┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ An Independent Critic presents │ │ a Rebuttal of... │ │ The XviD Releasing Standards 2005 │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Requirements: Notepad with terminal font or any other ascii viewer. │ ├──────────────────────────────┬───────────────┬──────────────────────────────┤ │ └───[ INTRO ]───┘ │ │ │ │ To introduce myself first...I am a member of one of the oldest active XviD │ │ release groups and one of main writers/contributors to TDX2k2. Neither I, │ │ nor my group was informed of this new ruleset. That is reflected in the │ │ fact that we are not a signatory. I find it astounding that the writers of │ │ this ruleset can give "respect" to the previous TDX teams but at the same │ │ time self-proclaim themselves to be the new TDX team and write a new ruleset│ │ without even consulting them. In fact, not even half of the of the (active) │ │ groups to whom the main TDX2k2 writers belonged have signed off on TXD2k5. │ │ Several of the oldest XviD groups have not signed TXD2k5, but instead of │ │ any attempts at compromise, the new ruleset was steamrolled through without │ │ them or their input. │ │ │ │ As a result of these strong-arm tactics, I am now forced to point out each │ │ any every flaw that the TXD2k5 authors are forcing the XviD scene to │ │ swallow. The TDX2k5 ruleset was meant to plug the holes in TDX2k2 and some │ │ had hoped it would usher in a new era in MPEG-4 based encoding. Sadly, this │ │ abomination does neither. Within the ruleset guideline below, I have │ │ included my rebuttal comments. While many of my points might seem to be │ │ bordering on anal, it is my opinion that a ruleset must be precise and │ │ concise. It should eliminate all ambiguity and close all loopholes. │ │ As you will see, I find that this new ruleset does neither. The scope of │ │ the rules is adequate, but it could have gone a lot further in some areas, │ │ and went too far in others. TDX as a ruleset must curb the release of bad │ │ rips, while at the same time it cannot impede a ripper's ability to create │ │ the highest possible quality rip. I do also acknowledge that some of the │ │ words and ideas that I contest in my rebuttal were present in TDX2k2. This │ │ does not excuse TXD2k5 of having the same problem since the TXD2k5 writers │ │ had the choice to edit or reword anything they felt appropriate. │ │ │ │ I know that some people will just dismiss this as me holding a personal │ │ grudge or think that I'm just out to pick a fight. If you take the time to │ │ read my rebuttal comments, you should find them to be valid concerns. I │ │ truly care about the future of the MPEG-4 scene and am deeply troubled when │ │ I see a document like this being flaunted as a new ruleset. │ │ │ │ This document is meant only as a rebuttal of the TXD2k5 document and is not │ │ intended as a reflection of any of the signee groups. I know that many of │ │ the groups that signed did so blindly in order to support what appeared to │ │ be a positive advancement for the XViD Scene. As such, I'm not suprised by │ │ the number of obvious errors that I was able to locate when picking it │ │ apart. I don't believe that having signed TXD2k5 precludes any group from │ │ lending their voice to anything that might arise from the dialogue that I │ │ hope to have started. I would encourage all groups who agree with any of my │ │ points to speak their mind, whether it be with me or the writers of TXD2k5, │ │ or even in a public forum or their own nfos. I welcome any groups to │ │ include this nfo or their own rebuttals with their releases. │ │ │ │ Thank you for your time. │ │ │ │ P.S. I find it strange how TXD2k5's intro is written in the first person │ │ singular when it is supposedly an intro from the entire new TDX │ │ committee... │ │ │ └───────┬┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬┬───────┘ ┌───────┴┴─────────────────┬───────────────────────┬─────────────────┴┴───────┐ │ └───[ RELEASE RULES ]───┘ │ │ │ │ Movie Length: │ │ - PAL (25 fps) = MINIMUM runtime is 100 minutes/CD. │ │ - FILM (23.976 fps) = MINIMUM runtime is 105 minutes/CD. │ │ - NTSC (29.97 fps) = MINIMUM runtime is 87 minutes/CD. │ │ - These runtimes are scalable via the following equation: │ │ N CD time minimum = (N-1) * allowed time where N is number of CDs and │ │ allowable time applies to fps as outlined above: │ │ i.e. 3 CD FILM rip minimum = 105 x (3-1) = 210 minutes. │ │ - MINIMUM time length rule is as implied - that is the MINIMUM time per │ │ CD -- NOT MAXIMUM!!! (i.e. no such thing as "must be more than 1 CD") │ │ - Release runtime must be at least 50 minutes for using the full burnable │ │ media capacity. In such cases, releases MUST utilize a MINIMUM of │ │ 680mb of the 700mb standard burnable media (Multi-CD releases MUST │ │ conform to the 680mb minimum, for each CD used). Any other use of the │ │ media shall not be over 350mb (Sizes between 350mb to 680mb are not │ │ allowed). │ │ - Media usage is at ripper's discretion, please use it. │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - The runtime rule is still a slightly vague and occasionally contested │ │ issue within TDX. The new wording doesn't change this at all. The │ │ correct interpretation of this rule is that it is permitted to use an │ │ additional CD for every additional x minutes beyond the original x │ │ minute runtime (x being the runtime based on the framerate). The way it │ │ is currently worded can still be interpreted such that each CD MUST │ │ have at least x minutes on it. │ │ - With the improvements in encoding technology, I don't understand why │ │ the new ruleset would be trending towards less compression with the │ │ modified length rules. │ │ - The first time I read the new point that was added, I thought that it │ │ related to shorts but apparently it's not. The point just seems to │ │ bumble around. Couldn't it just have been simply stated that the │ │ minimum capacity used on a CD is 680MB? The 50 minute rule should have │ │ just been included in some new rules about the runtime of shorter │ │ features (which I definitely feel is needed). The new TDX implies that │ │ everything under 50 minutes can be ripped to 350MB, but doesn't a 350MB │ │ rip of a 5 or 10 minute short seem a bit oversized? │ │ - Why is the capacity of a CD not explicitly defined? Is it 700MB even │ │ (734,003,200 bytes)? 702MB (which will still fit on a CD)? or something │ │ else? There have been several releases between 700 and 702MB, is that │ │ allowed? │ │ - So what are the rules for non-standard framerate releases? There are │ │ plenty of silent films that IVTC to 16 to 22fps... │ │ │ │ │ │ AUDIO: │ │ - MUST be MP3 or Studio AC3 (AC3 transcoding forbidden). │ │ - MUST be STEREO for STEREO sources, MONO for MONO sources │ │ (MONO audio as STEREO on source is considered a MONO source). │ │ - MUST BE VBR! NO CBR MP3! │ │ - MP3 tracks must have the original frequency as it was on the DVD's │ │ audio: i.e. 48khz for 48khz and 44.1khz for 44.1khz. │ │ - MP3 files must be normalized. │ │ - ABR is considered a VBR technique. │ │ - AC3 MUST be used wisely and correctly. Ripper's discretion on when to │ │ use it. Using or not using AC3 IS NOT a technical flaw. │ │ - MONO AC3 is not allowed, in that case must encode to mono MP3. │ │ - Multi-language audio tracks are FORBIDDEN! (Use INTERNAL!) │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - Please define mono. The term was incorrectly used in TDX2k2 and has │ │ caused all sorts of issues. Technically speaking, any audio track with │ │ identical channel(s) is mono. Of course, the intention is to forbid the │ │ use of 2.0 Mono MP3/AC3, but once again, this is left unclear. │ │ - The term source also needs definition. Is it the source AC3 track on │ │ the DVD? The original