As he's from India, harishkumar09 will know of Sholay.
Why should I? I am from Tamil Nadu and the local film industry produces good content which is copied by guys up north. I had to enquire about this Sholay, and came to know it was another remade re-hash from some old western. Have you read Anurag Kashyaps recent statement - "I breathe because of Tamil cinema". So go and stuff your opinions, you know where and stop presuming things. I guess watching your bollywood crap has resulted in serious eye-damage, stop watching it, while its not too late.
And lastly you owe your English reading and writing skills and your existence to tamilians - if they did not object to Hindi, you would not have studied English (govt of India would have banned English schools to promote your 200-year old crap Hindi) and would have remained unemployable for the rest of your lives - except perhaps as a dacoit from Chambal looting innocent people.
No doubt you recommend me to watch your dacoit movies. And even think you are doing me a favour!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 34 of 34
Thread: Removing Audio Tracks from DVD
monano pontificates: That's just my point. When some idiot pulls a figure out of his ass like 55%, he obviously knows nothing about transcoding .vs encoding, or how transcoders produce the results they do. They know nothing about different movies having different amounts of 'overhead' for further compression. They know nothing about different movies compressing differently. Nor does he know how to tell the difference between the results a transcoder produces and those a good encoder produces. My differences with that person have nothing to do with the age of the program.
For what purpose? To start a flame-war? In that, you have succeeded with your name-calling and presumptious ridicule.
I did not pull that 55% figure "out of my a**," a/k/a the place from which you seem to be speaking. Suitable to my own "calibrated eyeballs," I've used "shrink" software to reach that abominable 55% (in your exalted eyes) to my own personal, perhaps-unsuitable-to-everyone-else-on-the-planet, satisfaction.
That's all I've ever said: OP, run your own test, see what your "calibrated eyeballs" tell you. If you don't like compression to the lower levels, try something else. If encoding works better than transcoding for your needs, try it.
harishkumar09, to add to what you said about not equating a mistake (or perceived one) with idiocy, there is an old axiom, "We are all ignorant; just on different topics."
In this thread, ignorance of common courtesy is one of those topics.
Your mileage may vary.
To continue this discussion about "calibrated eyeballs", I have two episodes of a TV series. They are both .avi files which I recorded.
Each episode is:
Size: 700 MB
Duration: 1 hour and 28 minutes
Frame: 624 by 352
Following are two scenarios:
First I converted just one episode(.avi) to a DVD5 folder structure. I get the following stats:
Each of the VOBs is 0.99 GB (there are four such VOBs , and another one of size 334 MB)
Data rate is 6334 kbps
Now I converted two such episodes to a DVD5 folder structure. I get the following stats:
Each of the VOBs is 0.99 GB (there are four such VOBs , and another two of size 150 MB)
Data rate is 2930 kbps
As you notice, the second one has VOB files with half the data rate. Yet I can hardly make out any difference when I compare the snapshots, even closeup shots from these two DVDs. Pray tell me what those extra data-rate is for? Is it that the difference will be visible when it is played on larger TVs?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....but "garbage in - garbage out" is also true. If you think two garbage sources stuffed onto on DVD looks good then your job is done.