted at 08/10/2007, 01:45
|
|||||
ctu went to x264 hr to get the file size down. expect higher quality at just 550 megs for 1 hour show. it is win win for everyone. if everyone went to x264 for the 624 x 352 hdtv stuff you could drop down to 200 megs at same quality and fit 22 eps on 1 dvd which would mean a whole season on one dvd for most usa tv shows which run 22 eps average. torrent dl times would be much shorter and we would not have to ul as much. works for me  |
|||||
|
death734
Posted at 08/10/2007, 14:41
|
|||||
first: plenty of hr's get upload to h**p://www.bt-chat.com/browse.php?category=9  now the reason why i quoted that below / where did that rumor come from? did i miss an nfo speaking of it? i highly disagree with the 550mb thing. why not just leave it at 700mb and have much higher quality? "expect higher quality at just 550 megs" thats what people said about 880mb 720p files vs 1.36gb 720p xvids while that wasn't true. 1.07gb yes but still why lower the size when you could have higher quality at that same file size? i have a feeling that if anything 550mb hr x264 will be the same quality as 700mb hr xvid not better. oh and also, 200mb x264 is not always = to 350mb xvid its more like 250-280mb = 350mb xvid if you use good settings. you need insane custom settings which take a while to encode to get good quality at that size and 500kbps bitrate (but its still not 350mb 1000kbps xvid quality). but then again lowering file size to have the same quality is dumb. i dont see people encoding stuff 1/3 vcd size to have equal quality to vcd with xvid |
|||||
|
realdiamond
Posted at 09/10/2007, 22:50
|
|||||
|
x264 can have xvids quality by 1/2 the file size. if you have ether the time or x core cpu power to do it, to crush the file that small. the problem, is play back needs more cpu power as well. how far the scene choose to go is the problem. crush the file to much and no one but the elite user would be able to play it. the other difference with x264 is this neededs to be worth while to big a file and hr stops being hr and you might as well call the file x-hr and down load the 720p. hr xvid only plays on new stand alone players and pcs which means its the same as hr x264 random stand alone players get a mkv firmware upgrade, but pc users can already play it. so they changed format with no quality lost and less seeding time . the only people who lost out, are the users who actualy think divx hd on dvd storage is a good idea. x264 mkv can be stored the same exact way. but in less space and with less cost. whys that not better?. |
|||||
|
Posted at 09/10/2007, 23:11
|
|||||
without hardware acceleration, i was told a 3800+ dual core amd was the requirement. my systems are quite powerful so i cant verify if thats true or not. |
|||||
|
paradox
Posted at 09/10/2007, 23:28
|
|||||
|
hmm, i think it is lower than that. i think you really need at least around 2.5ghz, not dual core. i've definitely heard of p4 2.4ghz's playing them, just. cheers though. |
|||||
|
kidwizz
Posted at 10/10/2007, 02:32
|
|||||
| admin : spam removed. please stop it. thanks | |||||
|
sirhcua
Posted at 10/10/2007, 10:24
|
|||||
it's perfect on a pal sd tv though. centre the 540/528 line picture in the 576 frame and overscan ensures you don't see the difference. it's the main reason i download the hrs, and it's a real shame they are harder to find. |
|||||
|
| 2 of 2 |
|
|||||
