On 21 Oct 2003 20:04:11 -0500, kidhacker@nym.alias.net (:KidHacker
NP-b54) wrote:
>Hi doods!
Hello KH
>
>I thought I'd try to compile alla this input and come up with a
>simplified update. It got a little busy just wading thru who has which
>version of what... hehe... Here's the current summary, as I see it.
>Corrections gratefully accepted.
>
>RBV's that we're *all* missing:
>
>rbv06
>rbv19
>rbv22
>rbv30
>rbv35
>rbv36
>rbv37
>rbv39
>rbv40
>rbv42
>rbv43
>rbv44
>rbv49
>
>That's quite a list of MIA's...
Yes it is, but I think they will show up eventually.
>
>Ones that I have:
>
>rbv45 - 033,622,672 bytes, as per the list
>rbm76 - 25,600,600 bytes, way short of the 049,588,616 listed
>rbm77 - 052,195,638 bytes, as per the list
>
>I can post these. At a 24 kbaud upload speed on a good day (with a
>tailwind...), it'll take a while, so don't hold your breath, but it's
>doable.
That would be nice, but I am in no hurry at all.
>
>Ones that U has:
>
>rbv20ns - (A "no sound" edit beats the crap outa not having it.)
>rbm75 - as listed
>
>I'd love to see both.
I will try and get those posted soon !
>
>Ones where we differ, and this is where it gets busy. I'll skip rbv02
>til later, since it gets *really* involved.
>
>rbv01 - My run time is 02:18. Y shows 2:52, and U, I'd guess yours is
>the same. You're both ~29mb. Since mine ends at an even 512,000 bytes,
>I'd suspect it wasn't finished. A crc comparison *might* show I'm just
>missing the last 10 parts. My file date is 10/04/99. Another half
>minute of this bomber's preview, prior to rbv02, would be well worth
>seeing.
Mine runs 2:52 as well with a file date of 1/20/2000
>
>rbv05 - Listed @ 111,159,276 bytes. Mine is slightly larger @
>111,411,008. File date, 09/17/99. Run time is 10:40. JimBob's post a
>week ago matches mine, and it'd be worth checking if it's still
>available. Otherwise, we can do a crc check.
I was able to grab the crc and 000 file that was posted and the crc's
match with mine except for the last part which is larger than mine.
The part is no longer available on my server.
>
>rbv08 - U has as listed @ 174,227,361 bytes. Mine is smaller @
>173,571,209. Run time 16:23. Another case for a crc check. My file
>date is 03/05/2000.
Mine has a run time of 16:27 with a file date 12/01/2001
>
>rbv14 - listed @ 468,708,042 bytes. Mine is 408,428,828, run time is
>39:06, and it's as posted by LT, 10/27/2001. I "think" he posted it as
>an edited version, but I'm not sure. U, your copy isn't "as listed,"
>but it's a lot closer, and again worth a crc check.
I also have the version posted 10/27/2001, the beginning of it is
missing and a few weeks later Valiant posted the 48,406,596 byte
beginning of the vid on 11/17/2001 as Rbv14-start.mpg, but if you put
the beginning back on it, it still does not add up to the size of the
full version.
>
>rbv16 - Ours match, but "somebody" apparently has a version that
>differs by several hundred k. Is it better? Is it correct? Who
>knows?.....
>
>rbv27 - I'm a few mb short. My run time is 25:58, and the file date is
>09/25/99. Before we're done with this, we could drown in crc's.....
I agree as I got mine much later 5/3/2001
>
>rbv29 - U has as listed, 176,869,332 bytes. Mine is 175,839,668. Run
>time 16:56. File date, recent, 04/05/03. It could well be a victim of
>entropy.
I got mine 1/5/2000, it might be worth a crc check.
>
>rbv31 - U has as listed, 165,989,800 bytes. I have one copy @
>164,914,175, same as JBob recently posted. File date, 04/05/03. I also
>have an original, dated 04/29/2000. File size is 165,952,209. Gotta
>wonder what some crc lists would show about these...
Yes, it would be interesting to see.
>
>rbv34 - On this you both seem to agree. The version we have is a "no
>sound" version. Not original. Mine wasn't identified as such when I
>got it 07/08/2000, but it appears to be the same file. There musta
>been a glitch that removing the soundtrack cured...
>
>rbv41 - The runtime of my mpv is 01:09. Even if it's the same as
>yours, U, I'd like to have the original mpeg "just because."
Yes, mine has the same run time, but I can post it too.
>
>Onward into the RBM's, it looks like there's a barely larger version
>of 71. Original, or messed with? We'll never know unless we get ahold
>of it.
>
>72 gets interesting. Waaaaay interesting. And it relates directly to
>rbv72.
>
>The list shows a version of rbm72 that's 121,307,159 bytes. My copy is
>111,578,993, with a runtime of 18:01. U and Y both have copies ~102
>mb, and Y lists a runtime of 16:34:10.
>
>For rbv72, you both seem to have about the same size, and Y reports a
>runtime of 17:58. That's a few seconds short of my rbm. My file date,
>BTW, is 03/05/2000. I have a sneaky suspicion that my rbm is the rbv.