theatrical master? This ruleset still doesn't │ │ clear up whether a DVD should be encoded in stereo when the studio │ │ remasters a mono theatrical track into 2.0 (Stereo) or 5.1 audio. │ │ - Why MUST MP3 need to be normalized? Wouldn't minimal processing of a │ │ track be ideal? The rule also doesn't state the extent to which the │ │ audio must be normalized. Without that, the rule means absolutely │ │ nothing. │ │ │ │ VIDEO: │ │ - Keyframe: │ │ MUST be <=20 seconds and MUST be inserted according to scene changes │ │ and framesizes as determined by the codec or encoding application. │ │ - Group watermarks of any kind on the video will not be tolerated! │ │ - Intermission messages must be removed from the avi! │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - I know the intermission rule is personal. I still maintain that there │ │ is often wonderful musical accompaniment during the intermission and │ │ that would be lost if that rule is kept in effect. Sometimes the │ │ intermission is used as a directorial tool as well, so removing it │ │ would alter the flow of the movie. If removing the climax of a movie is │ │ frowned upon, shouldn't the same common sense lend itself to any other │ │ part of a movie? │ │ │ │ │ │ Framerate: │ │ - MUST be as close to original source framerate as possible. │ │ - In some cases PAL movies should be ivtc'd (i.e. to 24fps). Therefore │ │ using a PAL source is not an excuse for lack of ivtc. │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - Once again, the term source needs to be defined. While it seems obvious │ │ to most what the correct framerate should be, there are some that think │ │ that the NTSC telecine framerate of 29.97fps is the "source framerate". │ │ - Hybrids? What are the guidelines for ripping hybrids? What would │ │ make a hybrid encode properable? Hasn't this been a hot enough issue to │ │ address? │ │ │ │ │ │ Codec: │ │ - MUST BE XviD (all DivX codecs are banned). │ │ - MUST use 2 pass technique during encoding. │ │ - NO DUPES BASED ON CODEC TYPE, USE INTERNAL! │ │ │ │ │ │ Resolution and Aspect Ratio: │ │ - Width: 512 - 672 pixels for WS movies (Letterboxed is considered WS). │ │ 448 - 576 pixels for FS movies (Only 4:3 images). │ │ - Height and Width: Must be a multiple of 16. │ │ - Cropping is required to be the MAXIMUM possible (black borders must │ │ be cropped to their maximum). Over cropped releases are considered │ │ a technical flaw. Some movies present changing ARs, in that case the │ │ cropping applies only to the image that presents more pixels (Means │ │ that part of the movie will have bad cropping). │ │ - Movie encodes must be within 5% of the original aspect ratio. │ │ Calculating AR % error: (Release AR - Original AR)/Original AR x 100 │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - Due to the popular 1.37:1 AR, the FS rule should probably be extended │ │ from the 4:3 definition to any AR 1.4/1.5:1 and narrower. It's obvious │ │ that 1.37:1 isn't widescreen. │ │ - The term "bad cropping" is kind of silly. It's either overcropped or │ │ undercropped. Once again, the wording of the 3rd point is imprecise. │ │ Why not just say what correct cropping is and go from there. The │ │ "maximum possible" cropping is just to crop the whole frame away. The │ │ rule regarding a source with varying ARs is appropriate but again badly │ │ worded. How does cropping apply to anything? Does this sentence make │ │ sense? "In the case that the movie presents changing ARs, cropping │ │ applies only to the image that presents more pixels." Huh?! How about: │ │ "In the case..., the movie must be cropped such that no frame is │ │ overcropped". Simple. │ │ │ │ │ │ Subs, Interactive Menus, Trailers: │ │ - OPTIONAL (ONLY if all other requirements have been met). │ │ - VOBSUB is the preferred format due to the fact it does not use OCR. │ │ However, any format that displays with DVobSub is acceptable. │ │ - Subtitles may be MUXED with video stream, but MAY NOT be BURNED into │ │ video stream. MUXED subs will proper BURNED subs. │ │ - Subtitles not muxed into video stream MUST be encapsulated in a .rar │ │ file with the MOST compression available and shall be contained in │ │ the directory named 'Subs' and will NOT be packaged with main movie │ │ rars. │ │ - Burned subtitles shall only be permissible when the source exhibits │ │ aforementioned subtitles in the picture itself (i.e. Subs in the │ │ matte portion of the picture MUST be typed in a separate file and the │ │ frame shall be cropped). If there is a part of the burned subtitles │ │ on the picture itself, and another part on the matte portion of the │ │ picture, the frame must be cropped to 2 pixels from the start of the │ │ subtitles on the matte portion. Upside cropping of the picture has │ │ nothing to do with the downside, therefore the cropping on the upside │ │ MUST BE to it's maximum. │ │ - English subs on non English movies MUST fit on CD with main movie, │ │ all other optional subs SHOULD fit on the CD. │ │ - Foreign movies (Non English Spoken) with no English subs, must have │ │ the language name taggings (applies to the various non English │ │ scenes). Movies with English subs present, WILL NOT HAVE any language │ │ tag on them! │ │ - Using of hand made subs on non English releases (i.e. fansubs) MUST │ │ be mentioned in the nfo, and at nuker's discretion if to nuke the │ │ release for Bad.Subs, depends on how bad the subtitles are. Please │ │ use common judgement! Releases that were nuked for bad subtitles, may │ │ be propered only by subtitles that came from the retail DVD (Ripper's │ │ choice if to release the full movie again or just the subtitles). │ │ - Multi-language subtitles cannot be used as a basis for a dupe. │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - I see nothing about Interactive Menus or Trailers, or any other extras │ │ for that matter. │ │ - As we appear to be still using the avi container, it is not possible to │ │ mux subs into the actual container (which is what muxing actually means)│ │ - I'm not sure about the mandatory use of rar. I know there are certain │ │ (standalone) players that wouldn't read through the rar. Not that │ │ many (if any) current standalones play Vobsubs anyway. │ │ - I've always loved this 1/2 matted burned subs discussion. Doing it the │ │ way that the ruleset indicates would cause the image to be off-center │ │ during fullscreen playback. Some people swear that they can't watch │ │ anything off-center, personally don't think it's the end of the world. │ │ In any event, a few of us had thought up a great compromise based on │ │ the macroblock structure of MPEG encoding. It's too bad we weren't │ │ consulted. │ │ - EngSub Must fit on CD rule: See above rar comment and more above CD │ │ filesize comment. │ │ - The next bullet..."will not" or "must/may not"? (And I find the use of │ │ exclamation marks to be very unprofessional in a ruleset) │ │ - How many times do I have to say it? How bad do subs have to be to be │ │ bad.subs? I'm sure there's no consensus on what "common judgement" is. │ │ (judgment is misspelled too). This of course is even worse since the │ │ rules state that if SOMEONE has made the call to nuke it for bad.subs, │ │ then it can be propered. │ │ │ │ Packaging: │ │ - All releases must be AVI, not BIN/CUE. │ │ - Must be packed with RAR and broken into 15 or 20 MB volumes. │ │ Releases that are more then 1 CD must have the RAR files broken into │ │ 2 or more CD volumes. │ │ - Compression is not allowed. │ │ - Recovery and MD5 record are recommended. │ │ - Must have SFV included for each CD. │ │ - Must have NFO. │ │ - NFO SHOULD INCLUDE: │ │ Group name │ │ Title │ │ Actual XviD release date │ │ DVD release date │ │ Theatrical release date (US preferably) │ │ Video size │ │ Framesize/Aspect Ratio │ │ Audio bitrate │ │ Video bitrate │ │ Movie runtime/Length │ │ IMDB/Amazon/Any other DVD site info link │ │ Number of rars per CD (i.e. 50x15MB) │ │ Ripping method │ │ DRF average │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - Now that we've cleared up what it SHOULD include, what MUST it include? │ │ - DRF. Sigh... (see more about this below) │ │ - Exactly what ripping method we are talking about? │ │ - How about...Audio Codec? XviD Build? Packed Bitstream? Max Conseq BFs? │ │ │ │ Credits: │ │ - Movie credits can be encoded separately at a lower bitrate only if the │ │ time length exceeds the no. of CDs used (i.e. 106 min on 1CD for FILM │ │ source, or 201 min on 2CDs for PAL source, etc). │ │ - Any movies with scenes in the credits (i.e. bloopers or continuation │ │ of story) MAY NOT be downsampled! │ │ - Cutting Credits is not allowed. │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - I don't see the advantage in restricting when credit downsampling can │ │ occur. There's no consistency. They're either expendable, or they │ │ aren't. │ │ │ │ Samples: │ │ - REQUIRED! │ │ - 1 full minute in length and in a separate folder marked as 'Sample'. │ │ - MUST be taken from the movie - NOT encoded separately. │ │ - Vob samples are recommended for any rip that is deemed questionable: │ │ i.e. no ivtc possible on source, ivtc to 24.975fps etc. │ │ │ │ │ │ Propers: │ │ - Propers are ONLY permitted in the case of a technical flaw in the │ │ original release (i.e. Bad IVTC, Interlacing, bad number of CDs). │ │ - Releases not nuked on release lists and/or sites MUST include │ │ original sample of the technical flaw. │ │ - Qualitative propers are not allowed, nor are propers based on │ │ decisions made by a ripper (i.e. No. of CDs, AC3 or MP3, etc). │ │ - Propers based upon the compliance with new instances of TXD2K5 │ │ guidelines are also forbidden. │ │ Only propers acceptable when propering old tdx rips are propers based │ │ on picture damage: Aspect Ratio, IVTC, Over-Cropping. Other propers │ │ acceptable are propers based on releases that did not follow previous │ │ tdx guidelines, at the time they were released. │ │ - Subbed (in original movie language) propers dubbed (in any language). │ │ - Hardcored Subs may be propered by releases containing Vobsub/Srt. │ │ <This rule will not apply to movies ripped before TXD2K5> │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - "bad number of CDs"...speaks for itself. │ │ - Speaking of which...something can be propered for "bad number of CDs" │ │ but not for "No. of CDs". │ │ - Are you expecting new instances of TXD2K5? That whole sentence needs to │ │ be rethought. "Only propers acceptable" -> "Propers are only acceptable"│ │ might be slightly better English? Although that whole sentence probably │ │ needs reworking. The meaning of "old tdx rips" is obvious even if it │ │ doesn't seem to make sense. I also believe that the list of flaws was │ │ previously called technical flaws (a couple points up, why change that?)│ │ In any event, I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to reword that │ │ bullet. │ │ - "Original movie language" -> "Movie's original/native language"? │ │ - I know some people are pretty passionate about their subs, but hardcore │ │ might be going a bit to far (Yes, I know it's just a typo) │ │ - Propers imply that there was something wrong with the original release │ │ and it doesn't make sense to penalize a group for ripping a hardsubbed │ │ DVD. │ │ │ │ WS vs. FS: │ │ - FS movies after WS was out, are FORBIDDEN unless proven it contains │ │ more picture (use of sample or .jpg as proof). │ │ - WS movies after FS was out, MUST HAVE original sample from the │ │ previous release, unless proven no WS DVD was out at the time the FS │ │ was released. A WS not following the above is considered a DUPE! │ │ - WS or FS name tags on the release name, if the other wasn't released │ │ in the past, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED! <use nfo to mention the AR>. │ │ - WS cannot proper another WS: for example 2.35:1 after 1.85:1 is out. │ │ Use the tag WS in the dirname instead. However WS after a wider WS │ │ was released, will be considered a DUPE unless proven it contains │ │ more picture! Sample rule applies here also. │ │ - Letterboxed DVDs are not considered FS even if it's FS on the source! │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - "FS movies after WS was out" is also grammatically incorrect. │ │ - Why no FS tag when it's the first one out? I can understand people not │ │ wanting to read the nfo just to see if the release if FS or WS. │ │ - Aren't violations of any rule not to be tolerated? Why makes this one │ │ so special? │ │ - Again, define source...In this case, the physical layout of the DVD is │ │ being considered the source. │ │ - This whole segment feels that it could be reworked for less redundancy │ │ and more conciseness. │ │ │ │ Special Movie Editions: │ │ - Allowed: SE, DC, EXTENDED, UNCUT, REMASTERED, UNRATED, THEATRICAL, │ │ CHRONO. │ │ - Special Edition releases without any different features in the film │ │ itself will be considered dupes of previous releases of the same │ │ movie. │ │ - Shorter cut version of a movie after a longer version was released is │ │ allowed (i.e. THEATRICAL), and MUST be mentioned in the dirname. │ │ - Remastered movies after the original have been released are allowed │ │ only if the original release was in BLACK AND WHITE and the │ │ remastered edition is colour. Everything else use INTERNAL! │ │ (Remastered DVD releases that were nuked in the past and were colour │ │ after black and white, shall not be unnuked and shall not be duped!) │ │ - Remastered audio will be considered a dupe if it's the only reason │ │ movie was re-released. │ │ - Extras released in a special movie edition, cannot be used as a basis │ │ for a dupe, unless released separately <and are not dupes of previous │ │ releases>. │ │ - Homemade Rips are not allowed (Use INTERNAL!). For example adding of │ │ deleted scenes, alternate endings, chrono editions. Only retail DVD │ │ rips of this versions are allowed. │ │ - NOTE: PAL - NTSC length difference comes from the no. of frames, not │ │ extra footage. │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - "different features" -> "different footage"? What is a feature in a │ │ movie and how can it differ? │ │ - How about Original Black & White after a studio coloured version? │ │ - Aren't violations of any rule not to be tolerated? Why makes this one │ │ so special? │ │ - Uh, excuse me? PAL <-> NTSC time difference comes from the SAME number │ │ of frames being played at a different rate. Example: │ │ NTSC: 86400 frames ÷ 24frames/secs ÷ 60 secs/min = 60 mins │ │ PAL: 86400 frames ÷ 25frames/secs ÷ 60 secs/min = 57.6 mins │ │ │ │ │ │ Directory Naming: │ │ - All releases are to include production year (applies to the pre scene │ │ as well). │ │ - DO NOT indicate Ripping method, DVD/XviD release date, Genre, Audio │ │ which was used (no AC3) or anything else! (ONLY WITHIN THE NFO) │ │ - Movie distribution tags i.e. FESTIVAL, STV, LIMITED or TV (TV tag │ │ is used for TV movies only) are allowed and shall be used wisely and │ │ correctly. │ │ - READ.NFO is strictly forbidden. │ │ - Other permitted tags are: WS/FS <rules above>, PROPER, REPACK, RERIP, │ │ REAL, RETAIL, EXTENDED, REMASTERED, UNRATED, CHRONO, THEATRICAL, DC, │ │ SE, UNCUT, INTERNAL, DUBBED, SUBBED. │ │ - Acceptable characters in naming a directory include (NO spaces or │ │ double dots - single dots or underscores ONLY): │ │ │ │ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ │ │ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz │ │ 0123456789 .