On 22 Jul 2003 14:08:08 -0500, Moviefan <moviefan@movie.com> wrote:
>Tara Cluiteach <tara@hebrides.com> wrote in
>news:c4215e38540b9f5d3a7d2f89e2a06109@free.teranews.com:
>
>>
>>
>> Can I ask what was the reason to re-re-encode what had been re-encoded
>> once ?
>>
>>
>> Tara
>>
>
>Salut Tara,
>
>I re-encoded the movie because it is on a CD. When Olli and PM asked for
>a post of that movie, I opened it and found my movie to be playing
>bizarrely after the two-third. I then copy it on my hd and the same
>problem occurred, meaning that somehow, the file was corrupted.
>
>To get around that problem and send a "perfectly viewable" movie, I re-
>encoded it through TMPEnc, a software well known for it's capacity to
>encode in .mpg format
>
>I looked at the resulting file and it was playing fine.
>
>So, I splitted it and sent it in that new re-encoded format, warning the
>d/l that this was a re-encoded file, not the original file, in case
>someone would have some of the parts on his computer waiting to be
>completed and wishing to mix then together. It would not work because of
>the difference in bitrate...
>
>I hope this is ok with you since this is a movie that I also downloaded
>myself from a group, times ago. I just wanted to make sure that the
>original poster or the people looking only for "original" videos would
>know that it is a bit different from the one that was originally posted.
>The resulting content is the same but at a different bit/rate per
>second. I did that to make sure nothing in the content would be lost.
>
>Moviefan
That's ok. I can assure you that the original post was perfect (I did
the original edit) so it's possible the copy you downloaded was some
how corrupt. Case closed :)
Ad'taleur
Tara
"Ye maun maunt the cutty stool
I maun maunt the pillar
That's the way the puir folks dae
Becawz they hae nae siller"
|
|