Why you all should all use SCENE ONLY trackers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatcdfan

If you're quality conscious, you wouldn't go on to watch everything encoded by some teenage, first time encoder.

---

If you're quality conscious, you wouldn't be watching encodes, period.

---

And why exactly would that be? Proper Bluray sourced SD encodes are much better than the DVD at close to the same size. By that I mean 576p.Bluray.x264 encodes. PAL width only with square pixels instead of Anamorphic. and more often than not 640Kbps DD5.1 audio encoded from HD or even lossless audio, where the DVD has either DTS which would be maybe a very slight bit better or 384/480Kbps DD5.1 audio which is often worse.

When watching a good encode you have no indication at all that you are watching an encode, which should be the point of it all. Unfortunately when it comes to scene content they concentrate on acceptable (by scene rules) quality and speed. The scene groups do exactly the same with HD content, both movies and TV. The groups doing internal tracker encodes almost always if not always, do a better job. Why should I download a 40GB release, when a proper group or individual can make those 40GB into 10-15GB at very close to the same quality?

The original content comes first and proper P2P encodes always end up between them and the scene releases.

I do find it funny how the scene groups will starve HD encodes to the brink while at the same time using double or more of needed space for audio of better quality. If they wanted to do a proper rip while adhering to the size standards, they could at least use 640 or 480Kbps DD5.1 audio and use the extra space left to do a better video encode.

Because you either want the highest quality or you're satisfied to accept less. If you want the highest quality you download rips. If you're satisfied with less then quibbling over whether people should be permitted to reduce quality by 10% (or whatever arbitrary figure you want) but never by 11% is just being precious. As the size of the encodes and the track records of the encoders decreases then so, generally, does the quality. Some people have less than wonderful bandwidth, and less than wonderful large screen TV's. There is no reason at all why they should be denied the right to to download less than perfect encodes just because some techno-elitist wants to be able to download without having to bother checking the specs of what it is they're downloading.

What is wrong with wanting the highest quality possible at a smaller size due to bandwidth restrictions? There is quite a bit of difference between a 40GB Bluray and a shitty and rushed 700/1400MB scene encode, so why shouldn't I spend 10 minutes extra to find and download a good encode at an acceptable size?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

Because you either want the highest quality or you're satisfied to accept less. If you want the highest quality you download rips. If you're satisfied with less then quibbling over whether people should be permitted to reduce quality by 10% (or whatever arbitrary figure you want) but never by 11% is just being precious.

---

This makes sense, I approach pornography the same way. If I can't find a perfect 10, 17-year-old, recently deflowered nubile getting gangbanged by a bunch of dudes that are the ethnic equivalents of myself, then I simply masturbate to a Larry King lookalike wrapping baby possums into his flaccid scrotum.

Cowboys.and.Aliens.DVDRip.XviD-NeDiVx is a good example of a movie that while pretty entertaining it really isn't all that great. Try comparing it to one of the many SD x264 encodes floating around the net. Then you should see why many prefer P2P x264. Or if feeling brave maybe even try a bigger sized XviD, that while not much better would still be better.

I haven't even watched the NeDiVx release but I have watched other rips from the group and have been highly disappointed with the quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Night0wl

Cowboys.and.Aliens.DVDRip.XviD-NeDiVx is a good example of a movie that while pretty entertaining it really isn't all that great. Try comparing it to one of the many SD x264 encodes floating around the net. Then you should see why many prefer P2P x264. Or if feeling brave maybe even try a bigger sized XviD, that while not much better would still be better.

---

I watched a high resolution x264 of Cowboys and Aliens, but still managed to find the movie to be an utter piece of crap.

I really wish better movies, or at least mediocre movies, were used in these examples. C&A... The Thing (2011)... the best copy is no copy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Night0wl

What is wrong with wanting the highest quality possible at a smaller size due to bandwidth restrictions? There is quite a bit of difference between a 40GB Bluray and a shitty and rushed 700/1400MB scene encode, so why shouldn't I spend 10 minutes extra to find and download a good encode at an acceptable size?

---

Sorry. I thought you were arguing that lower quality encodes shouldn't be permitted. Not that they should be ignored by downloaders. I absolutely agree that a few minutes extra work when choosing a movie which you're going to spend a couple of hours watching is well worth the effort.

This discussion is endless and pointless..... there is such a diversity out there in order to satisfy everyone...
So many good private trackers that have great internals or make a good selection... ipt is not representative in any way... it's just another tracker, a huge an almost semipublic one, suited mostly for starters, with no strict rules..etc (like demonoid, filelist.ro, etc..).. big 0day trackers (revtt, tl, scc, gft, etc..) are mostly for convenient, indoctrinated or ignorant people...
And for the vast majority of people, the quality is not measured in algorithms, formulas or parameters of codecs, containers etc...it is something measured my far more subjective criteria..
In the end, everybody should download what it likes and be happy!! due the vast majority, if anybody can not do this, it means it is incapable, and i would send him (i know, ugly advice) to cinema or multimedia stores!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucifer9999

This discussion is endless and pointless..... there is such a diversity out there in order to satisfy everyone...
So many good private trackers that have great internals or make a good selection... ipt is not representative in any way... it's just another tracker, a huge an almost semipublic one, suited mostly for starters, with no strict rules..etc (like demonoid, filelist.ro, etc..).. big 0day trackers (revtt, tl, scc, gft, etc..) are mostly for convenient, indoctrinated or ignorant people...
And for the vast majority of people, the quality is not measured in algorithms, formulas or parameters of codecs, containers etc...it is something measured my far more subjective criteria..
In the end, everybody should download what it likes and be happy!! due the vast majority, if anybody can not do this, it means it is incapable, and i would send him (i know, ugly advice) to cinema or multimedia stores!!

---

Seriously "ignorant people"? Please explain to me exactly how by choosing not to overly concern oneself about something that is essentially a diversion is akin to being "ignorant"?
I can only hope it is a poor grasp of English and not a total lack of intelligence that resulted in your use of that word.


PS if bt is truly now entirely about form over substance than someone globally ban me please.
PPS strangely I am doubting that I will be seeing any review of The Artist by some "elite" encoder anytime soon.On the other hand Twilight Breaking Dawn probably will look great when it's released though.:mellow:

@idoleyes... ok.. first explain this phrase: "by choosing not to overly concern oneself about something that is essentially a diversion is akin to being "ignorant"? "
i can understand the words individually, but i can not get the sense of it... without that, i can not form a proper answer..thx...