Mission Improbable redone

RadicalEd0 · Post by **RadicalEd0** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 8:55 pm

Sorry it took so long, but I finally got 2 fresh encodes of MI after obtaining the master from Danny 2 weeks ago.

1 - HQ version: 1500 kbps XviD at 512x384 24fps 128kbps cbr mp3-wav
102mb

2 - 56ker version: 800 kbps RealVideo 9 at 512x384 24fps, 66kbps RealAudio
50mb

Both of which are significantly better than the original release. Don't underestimate the RM version, its quite good for 50mb.

unfortunately my friend's server is down, Danny is afk, and I probably wont be back on until tomorrow, so you won't be able to download them until then :p
Just wanted to get you all excited and then make you wait :\

Chaos Angel · Post by **Chaos Angel** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:15 pm

RadicalEd0 wrote:Sorry it took so long, but I finally got 2 fresh encodes of MI after obtaining the master from Danny 2 weeks ago.

...unfortunately my friend's server is down, Danny is afk, and I probably wont be back on until tomorrow, so you won't be able to download them until then :p
Just wanted to get you all excited and then make you wait :\

BASTARD!! Why must you torment us so?!?!?!

Hell, as far as the visual nicities go, I like the original version overall myself, but ya can't argue with a higher quality version.

Hurry up!! ::shakes fist::

fyrtenheimer · Post by **fyrtenheimer** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:18 pm

el gapso

damn tab! damn chowda too

Golden Saucer · Post by **Golden Saucer** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:20 pm

Could you be so kind as to post a link to your website, thank you

Garylisk · Post by **Garylisk** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:48 pm

Make a DivX encode. XviD runs like crap at high bitrates on machines that are slower (Like mine) and not everyone has or wants to install Real. I took the old XviD version and did a 2-pass DivX encode on it, but it your version would look better, I'd love to have it... in DivX format. 8)

Ashton · Post by **Ashton** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 2:46 am

Garylisk wrote:Make a DivX encode. XviD runs like crap at high bitrates on machines that are slower (Like mine) and not everyone has or wants to install Real. I took the old XviD version and did a 2-pass DivX encode on it, but it your version would look better, I'd love to have it... in DivX format. 8)

Your computer can't POSSIBLY be much worse than mine (450 MHz) and XviD runs fine on mine. All you people are sissies about hardware!

Garylisk · Post by **Garylisk** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:46 am

INTERNAL GEAR:
Gateway motherboard
Intel Pentium II 400MHz
256MB SDRAM (NOT DDR! It's the slow kind!)
3 HDs: C(CHIBI - 4GB), D(MEWTWO - 20GB), E(ANIKI - 20GB)
1 CDROM: 24x (Can be swapped out for 12/2/1 CDRW or 12x DVD)
ATI All-in-Wonder 128 PCI (32MB onboard V-RAM) (Rage 128 Graphics)
SB16 AudioPCI
Network Everywhere 10/100 Ethernet Adapter
Lucent WIN Modem 56k
All packed into a gateway case

EXTERNAL GEAR:
GE Surroundsound flat penel speakers
Microsoft Internet Keyboard Plus with shortcut buttons and 2 USB ports
Logitech Wheelmouse Optical
Linksys 4-port USB hub
Canon Color printer (USB)
Radioshack 8 button digital gamepad (x2) with Gameport->USB Adaptors

----

It's not too much, believe you me. Nothing to be impressed at AT ALL!

And trust me, XviD runs like shit. This I can assure you.

Ashton · Post by **Ashton** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:29 am

If that's true I expect that the K6-2 processors handle XviD better or something, because I can run them fine. My system is by and large the same as yours, less ram (by half) a little faster cpu, but about the same. How odd.

Garylisk · Post by **Garylisk** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:23 pm

AMD Processors = better than Intel until P4 Equivalents... then they are about the same. AMD Athlon XP might be a TAD better than P4... but they are fairly equal.

Of course, Mac processors blow away both of them

Unfortunately, we can't use those in PCs

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:56 pm

>_<

No way. The K6 was always lagging behind intel.

AMD: K5/K6/K6-2 Intel : Pentium/P-II
AMD: K6-2/K6-III Intel : P-III
AMD: Athlon Intel : P-III
AMD: Athlon XP Intel : P4

The horribley under performs compared with a Athlon XP at the same clock. If you compared a 1.6GHz Ahtlon with a 1.6Ghz P4, the P4 is going to perform about %25 slower.

Intel's chips in the old days used to always have a better FPU, but AMD and Cyrix did have pretty good Integer preformance. Also they had a pricing edge, though they were not as good as Intel CPU, they usually cost %25 - %50 less and provided a pretty good performance.

~klinky

AnimeMusicVideos.org

Mission Improbable redone

Mission Improbable redone

Re: Mission Improbable redone