FLOMP’S BACK, BABY
*ahem*
Second Bleach Movie is out! (It’s way better than the first one.)
Domnload Bleach Movie 2: The DiamondDust Rebellion (720×390, H264, AC3, 900 MB)
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | Dec » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
cav Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 2:47 am
AWESOME THX
YOUR THE BEST
Strider Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 2:57 am
Great ! Thank you ! Now I’m waiting for the episode 172 ! ^^
Mah0 Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 7:10 am
Good stuff. Are you going to release an iso like movie 1?
shippuudenfan101 Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 8:14 am
ill watch the movie after school and hopefully two days from now you guys release episode 172 ne ways thanks for the movie [Flomp]
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 10:35 am
Thanks flomp for the another high quality release of bleach!
z_p Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 11:16 am
Thx for the movie i did dl from DB first just in case to have it but i will now replace it with yours.
zzy Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 11:50 am
xVid version when?
Scr1be Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 11:51 am
Woot! Thanks Flomp ^_^ and yes it is way better than the first one and the fillers combined =P
Merril Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 11:59 am
Woot, can’t wait!
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 1:04 pm
well i want to replace db’s movie 2 but i have a question, does your encoder changed? i compared the video quality of your movie 1 and movie 2 but movie 2 seem to be not at the best quality.. will there be a version 2? i waited 1 hour and 30mins to see your movie 2 quality but… i am a bit disappointed now. sorry if my english is bad. maybe the reason is the resolution of your movie 2 is smaller than movie 1. i hate to say this but, i think db’s movie 2’s quality is greater than your movie 2 now unlike movie 1.
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 1:08 pm
and maybe because it is not flomp-rumbel anymore. i wish you’ll join forces again with rumbel.. rumbel is so great after all. that’s why movie 1 of flomp’ s video quality is greater than movie 2 because rumbel is not your partner anymore.
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 1:20 pm
hooooooooooooly shit! i’ve just notice too that the aspect ration is wrong too! it’s not 16:9.. aw man! well i am looking forward for your v2!
good luck flomp 
flamer Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 1:24 pm
@Arvin
Really? I’m dling it now and I have the db version, so I’ll compare the two versions after I’m done dling. I was also curious about the resolution as well.
@zzy
I don’t think flomp releases xvid or xvid/avi versions anymore.
shippuudenfan101 Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 3:09 pm
aw shut up the quality is okay yea it isn’t as good as movie 1 and you can fix the resolution your self so stop bitching and say “thank you”
but your right they should see if they can do the quality better but w/e i waited to long and I’m going to watch it
Dark-Aries Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Wait..so it’s 4:3 and the quality isn’t what we’re expecting…can we get a sample on this one?
Dark-Aries Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 3:47 pm
my bad…I didn’t read the resoltuion…it’s not 169:9…more like 2:231 whatever that ratio is…It’s ultra widescreen people! (I dunno…I spitballin here).
flamer Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Ok I just skimmed through it and looked it over. I think the quality’s ok, personally I found it slightly better than DB’s. Aspect ratio is like 16:8.3-4ish (Not too big of a difference from 16:9). I actually like it better this way because I can set the subtitles below the video and not have it interfere with the actual video. Overall I’d say it’s definitely better than DBs for sure. Thx flomp.
shippuudenfan101 Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 4:05 pm
@ Arvin Malabanan its not the encoders fault and they still have the same encoder and thts pablo212 he encodes for both rumbel and flomp its more likely the raw to blame but like flamer said who cares its better then [db]’s and the big news is [flomp]’s back so expect the same 720p quality for the episodes when ever they release them
josh Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Thanks guys. Keep up the great work
Spock Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 8:01 pm
The aspect ratio is correct. The movie is 1.85:1 and so is the release. If you don’t know, 16:9 is also known as 1.78:1 and is used for TV but not film. Since this is a movie the video is 1.85:1 instead of the narrower format used for widescreen television.
As for the complaints about resolution, is that in relation to the the aspect ratio (which means it isn’t a complaint about resolution) or really an issue with the resolution? I also don’t see how the resolution should really be an issue because anything else would either be an upscale or would just be resized by your video player to have the correct aspect ratio.
And does the db release have the original 5.1 channel surround sound audio track (which appears to comprise almost 300mb of this release), or are they using a re-encoded stereo mix? If they have a stereo mix I don’t think its really accurate to claim that their release is better.
Dark-Aries Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Hey..I said it was ultra widescreen…I forgot about 1:85 though…
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 9:57 pm
@spock
oh ok i understand now.. well i just pointing out video quality and not the sound quality.
well maybe playing flomp’s movie in a 19′ widescreen monitor in full screen make it pixelized.(i don’t know if that’s a legal word ^_^) and yeah it is issue to me if the resolution is wrong.. because i know flomp is greater than db but… well everybody has different taste. that’s all.
flamer Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 9:57 pm
@spock.
