Comments on: Starsky and Hutch DVDRip x264 AC3-JAVLiU

By: point

point — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:49:54 +0000

I think x264, if ppl can use it handful, can be more better than xvid 3.11 on lower size too, than 2 hours.
custom matrixes, nice settings can be enough.
Other question is that encoding time is 2 times more or 3 times.
Anyway playback is not a problem mowadays.

By: no

no — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:26:27 +0000

btw, it play nicely on XBMC, crispy and clear, no problem.

By: truckloadofcows

truckloadofcows — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:22:05 +0000

So sad to see this movie totally make the tv series look better.

By: jarhead12343

jarhead12343 — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:38:03 +0000

DO IT!!

By: QuadrupelQ

QuadrupelQ — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:18:23 +0000

“A very nice comedy came online by a group that just began releasing x264 coded films. I was surprised by the quality of the screenshots and I think that this might be the future of DVDRiP’s.”

Dude, this is a 101 minute movie on 2 CD format (1,4 Gb). Of course it looks good, even if you would use DivX 3.11 or old shit like that! Just compare a Diamond release with the crappy aXXo re-encoding (for example ‘Cars’), and you’ll see the difference.

It’s a different story when it comes to movies that are over 2 hours, then x264 might make an actuall difference.

By: 420

420 — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:12:49 +0000

@Guu-sama:

CoreAVC.H264.Video.Decoder.v1.3.0.0-EDGE is out !

By: solitaire

solitaire — Thu, 31 May 2007 23:13:23 +0000

the only reason x264 is not being used for every scene release is exactly the reason pointed out earlier. pretty much all standalone dvd players will not play x264. it’s a great codec though and it’ll be part of the scene rules eventually.

By: SLowpc

SLowpc — Thu, 31 May 2007 22:53:33 +0000

I really like the 264 codec for High-def content … where as a standard dvd is a pretty low resolution anyway, no real need to use the codec at that res.

By: Tric

Tric — Thu, 31 May 2007 22:36:40 +0000

Movie sucks, so yeah.

Codecs and quality is overrated. ;P I don’t have a particular need to get super-quality. Decent dvdrip is just fine.

By: NoRemorse

NoRemorse — Thu, 31 May 2007 22:35:51 +0000

x264 sucks it doesnt play on divx dvd players like every other dvdrip put out

By: Kekojones

Kekojones — Thu, 31 May 2007 22:32:39 +0000

how ab6out the xbox..can XBMC play this videos?

By: Guu-sama

Guu-sama — Thu, 31 May 2007 22:01:58 +0000

I highly recommend using CoreAVC to play H.264 Vids, it decodes about 30% better then other x.264 decoders

http://www.coreavc.com/
http://www.mininova.org/tor/573419

By: bounce

bounce — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:54:12 +0000

I guess you’re set.
I have 2 comps: my desktop PC is an old AMD Athlon XP 1.5Ghz w/640MB RAM and my laptop is an AMD Turion 64 2.4Ghz w/ 2gig RAM. My laptop plays a 264 smooth as silk, whereas my PC will play the same file like it has epilepsy.

I can’t speak for everybody because other people may experience different things, but in my experience a faster computer will play a 264 better and more efficiently than a slow one

By: Thejuice

Thejuice — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:32:56 +0000

Bounce – what would you consider to be a slow computer? Ive got a Pentium 4 CPU, 2.6 Ghz with 1 gig of RAM.

By: bounce

bounce — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:18:09 +0000

H264 is a good way to compress video, but if you have a slow computer it won’t be the easiest thing to watch. This is why xvid is still the norm as its much more compatible and not as much of a resource hog as H264. Give it some time though and it – like xvid did over divx – may well become a new standard.