In article <vnqbpv0ctb9pblf332qmnsafhfiih96gb7@4ax.com>, Unforgiven
<u@u.com> wrote:
> 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.
I have access to a variaty of servers. If you let me know in which
group it was posted, I may be able to find it for you.
> >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!
If I can be of any assistance in these projects, just let me know.
I may not be able to re-split to match specific sizes or provide useful
CRCs, because of the difference in our computer file systems.
But I can arrange to have posted whatever is available.
Y Not
"Don't computerize people.
They would have to analyze that."
|
|