>I may have spotted the similarity a few reposts ago and ignored it
>since. I do know that I've d/l'ed the first few parts somewhere in the
>past and just skipped over it.
>
>The extra time in the rbv just *might* be the extra time that's
>already in my copy of the rbm. Another case for some serious crc
>snooping...
Yes, I was going to split both of mine and compare, but I haven't had
time yet to do it.
>
>Now... For the all-time monster, rbv02:
>
>Y-Not has a copy ~418 mb run time 40:09:22 Maybe LT's version?
>
>U has 4 copies Rbv02_Edit.mpg 345,583,672 A U edit
> rbv02_LT.mpg 418,994,891
> Rbv02(sf).mpg 418,966,072 The U re-encode
> Rbv02.mpg 419,289,108 Source unspecified
> Run times could be interesting
The Rbv02_Edit runs 40:05 with size 375x288
The Rbv02_LT runs 39:35 with size 375x288
The Rbv02(sf) runs 40:03 with size 375x288
The Rbv02 runs 40:05 with size 312x240
>
>I have 2 copies Rbv02(me).mpg 418,815,190 My own edit
> Run time 40:06
> Rbv02.mpg 419,329,186 The original download
> Run time 39:37 Yep, that's what it shows
>
>Some history -- I got my copy during the hysteria of the original
>posting by Hahahehe in the Fort. At that time, I was on a homebrew
>P133 with Win 3.1, and I had two 210 mb HDDs and a 340. I had *no* way
>to store the vid, other than on Zip disks, and obviously no space to
>join it together as a unit. It was bigger than my biggest hard drive.
>
>So... I joined it into viewable segments of 60 or so parts each and
>stashed 'em on Zips. As long as I started with the 001, the 16 bit
>VMPEG player I had played the segments perfectly fine. I was horrified
>when I built this box (fall of 99) and found that WMP stalled at the
>end of the 001 on every segment. So I installed VMPEG. It works fine
>with W98... hehe...
>
>Not long after, though, I resplit the segments, dropped the 001's, and
>for the first time joined the entire vid, on my new *huge* 8.4 gig
>drive. (And now I have 90 gigs and it's not enough?????)
>
>A full year after I'd gotten it, I finally saw the timing errors and
>glitches that I'd read about. They'd never showed at all on my "crude"
>setup.
>
>Another year or so later, I attacked the bitch with WebFlixPro. I
>clipped some glitches in the range of parts 633 to 695 (see below),
>and experimented with the corruption in the ending, dropping one frame
>at a time in the area of the major glitch, until I suddenly came up
>with a vid that played perfectly, and though about a half meg smaller,
>played a half minute longer, including the makeup scene and the grin
>and wave at the very end, which the original completely skipped over.
>That's the one I have.
>
>A-n-y-w-a-y... I just now pulled the originals offa the Zips, resplit,
>rejoined, and then resplit again, with a new crc. File size is
>419,329,186, and it split into 820 parts @ 512,000. All I have to go
>with is that the original parts were all exactly 512,000 bytes,
>*until* somewhere in the 10th segment. That segment, representing
>parts 633 to 695, came up *exactly* 810 bytes short. Segment 11,
>another 64 parts, was kool, and segment 12, who knows, except it was
>glitch free until some serious corruption in the final few seconds.
>
>If only we'd known back then, about crc's, and corrupted parts, and
>truncated parts... If only... Oh well...
>
>Kreeeeps! It was the first "feature length" vid the world had seen. We
>were too busy trying to figger out how to join it and watch it, and in
>cases like mine, where the $%#& to put it. Corruption? What was
>that?...
>
>What's *really* interesting, U, is that the copy you and/or Pepsi
>found and listed is 419,329,996 bytes. and *exactly* 810 bytes larger
>than my original. It *is* the original as it was posted 5 years ago.
>It'd sure be a trip to get ahold of a crc and at least parts 633 to
>695. Yeah, I know... Wishful thinking...
>
>Would it fix the glitch in the ending? Prob'ly not. There was some
>corrupted data and frame loss in those last few seconds that was most
>likely in the original copy. But I'd be willing to bet that the
>correct replacement parts, or the data from them, would cure the
>timing slip that started barely two minutes into the vid and got
>progressively worse as it went on.
>
>My impression is that the byte loss occurred during the uploading.
>Nobody saw it. Nobody knew. And from that beginning, all copies since
>have been attempts to fix what those 810 bytes did to it. "Somebody"
>has those bytes...
>
>Enough babbling. I think we could all benefit from the swapping of
>some crc's. No rush. None of us has suffered any major emotional
>damage from these differences thus far, but it could be interesting to
>pursue, and potentially worth the effort.
It is a big project, but we could take it one vid at a time and check
them out, but I think we have plenty of time.
>
>Take care, and see ya.
>
>KH NP-b54
>
> "Duct tape is like the force:
> it has a light side, a dark side,
> and it holds the universe together..."
> -Carl Zwanzig-
Take Care too :)
U
It's a great day to be a boy!
|
|