iTS has 398 576p encodes, I have no idea what x264 has as not a member thereOriginally Posted by megabyteme
TorrentSeed.org RIP
BT Rep: +1
iTS has 398 576p encodes, I have no idea what x264 has as not a member there
Pessimistic Optimist
BT Rep: +2
Appears that they have 808.iTS has 398 576p encodes, I have no idea what x264 has as not a member there
No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power. — P.J. O'Rourke
Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. — Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
Poster
BT Rep: +45
it seems very interesting , unfortunately x264 is invite onlyAppears that they have 808.
RASPBERRY RIPPLE
BT Rep: +19
Question answered. I expected the res to be more common, but I guess it hasn't caught on. Even the sites that do have it, don't have enough to warrant seeking them out.
Thread can be closed. Thanks, to everyone who responded.
Poster Roaster
BT Rep: +30
The reason is this, imo...
576p is not HD. It is standard definition from a PAL source. 480p being from a NTSC source. Therefore, anyone that has an HD TV would prefer to find a proper HD encode of same movie for just a few GBs more.
The only times I see a true benefit, was if you have a HDTV but your bandwidth was limited and could not download full HD encodes.
Or...
You do not have a HDTV but you have plenty of bandwidth and care about quality.
Or...
The movie is not available in HD and you want the best quality version of it.
If you do not fall into one of these categories, then you have no need 576p. Which equals not as much demand and in turn little supply...
Anal is the only form of birth control shown to be 100% effective. Even abstinence failed once.
an alchemist?
By the way, it doesn't necessarily mean it's from a PAL source, it usually means it's a resize from a Bluray, much like 720p is.
I'm on the fence about calling it SD or HD. I would actually call 576p, as they are done from HD sources, HD videos. HD, meaning high definition, are sold on disc in 1080p using a quality retentive codec, and sold online @ 720p using similar codecs. I may be getting literal here and ignoring all sorts of conventions, but I don't see a smaller resolution automatically disqualifying what could easily be considered high definition, unless we're just setting 1280x720 as an arbitrary minimum.
Everything is brought to you by Fjohürs Lykkewe.
RASPBERRY RIPPLE
BT Rep: +19
I'm watching on a 102" Da-Lite projection screen with an Epson 8350. It sure looks HD to me. In fact, it's amazing! I also have a 47" Philips upstairs that the details (none, really) are significantly less discernible.
All said, why would anyone want to download an additional 2, 5, 10, or 50 GB when they don't have to? Even if bandwidth is unlimited, I'd rather have a file within 10 minutes than have to wait an hour, 2 hours, 5...
I have a 25Mb/3 MB per second connection. I am allotted 250GB per month on a home connection. Paying additionally for more speed, or more bandwidth just so I can say I have a "pure" HD source is still wasteful, IMO. What is it you aficionados think you are getting for your additional time/money?
EDIT- Think of all the extra crap that is stripped from video games (put there to discourage downloading)- can the same thing not be a deterrent used by the movie studios? It is great to have a fantastic, "pristine" source. After that, is it not wise to efficiently share the same thing but without all of the unnecessary bloated data?
Last edited by megabyteme; 02-02-2012 at 12:44 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks