Bloody birthday (1981)

Death · Last edited by Death on Sat May 01, 2004 1:43 am, edited 4 times in total.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082084/

ed2k: Bloody.Birthday.(1981).avi [688.88 Mb] [Stats] Verified

File Size : 688 MB (or 705,412 KB or 722,341,888 bytes)
Runtime : 01:24:41 (121,818 fr)
AR/Resolution : 384x224 (1.71:1) [=12:7]
Bitrate : 1003 kb/s
FPS : 23.976
Audio : 128 kb/s (64/ch, stereo) CBR 48000 Hz

all4jaws · **Posted:** Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:30 am **Post subject:**

Looks cool, thx
Let's see what it is.. :outsider:

Death · **Posted:** Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:39 pm **Post subject:**

Fileinfo updated.

George Tatum · **Posted:** Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:00 pm **Post subject:**

Yeah, good movie, I remember this one from the 80's

Not so sure about that res though :wink:

random · **Posted:** Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:00 am **Post subject:**

EDIT: FS just appeared. :wacky:

John_Doe · **Posted:** Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:07 pm **Post subject:**

seams to have stagnated.. :cry:

random · **Posted:** Mon Apr 12, 2004 5:59 pm **Post subject:**

Really? I'm at almost 50%, but the full source seems to be coming on and offline randomly...

John_Doe · **Posted:** Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:02 am **Post subject:**

ah.. saw 2 new segments now. I guess it's not hopeless then.

random · **Posted:** Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:55 am **Post subject:**

Woohoo! Only one part left here. :lol:

paul-scream22 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:18 am **Post subject:**

I'm on this and am too waiting for the last few chunks.

We'll get this done in time!

paul-scream22 · **Posted:** Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:14 pm **Post subject:**

Right Complete and on share :beerchug:

Verified also - English + DVD

Quality is not GREAT, due to the small resolution of the rip but definetly DVD source and watchable.

File Size : 688 MB (or 705,412 KB or 722,341,888 bytes)
Runtime : 01:24:41 (121,818 fr)
AR/Resolution : 384x224 (1.71:1) [=12:7]
Bitrate : 1003 kb/s
FPS : 23.976
Audio : 128 kb/s (64/ch, stereo) CBR 48000 Hz

Screens :

Death · **Posted:** Sat May 01, 2004 1:41 am **Post subject:**

Thanks! Updated the post with your info

spudthedestroyer · **Posted:** Sat May 01, 2004 1:48 am **Post subject:**

eeekk,, jesus look how terrible that res is (never go below 512

).

Going to have to be a low-q move. Thx for verifying.

paul-scream22 · **Posted:** Sat May 01, 2004 9:23 am **Post subject:**

spudthedestroyer wrote:

eeekk,, jesus look how terrible that res is (never go below 512

).

Spud I don't know what your problem is with the resolution

All you have to do is bring your head nearer the monitor and it looks bigger

Gives ya a headache though, but resolves the small res problem :wacky:

John_Doe · **Posted:** Sat May 01, 2004 3:39 pm **Post subject:**

LOL. good one pc_a! :lol:

spudthedestroyer · **Posted:** Sat May 01, 2004 5:02 pm **Post subject:**

paul-scream22 wrote:

spudthedestroyer wrote:

eeekk,, jesus look how terrible that res is (never go below 512

).

Spud I don't know what your problem is with the resolution

All you have to do is bring your head nearer the monitor and it looks bigger

It's TERRIBLY undersized, at that resolution when resizing to fullscreen the image is degraded horribly.

You should never go below 512 horizontal resolution, if you can help it.

I've learnt it the hard way with two rips a long time ago with a res below that and they are poorer than they should and could have been when resized to fullscreen. But even then they were around high 4XX, 384 is minute. It's a waste of bitrate, it simply isn't used because the image is so small, when you resize it goes blocky and the artifacts are visible tenfold, making the whole thing look like a crappy divx3.11 encode. The higher the resolution the better the image quality will be, providining you can get enough bits/pixel... that's the whole thing your trying to acheive when ripping. 512 is the threshold you can resize the image to without degrading the picture horribly and wasting bitrate on something that will degrade when resized.

With all that said, 4xx rips are generally very watchable and decent quality, but below that is just far too small (and thusly this one can't be classed as a "high quality rip" because its image is tiny

). I'd advise to keep to a res higher than 512, keep it as a bare minimum to maintain a quality image.

Quote:

DON'T SCALE DOWN TOO MUCH

Sometimes I found that encoding to y-scaled only DVD qualty (ie 704 x
288 for a 2.85 film) gives better visual quality than a scaled-down
version even if the quantizers are significantly higher than for the
scaled-down version.
Keep in mind that blocs, fuzzy parts and generaly mpeg artefacts in a
704x288 image will be harder to spot in full-screen mode than on a
512x208 image. In fact I've see example where the same movie looks
better compressed to 704x288 with an average weighted quantizer of
~3 than the same movie scaled to 576x240 with an average weighted
quantizer of 2.4.
Btw, a print of the weighted average quantizer would be nice in
countquant.pl

Another point in favor of not trying to scale down too much : on hard
scaled-down movies, the MPEG codec will need to compress relatively
high frequencies rather than low frequencies and it doesn't like that
at all. You will see less and less returns while you scale down and
scale down again in desesperate need of some bandwidth

In my experience, don't try to go below a width of 576 without closely
watching what's going on.

http://homepages.pathfinder.gr/ffvfw/encoding-tips.txt

TDX guidelines say nuke if less than 512, but I think that 512 is pushing it too although you can sometimes get a good quality image at that res.

Bloody birthday (1981)

Who is online