-_ │ │ │ │ - Releases that are more than 1 CD MUST be named CD1, CD2, CD3 and so │ │ on ('disc1' and others are NOT allowed). │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - I almost missed it, and I know that READ.NFO is often abused, but there │ │ are legitimate uses for it. Banning it is an overreaction. │ │ │ │ │ │ TV Series Notes: │ │ - All Episodes <DVD rips> are obligated to follow the above rules. │ │ - Media usage capacity: │ │ * 4x 20-23min = 1CD, Releases shall not be over 175mb. │ │ * 3x 23-35min = 1CD, Releases shall not be over 233mb. │ │ * 2x 35-50min = 1CD, Releases shall not be over 350mb. │ │ * Episodes further then 50 minutes, will follow the length rules │ │ of TXD2K5. │ │ NOTE: Runtimes not mentioned above should fit on 1 CD i.e. 5x120mb, │ │ 6x116mb, 7x100mb etc. │ │ - Sizes mentioned above may be used only when minimum runtime is applied, │ │ i.e. 23 minutes on 233mb or 35 minutes on 350mb. Media usage is at │ │ ripper's discretion (i.e. 25 minutes may also be on 175mb). │ │ - Recommendation: 26x22min = 1 DVD-R Disc, 13x45min = 1 DVD-R Disc │ │ i.e. 172mb x 26eps or 344mb x 13eps fits on 1 burnable DVD-R Disc. │ │ - Exception: 20-23min NTSC episodes (29.97 fps) may use 233mb. │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - "Episodes further then" -> "Episodes longer than"? (and no comma) │ │ - "Sizes mentioned above may be used only when minimum runtime is │ │ applied". What does this actually mean? It seems redundant? │ │ - For consistency, how about 29.97fps 23-35min or 35-50min eps? │ │ │ └───────┬┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬┬───────┘ ┌───────┴┴───────────────┬────────────────────────────┬──────────────┴┴───────┐ │ └───[ NOTES TO THE RULES ]───┘ │ │ │ │ │ │ Source related notes: │ │ - DVD source shall be RETAIL/DVD Screener only. Non DVD sources like │ │ CAM, TS, TC, VHS, SCREENER, PDVD, LDVD etc, MUST be tagged with source │ │ in dirname and MUST adhere to ALL TXD2K5 rules! │ │ - DVD Screeners shall be clearly marked in the directory name and the │ │ nfo shall contain presence of studio watermarking and counters or │ │ lack thereof. │ │ - Use of downsampled DVD-Rs as source is FORBIDDEN! <only untouched> │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - Maybe it's just me, but what is a LDVD? Is is supposed to be Laserdisc? │ │ │ │ │ │ Internals: │ │ - All INTERNALS must follow TXD2K5 rules, apart from the time length │ │ rules and multi-language audio tracks rule (and will not be considered │ │ as dupes). Other codecs and containers are allowed for experimental │ │ purposes. │ │ - NOTE: INTERNAL dirfix is not allowed as a basis of avoiding a nuke. │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - Excuse me? Groups can do whatever they want with internals. Internals │ │ are not meant to be regulated. Internal dupes? Am I missing something? │ │ - Many people disagree with dirfixing an internal to avoid a dupe, but │ │ TDX doesn't have jurisdiction over internals. Let sites and dupechecks │ │ decide what they want to do with them. │ │ │ │ Ripping related notes: │ │ - Maximum VIDEO bitrates are covered by length rules. │ │ - If DRF average would be over 4.0, the resolution should be lowered if │ │ possible, until the minimal res is reached. See Resolution rules. │ │ DRF average can be checked with DRF Analyzer <It is recommended to │ │ check the full avi file and not just the sample>. │ │ - Quant. Matrix always has to be H.263/MPEG due to lack of hardware │ │ support for Custom matrixes. │ │ - Quarterpel/GMC forbidden due to lack of hardware support. │ │ - Packed Bitstream is not supported on some of the major gen chipsets, │ │ therefore using it, is not recommended. │ │ - The use of ITU-R is not recommended since it gives an AR error of │ │ around 2% from the original DVD's Aspect Ratio. │ │ - Multi-language audio tracks are allowed only for INTERNALS. │ │ Multiple languages should be interleaved into the AVI, with a │ │ graphedit filter for each appropriate audio stream. │ │ - NO intros, outros, betweenos, or any