I think people might have complained about the res since the raw (well at least the one I found anyways) was 864X480 anamorphic, which was at a bigger resolution than the flomp release. Didn’t make too much of a difference though. Oh and yes it’s 1.85:1 lol forgot about that.
Spock Said:
on September 15, 2008 at 11:19 pm
The actual raw, the dvd, is 720×480 anamorphic with black bars to make the frame look like 1.85:1 which is the correct aspect ratio. So since there are black bars on the dvd to keep the correct aspect ratio the raw isn’t even 720×480. That means that if you played back the dvd it would be getting upscaled by your computer. If you are having issues with the image quality when playing back the video but only when fullscreen you should see how to fix the problem your video player is creating.
If the video was done to keep the same number of pixels as the dvd and use the container to force an aspect ratio you would in theory have the exact same problem. Doing an upscale to create a 888×480 video (keeping height and expanding width) would mean the video was upscaled once by the encoder, and then that would be upscaled again by your media player. Either way your media player would be upscaling the video and probably breaking it.
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 16, 2008 at 11:51 am
well i made up my mind. many of you said it’s great then i will keep db and flomp’s movie 2. i can only say one thing, the quality of movie1 of flomp has a higher quality than movie 2. (higher resolution too)
jonnyquesty2k Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 3:19 am
Such wierd filesize. Not even Mod16. Is this not from the DVD? Does this upscale at playback? If so, what resolution?
jonnyquesty2k Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 3:20 am
Err, correction: file resolution
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 6:50 am
@jonnyquesty2k
yeah i agree… but the other people above don’t agree..
@spock
why the other dvd movies i saw including movie have the aspect ration of 16:9 instead of 1.85:1… why use 16:9? but the quality of movie 1 is still superior than movie 2.. maybe the raw is to blame.
Travis Touchdown Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Thank you very much for your release. I just have 2 comments regarding Flomp and DB versions.
1.) Flomp’s translations are much better and flowing. Also the video quality seemed alot sharper and clear, at least to me anyways.
2.) However, the sound quality of Flomp seemed hugely inferior i.e. the background music and sound effects were not as audible as in the DB version. I am not sure if others share this opinion, but i think it may be due to the audio codec being used.
pablo212 Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Alright so explain again.
jonnyquesty2k: Your are tool for thinking everything must be MOD16. at an AR of 1.85:1 it is near impossible to get MOD16. Unless we upscale… and yea thats for idiots.
Arvin: The movie raws are different.
Travis: The audio is 5.1 if its inaudible you need a new speaker set running with 3 stereo connection jacks or optical connections. otherwise background music/noise is tiny since ur sound card is trying to make it a virtual surrond sound effect which anyone can tell you sucks ass. DB used stereo hence it sounds better on stereo but crap on full 5.1 setups.
Spock Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Travis, the real issue with the audio is that its the original AC3 track, which has a higher dynamic range, while at the same time being quieter in relative terms. It just means you need to turn your volume up.
If you think that louder audio is better you are wrong. As for the 5 channel to 2 channel change, it should sound roughly the same as a standard 2 channel mix once its downmixed.
Virtual surround effects may make things sound weird, some of them can work well depending upon what you are doing, but they won’t be the reason why its quieter.
If your audio setup can’t get loud enough for you to hear the movie properly you need to find out what that issue is and fix it, either through software or hardware.
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 9:17 pm
@pablo212
i just have a question… i can’t printscreen a fullscreen of your movie 2.. yeah the colors and video quality is way off better than db’s if the video is not in fullscreen. I’ve just change my monitor last week with a 19′ inch monitor and the resolution i use is 1440×900. Here’s my question. Why is that your movie 2’s video is not that good compare to DB when i switch to full screen. The sharpness….. i can’t explain it well. Sorry if my english is bad. I use MPC and CoreAVC as a video decoder. Well maybe i am the one to blame because the anime i watch lately are in HD which has a greater quality.
Spock Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I use a 20″ 1680×1050 monitor currently and I can go full screen using CoreAVC and Zoomplayer without the issues that you describe. Its not as sharp when fullscreen due to the resizing done by the player but its just fine.
Try using a different media player to test the problem. If that fixes it figure out what is wrong with your combination. If not, try adjusting settings in CoreAVC.
abc123 Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 9:23 pm
What’s wrong with upscaling to achieve mod 16? In the end it gets upscaled when we fullscreen the video anyway. When we upscale to fullscreen the video we are upscaling your encoding. When you encode an upscale you are upscaling the raw. An upscale of the raw is higher quality than an upscale of an encoding of the raw.
