Why not register?


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Should there be standard quality rules?
Yes 77%  77%  [ 24 ]
No 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Indifferent 19%  19%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 31
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:41 pm  Post subject: Hard Rules for High/low quality split?
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Site Admin
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am
Posts: 19753
Location: En España
This is a follow on from:
http://forum.dead-donkey.com/viewtopic. ... 478#112478

The question is, should there be hard rules rather than posting guidelines for the quality split on the movie sections?

As it stands, there is some moving of topics that have errors or could have been improved by different ripping means (ie. proper cropping, IVTC, etc.) as well as rips from poor DVD masters. I didn't want to do it because its seems a large annoyance to users, however, it does ensure that's less debateable movings.

For example, something like this for higher quality:
Quote:
Source
  • DVDrip or High Quality Digital Rips (HD-TV/HD-DVD) only
  • DVD Screeners must be posted in the screeners and unverified section
  • Badly mastered DVDs, such as out of sync audio, blurriness, scan lines or other errors due to the source should be posted in lower quality.
  • Heavy ghosting can be unavoidable in some interlaced PAL movies. These should be posted in the LQ section.

Video
  • Rips should be fully cropped on all sides. Sliding border DVDs of course are an exception. Try not to overcrop :)
  • NTSC rips should be IVTC'd.
  • Aspect Ratio (A/R) must be within 4% of source
  • Deinterlacing must be applied if necessary.
  • Resolution should be no lower than 512x for WS or 476x for 4:3


This at least makes it clear why something might be moved. There's still room for people to use their judgement on whether its a good looking rip regarding the source.

Of course lower quality doesn't mean its bad quality, just lower than expected for digital source rip

_________________
Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:25 am  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Lunatic Of Gods Creation
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:16 pm
Posts: 997
Those seem like pretty good guidelines, but I think it's fine the way it is, IMO. A good rip with a shit source in the HQ section but a bad rip with a great source in the LQ section might be a bit confusing to some newer users.


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:29 am  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Site Admin
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am
Posts: 19753
Location: En España
well here's an example of what the kind of ambiguity is at the moment:
http://forum.dead-donkey.com/viewtopic.php?t=10188

The video looks okay, but i would personally put it in lower quality because its not cropped and its had obvious effects on the quality (ie look closely at the edges of the bug in the first shot). However, the rip i'm sure is very fine to watch and it looks okay.

_________________
Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:54 am  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Lunatic Of Gods Creation
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:17 am
Posts: 959
but with that rip your loosing compression or bitrate with the black bars there, where as it can goto the video it self

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:15 am  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Site Admin
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am
Posts: 19753
Location: En España
True, but i've clashed with people over quality for the same reason. Perhaps its right to make it rigid rule based to remove ambiguity in a large part.

Only 3 votes, will wait for more input before doing anything :)

_________________
Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:44 am  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

The Devil, Probably
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 9:45 pm
Posts: 2321
Location: The Land Of The Virgin Queen
Ambiguity be gone!
Always nice to have firm standards/rules, etc.

The standards you listed above would work well.

_________________
Image_____________Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue..._____________


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:24 am  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

The Ancient One
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:07 pm
Posts: 4935
Location: Always one step behind
Since the rules you're proposing are simple, effective and useful, I'm inclined to vote 'yes'. I encode using that guidelines anyway. :)

However, I see a problem with the DVD source. I consider the 'Wizard of Darkness' DVDs I'm ripping atm (part 3 coming up shortly btw) flawed, since they (the source DVDs) have quite poor quality. It would be hard for me to decide where to post them. Based on the ripping standards they're HQ. Based on the quality of the source they're borderline IMO.

As long as you don't mind doing the extra work of moving threads all the time, I'm fine with the rules, I guess. But again, on any borderline case you would have to DL the damn thing to verify in which section it belongs if you want to do it right - screens can be deceiving. :)

Hm, ...I'll sleep on it and vote tomorrow. :)


Last edited by ^Rogue^ on Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:39 pm  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Site Admin
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am
Posts: 19753
Location: En España
i think the large marjority of people browse both sections indifferently, the split merely indicates that well these movies might not be available in better quality and these ones are from high quality digital sources.

The idea of the use your own opinion of the source is to avoid the "but this badly cropped, ivtc release looks better than this other dvd" arguement i've heard when i've moved a thread before. True, but the other rip maybe the best possible from the source.

Anyway looks like its pretty unanimous.

_________________
Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:31 pm  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Demon Of The Abyss
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:58 am
Posts: 1103
I tink you just need to define bewteen bad quality rip and a bad quality source. I mean if a file is not released on dvd and the only print around is from say an old dubbed vsh from the video store, and there are no other rips is it bad quality.. or is is as "high quality" as avalible on mule?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:09 pm  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Demon Of The Abyss
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:24 pm
Posts: 1340
Quote:
Badly mastered DVDs



Oh...... good luck defining that one :wacky:

You see some people constantly rAISe criteria....
I have already seen people refusing to download certain awesome looking rips.......
...
....because the source was a dvd5 :suicide:


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:29 pm  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

The Devil, Probably
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:58 pm
Posts: 1940
Location: Just Follow The Stench
That's a bitch to define.
I would say the guidelines as they are above would work pretty good.
And yes of course there would be some execptions (Wizard Of Darkness for example) but they always will be.

I'll always browse through the higher and lower quality section to see what's available. Some 'lower' quality rips work just fine for me as of some people who would not even dare -clicking- it.