other form of defacement of the │ │ movie will be tolerated. │ │ │ │ REBUTTAL: │ │ - Our friend DRF again. DRF (Detail Removal Factor) is actually a DIVX │ │ 3.11/SBC ATTRIBUTE. XViD's equivalent attribute is the Quantizer. │ │ Obviously I'm quite amused to see DRF mentioned in this new ruleset │ │ which abolishes SBC. │ │ - For those that really understand how quantizers work, especially with │ │ regards to their relationship with the Quantization type, they'd know │ │ that the raw quant avg doesn't mean anything without the exact quant │ │ matrix being used. As such, using the average quant as a statistic to │ │ to determine the rip quality without considering the exact method of │ │ quantization would be erroneous. Of course since this ruleset bans all │ │ Custom Matrices (more on that later), that simplifies things...but MPEG │ │ and h263 are two completely different animals and look very different │ │ at comparable quants. As a result, blind avg quant comparison is │ │ dangerous and not a good benchmark at all. │ │ - While the argument about compatibility on standalones is a valid one, │ │ many CQMs do in fact work on standalones and as long as rippers choose │ │ well, the problems should be minor. On the flipside, the power of the │ │ wide range of CQMs is unmatched. The choice of matrix gives control of │ │ how XViD prioritizes the compression of the source material. The │ │ quality of a high bitrate encode made with h263 or basic MPEG │ │ quantization pales in comparison to one created with one of several │ │ high bitrate matrices. │ │ - The packed bitstream (PB) issue is one that is already solved and thus │ │ I don't even know why it has to be brought up again. There are some │ │ standalones that do not work with 2 consecutive B-Frames with PB and │ │ there are some (fewer) that don't work without it. Luckily, a tool was │ │ developed that allowed for PB to be removed from a video file without │ │ the need to reencode. Unfortunately it doesn't work in reverse (It │ │ can't add PB to a non PB file). So really, if there were a rule, it │ │ should be that all B-Frames must be packed, as it would be simple │ │ enough to remove them if necessary. Alternatively, rips with 2+ │ │ consecutive B-Frames should be banned entirely. │ │ - Finally, this whole ITU-R thing...Specifically, the referral is to the │ │ ITU-R BT.601 Standard for Aspect Ratios. The ITU-R itself is a body │ │ that establishes standards, so the phrase "the use of ITU-R" doesn't │ │ make a whole lot of sense. It still doesn't make sense if you │ │ substitute in "ITU-R BT.601 Standard" since you abide or obey standards,│ │ you don't "use" them. The ruleset is probably just talking about the │ │ Gknot checkbox. It is true that the difference between following the │ │ standard and not doing so is about 2% on the AR. However, the jury is │ │ still out on which is the correct way to proceed. For now, it really │ │ seems to come down to the output device being used and what is │ │ considered to be the "correct" viewing experience. Links below: │ │ http://www.uwasa.fi/~f76998/video/conversion/ │ │ http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=42708 │ └───────┬┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬┬───────┘ ┌───────┴┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┴┴───────┐ │ The Tradition Continues: TXD RULES 2K5 (2005-09-25) │ │ TDX2K2 <2002-07-12) 2K1 (2001-04-22) Original (2000-04-26) │ └───────┬┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬┬───────┘ ┌───────┴┴───────────────┬──────────────────────────┬────────────────┴┴───────┐ │ └--------[ GROUPS ]--------┘ │ │ TXD2K5 Rebuttal signed by the following XviD Groups: │ │ ──────────────────────────────────────────────────── │ │ │ │ ME │ │ │ │ MYSELF │ │ │ │ AND I │ │ │ └──┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬──┘ └----[ Created by Me 2005. Respect goes to all TDX teams 2000-2002 ]----┘