Posts by James Roberts87

Morgan Murphy7 said:Honestly, reading through these comments makes me realize how little you guys actually know about Formula 1.😁

I'm split 50/50 on this one. I've always been a huge Schumi fan, but I have to give it to McLaren.😁

Jack Kelly5 said:I don't want to ruin your vibe, but half of what you just wrote sounds like bedtime stories Ferrari dads tell their little boys...
Fair enough, everyone has their own take...

Well then, let's hear those bedtime stories you grew up on.
p.s. don't be a hater.

MaxB said:Encoding time really comes down to your specific settings and how fast your PC is. Also, were you using two-pass (or multi-pass) encoding for those DivX files? Were the settings dialed in for maximum quality at the slowest speeds? Did you push a high bitrate, say 3-4000 kbit/s? When watching movies on that Apple device, is the source material the same for both DivX and DVD (meaning, are you using a computer for both, or a DVD/DivX player for both)? Did you resize the DivX files at all? What kind of deinterlacing did you run? And so on...

By the way, there are a few key things to consider when playing DivX/XviD video on a computer. You have to be careful with post-processing settings—for instance, the XviD decoder can sometimes overdo the deblocking, which makes the image look blurry and kills the fine tonal transitions. Often, adding a little bit of noise helps because that grain is usually visible on DVDs anyway; it actually adds sharpness and makes the image feel more dynamic. If you're dealing with a low-end TV that tends to blur everything, a sharpening filter can work wonders. Just don't overdo it—you can easily over-sharpen an image until it becomes unwatchable on a monitor, even if it looks great on the TV. There's a lot more to it...

The DivX was set to the highest possible quality for viewing on the TV.
I don't do single-pass encoding; everything I do is two-pass.

Carl Brown4 said:I'm talking about actual TECHNOLOGY here—mpeg4 is objectively superior to mpeg2. You’re arguing against stuff that hundreds of experts (like the MPEG association) already know is true.

Debating a single specific movie is pointless. If you really want to go down that road, you'd need data on who encoded both files and how they did it. Your DVD came straight from a Hollywood studio, whereas that DivX file was probably made by some kid who doesn't know what he's doing... I shouldn't even have to explain things like what dustycanyon6 mentioned above—how DivX encodes an already "damaged" file while the DVD encoder works from the original source, and so on.

I don't see the connection between the encoders, the TV, and the room setup.

The DVD came out of Hollywood.
The DivX was my own handiwork; I spent 9 hours on it, and it's the best I could do.
I explained the comparison above.

Carl Brown4 said:You've got it all wrong. MPEG4 (DivX) is clearly superior to MPEG2 (DVD). If it weren't, the MPEG association wouldn't bother releasing it after years of perfecting MPEG2!

Even if we had the lightning-fast internet you're dreaming about, why clog up the bandwidth with unnecessary data? If the quality is identical, I'm going with the half-sized MPEG4 file every single time.

It’s pretty simple: the picture isn't actually the same.
I watch movies on my TV, not just a computer monitor.
On the small screen in my bedroom, I don't really notice a difference.
But when I switch to the living room and turn on my Samsung 35 inch flat screen at 100Hz,
the difference becomes incredibly obvious.
Same thing happens when you're watching on an LCD.

brighthawk20 said:You could also look at it this way:

DivX (Xvid) is basically the MP3 of video.
DVD is more like listening to an audio CD...

So, which one do you think is actually more popular or widely used?

Though, that second combo definitely offers much better quality.

Carl Brown4 said:That’s a huge mistake...

MPEG-4 video is way better than MPEG-2, which means it blows standard DVDs out of the water. Basically, DivX and other MPEG-4 containers are SUPERIOR to DVD. It all comes down to how much space you need to store high-quality video. You need several GBs for MPEG-2, whereas an MPEG-4 movie fits easily on a single CD.

DivX won't kill the DVD because the DVD as we know it today is becoming history. A new format is coming that will feature both MPEG-4 video and MPEG-4 audio. Right now, we have two main rivals: Sony Blu-ray and Toshiba HD-DVD. Both have their pros and cons. Recently, it looks like the two sides decided to settle on a single unified format. Whatever medium succeeds the DVD, the video and audio will be MPEG-4.

No amount of DivX, even spread across two CDs, can compete with a well-made DVD.
The DVD would only finish off DivX once you can say "easy as pie" that everyone can afford them and we all have faster, cheaper internet connections.

Gerald Turner48 said:Honestly, I think everyone on this forum should start looking more closely at series like NASCAR. Given how the FIA is heading, in five or six years, those cars might actually be twice as fast as Formula 1...

They might even outpace Formula 1 in pure acceleration.
But if you look strictly at lap times,
there's just no comparison.

Who cares if they moved on or not.
The main thing is that Chelsea FC is out.🙂 🙂

mastalux said:previously
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Barton
Epox 8rda3i
512 MB 400 MHz Kingmax

I just upgraded my CPU to a 3200+ (2200 MHz). Voltage is at 1.7 V, and I'm using a cheap stock cooler. Under full load, temps are around 50 C. It looks like the multiplier is locked on the CPU since it won't go higher, and both the motherboard and memory seem capped at 400 MHz.
Maybe I should grab a better cooler. Anyway, I ran Prime95 for a full day just to test it (ran it all Sunday since this is my work PC), and when I got back, everything was fine!

1. Your motherboard is definitely lying about those temps.
2. That RAM can run faster than 400MHz.
3. Try bumping it to 1.8V.
4. The motherboard can also handle more than 200MHz (400MHz), so there's nothing stopping you from pushing further.
Almost all 2500+ chips hit 2.2GHz (3200+) with a slight voltage bump, but anything beyond that requires more juice.

There's one thing you just don't do on an AMD system: running the CPU and DDR asynchronously.😁 To get the absolute best performance out of an AMD build, the ratio between the CPU and DR needs to be 1:1.

What an absolute disaster of a derby. Watching that clumsy Milan side actually manage to score was just painful. It was embarrassing for the sport. I’m not talking about Inter, who actually looked solid, but Milan was just a disgrace.

casualotter21 said:You missed the biggest part: it's produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Sorry, buddy, but I'm passing on this one unless I see a massive wave of glowing reviews for him.

Jerry Bruckheimer is great. That’s actually why I watched it. All I can say is👍

Why LOL?
It’s a brilliant little "toy," and it's only about six months old.😁

Schumi, you're overexplaining.😁
McLaren doesn't stand a chance at the title. That maniac Montoya is definitely going to slam into Kimi a couple of times just to mess things up.😁

Bryan Kern6
I guess you think it’ll be three times better in a little while...🙂

Bryan Kern6🤔

After digging into Gmail a bit more, I've realized it's slightly better than Outlook Express, but nowhere near as good as Outlook. Honestly, I don't get all the hype when it feels pretty mediocre.

Schizophrenic said:Hey, man, you should probably take down that banner at the top.😉

Nah, I think it looks better this way.👍

Here’s the proof that Opera actually works...click

Here is why people choose Opera😁

morski_pljas said:No, I’m just kidding...
I obviously meant here in the States...
But personally, they're way better than those rare moments when national networks actually air anything interesting, or that trashy tabloid show...😎

That tabloid show... or even the local news. They're both total garbage. All you get is five reruns a day and maybe one decent movie once a month. Honestly, I don't even know what there is left to watch.