Cheers

_________________
Image
"SBiG: Bad Movie Download Central | Home of the ShitBusters" | White Wine FTW


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:56 am  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Dead But Dreaming
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:13 am
Posts: 228
Location: Valhalla
pure wrote:
...I'll always browse through the higher and lower quality section to see what's available. Some 'lower' quality rips work just fine for me as of some people who would not even dare -clicking- it.

Cheers


Same here. High quality is always preferred but if it's only available in lower quality then that's better than no quality at all. I like the separation of the two on this site.


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:01 am  Post subject:
Reply with quote
Offline

The Practice Girl
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 3:08 am
Posts: 6099
Location: Back in the glistening folds of Barbara Bush's Twat
Not to sure on the ivtc thing..I got 3 films coming up that are true ntsc and are not ivtc..and they are high quality..just might to have an exception thrown in there..not the rule though. :wink:

_________________
Small Time Rippers - 2003-2008 - R.I.P.


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:01 am  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

The Devil, Probably
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:54 pm
Posts: 1962
Location: UK
I'm gonna vote yes. I think u do need basic rules just not to draconian as to put people off. I think that just as many people are prepared to listen and take advice as there are people who spit their dummys out. I think Dxa has a point about the ivtc thing. I always follow the guides and ther are times when dvd's are pure ntsc.


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:32 pm  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Site Admin
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am
Posts: 19753
Location: En España
obviously you don't ivtc pure ntsc

_________________
Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:26 pm  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

The Devil, Probably
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:54 pm
Posts: 1962
Location: UK
not obviously to evryone otherwise you wouldnt end up with nuked rips. the point i was trying to make is that when some rips come out at 29fps it's sometimes considered a bad rip because the ripper should have ivct'd when in fact the dvd was ntsc, the q is then does the ripper know a pure ntsc or not.


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:14 pm  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Site Admin
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am
Posts: 19753
Location: En España
Its irrelevant anyway since if you take a look at the guidelines I posted back in december, they already say it anyway:
http://forum.dead-donkey.com/viewtopic.php?t=10197

It already states about pure ntsc.

I'm guess your referring to the "something like this" ones in this thread rather than the ones posted as rules, and haven't actually checked the real rules right?

_________________
Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:00 pm  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

The Devil, Probably
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:54 pm
Posts: 1962
Location: UK
:lol: Yes it's very obvious that some people dont read the rules at all but its how they reract is the issue for this poll right ? do you make hard no exeption rules about HQ or LQ or do you stick with what we have. TBO I dont think either will stop posts being moved for being in the wrong place.But the rules posted above make a lot of sense and aren't that different from the guidlines posted in dec, exept for the native ntsc bit.
I dont know a graet deal about the dvd industry or as to why native ntsc is rare but Dxa has 3 coming up so maybe in this genre its not so rare ?


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:44 pm  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Servant Of The Dead Donkey
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:57 am
Posts: 96
Native NTSC is used when they shoot the movie on Digital Video as opposed to Film. This is said to keep the costs low (by millions of $$), so this type of movies can only be expected from indie film makers. Any major Hollywood studio product and the end result has to be 23.976 or 25.000 whatever the case may be. In either case this should be pretty evident by inspecting the resultant avi. Brute IVTCing native NTSC will cause jerky motion and not IVTCing telecined content will result in dupe frames.


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:33 pm  Post subject:
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Site Admin
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am
Posts: 19753
Location: En España
just chatting with dxa/v on the same matter since it generally a confusing topic and unfortunately DVD authoring companies aren't exactly making it easy on the poor rippers.

A lot of the DV cams are actually 24fps these days I've been led to believe (the several grand ones, and the hdtv ones are 50fps (interlaced i assume so 2x25fps?)... god only knows), particularly the ones that are likely to be used for indie movies. So shooting on DV doesn't guarantee its true ntsc or it needs ivtc, and dvd2avi won't tell you in many cases if it requires ivtc. Best way is to go into the preview menu in gknot and make sure you manually check the frames. If you find a sequence of progressive and interlaced frames then your likely looking at material that needs IVTCing. If its all interlaced, then you need to apply an interlacing filter.

Oh but there's more, there's a lot of cgi that is done at true ntsc, but the movie is at 24fps, and here it gets tricky.

There's several dv movies i've seen that where shot on DV, but have obvious 3:2 pulldown applied, which means it was either 24fps or more likely converted to 24fps, then 3:2 was applied in the mastering process. IVTC worked on them no problems, smooth playback.

As a rule of thumb, for independant films, I just gave up trusting the application reports of what the material needs doing to it a while back, the only time its reliable is on FILM >95% content and FORCE FILM. The rest of the time i always inspect the sequence of frames for progressive and interlaced, and apply an appropriate ivtc method. Then after re-encoding, play back a bit in different places and open up in nandub to double check (I'm often drunk so naturally drop frames :lol: )

@unskinny i bet your laughing your ass off at the crappy horror film fanatics trying to fumble their way around ripping the ultimate low budget horror movies :lol:

Anyway, check out this nice website about dv cameras, there's a nice bit on how they acheive film quality/standards on DV a bit further down:
http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html

Ctrl+f for "Frame mode, slow shutters, and "the film look""

There's the trick for cheaper cameras, but by far the most common DV cameras are the following which support native 24P fps:
Quote:
Of course, the Panasonic AG-DVX100 shoots both 30P and 24P (NTSC: 25P only in PAL) with a true progressive CCD, as does the Canon XL2 and the Panasonic AG-HVX200.


Canon XL2 was/is a great camera, one of the best low-expensive ones, that lots of indy directors used.

_________________
Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!


Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Frontpage / Forums / Scifi


What's blood for, if not for shedding?