Option A: Granted in the case you encode an upscale there are 2 upscales, 1 where you upscale the raw and another when we upscale your upscale of the raw.
Option B: On the otherhand if you don’t upscale the raw there is 1 upscale, upscaling your encoding.
Now the question is which is higher quality. In my estimation despite option A’s 2 upscales compared to the 1 upscale of option B, I believe this is offset because the 2 upscales of option A reduce quality less individually than the 1 upscale of option B. (An upscale of an upscale of the raw should reduce quality less than the upscale of option B since there is a lower step up in resolution in the former compared to the latter.)
So provided that you give the upscale of the raw sufficient file size it should be identical or even surpass the quality of option B.
It should surpass the quality of option B in the case e.g. you upscale a 800*450 raw to 1280*720 and someone watches your upscale on a monitor with 1280*720 native resolution. In this case there is only 1 upscale for option A.
However as always this is all dependent on giving the upscale of the raw sufficient file size, and if you fail to give it sufficient file size option A could end up looking worse than option B.
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 9:34 pm
@abc123
Sorry but i can’t get the point. The words you say like upscale or mod 16.. i don’t understand it..
@pablo212
But maybe i know why DB’s movie 2 and Flomp’s movie 1’s video quality in fullscreen is greater than flomp’s movie 2. Flomp’s movie 2’s resolution is lesser than DB’s and your first movie.
Flomp’s Movie 1: 720×480
DB: 768×432
Flomp’s Movie 2: 720×390
or maybe not… the video quality of Flomp’s movie 1(memories of nobody) is f***ing good in full screen compare to Flomp’s movie2 in full screen in a 19” Monitor with a resolution of 1440×900. Why is that pablo212?
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 9:37 pm
@spock
you notice too right? in fullscreen mode.. flomp’s movie 2 is not that so sharp… try to play memories of nobody by flomp in full screen ofcourse and play it in your zoomplayer…. compare it please. then tell me why is that movie 1 has the higher quality. maybe because of encoding or changing the resolution to 16:9 to 1.85:1.
Merril Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Flomp subs films, get them a better raw or keep complaining
shippuudenfan101 Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 10:41 pm
@ Arvin Malabanan dude movie one had alot of good raws to pick but movie 2 only has like 3 or 4 and their both dull on color and quality so flomp couldn’t really do ne thing to get the same quality as movie 1 so just wait for a better raw
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 17, 2008 at 10:58 pm
oh i see… now know. it’s because of the raw and not by the encoder. thanks for the info shippuudenfan101.
@Merril:
Oh sorry i don’t know the raw is the problem. I am just asking.
qwerty Said:
on September 18, 2008 at 4:30 am
http://www.nyaatorrents.org/?page=torrentinfo&tid=31459
On the subject of raws, I wonder if this is a real raw (the actual dvd) or a fake.
stupid comment thing
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 18, 2008 at 11:30 am
it will be a higher quality if flomp got the iso file of the dvd and rip them… i think that is the perfect raw.. maybe..
cav Said:
on September 18, 2008 at 1:43 pm
@arvin:
man stop complaining! im looking it on a 40 zoll Full HD LCD and it still looks great.
its just a movie and besides dont forget they doing it for free.if people like you always
complain like this, flomp gonna stop this fanservice ,then what?just be happy that you even have the chance to watch the movie for free
Peace
shippuudenfan101 Said:
on September 18, 2008 at 7:55 pm
@ cav hes just trying to understand y movie 1 has better quality…. hes not really complaining and besides if flomp really hates complainers I’m pretty sure they would ban them or disable comments
Arvin Malabanan Said:
on September 18, 2008 at 10:28 pm
oh ok i will stop complaining…. so comments are made for gratitude?
jonnyquesty2k Said:
on September 18, 2008 at 11:36 pm
“Unless we upscale… and yea thats for idiots.” – pablo212.
Hmm, I can’t help but think then why do all DVD encoders do it. To me and to many other encoders including TheFluff, DVD’s are either encoded to (usually) 704×480 (TheFluff does this) or 720×480 (others do this). Then, using the mkv function to upscale it at playback. Of course that “upscale at playback” is optional for the viewers to use and can adjust it any time when he or she wants with the player. Upscale resolution most encoders use is 848×480. I really don’t want to offend you or talk about encoding more than I know, but I really suggest you read TheFluff’s blog and take the consensus of viewers (and other encodes via #darkhold) as we are expecting the usual 704/720x480 resolution for DVD encodes. Unless, your RAW was horrid and less that 480, which I assume, then I take back what I said. Cheers.
yume _89 Said:
on September 19, 2008 at 12:10 am
what’s the new update of bleach episode?