┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ 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 ]----┘