This scene is amazing in 1080p, how did people survive with TV rips?

This scene is amazing in 1080p, how did people survive with TV rips?

Other urls found in this thread:

webmshare.com/play/AdRzy
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>OG Teen Titans in 1080p

WHAT SORCERY IS THIS?

Also webm please

Cartoon Network HD is usually broadcast in 1080i. TV rips would also be in 1080 unless shrunk.

480p cropped tv rips from like 2003

They have it on Itunes, worth the price. I really don't know how shows were made but I guess they always made them bigger than the standard resolution? try playing some ps2 game and see how horrible it looks now.

Yuck

It's pretty impossible to make a decent quality webm out of it because it always goes just over 3 MB using acceptable HD settings. Anything under 3 MB uses settings that seem pointless for a 1080p showcase webm.

Well, damn. Could you put it on dropbox or something, maybe with the original audio? I'm eager to see it in motion, that quality is amazing.

Try this, maybe. webmshare.com/play/AdRzy
The flickering crap is probably just my converter, watching the original file, it's great.

I can't upload any full episodes anywhere though because of my internet speed.

Teen Titans never aired in proper HD on Cartoon Network (except maybe later airings of Trouble in Tokyo), and definitely not on Boomerang. Though it did air in HD when it was running on Kids WB.

I heard that not all seasons on itunes are in 1080p?

The show has not been ripped in proper HD yet. There are serious issues with all of the rips.

I'd suggest holding off on that victory party, OP.

Can I get 1080p Starfire when she was getting all those random mutations

i mean i have all 5 seasons and the movie

Look at the finales of season 1, 2, and 5 in particular. That's where the problems are most obvious.

Thanks, I can't right now but will later, but I think these might be new rips

The only problems are in the last episodes of seasons 1, 2 and 5. The rest are fine.

is anyone actively working on proper rips?

If they are they're not sharing.

Thank you.

Can someone explain to me why people care about slightly increased visual quality? I don't get it at all. It doesn't change the story. And it's not like poor visual quality (within reason, not talking about the visuals being nothing but black and white TV static or anything) causes physical pain.

No, those aren't the only problems. Where the fuck did you get the episodes without the warnings, or did you just not bother to read them?

Proper rips do not appear to be possible to make at the moment. You may have to wait until decent sources become available.
It's a stunning increase in quality, especially for a hand-drawn, digitally inked show like this one.

Mad Mod's debut was god-tier. Too bad his follow-up episode was shit.

The Mumbo episode in the same season more than made up for it, though.

mail me the vhs tape faggot.

Somebody needs to crack those itunes files and start a torrent, even if it only trickles out at a couple tens of kB/s it shouldn't take too long once the second person gets it

it's certainly more than a slight increase

Are you aware that seasons 1 and 2 are not in HD even on iTunes itself?

OK, a large increase in visual quality. Why does anyone care about that either? It lets you look at it and say "wow, this is high quality, I can notice some additional details in texture?" I don't get it.

Why are you watching animation in the first place? Ask yourself that question, user.

Hey, just shut the fuck up.

I like watching superpowered cartoon people fight each other and seeing how plots turn out. I don't see how any of that changes just because the visual quality is better or worse within reason. Like I'm not going to stare at the screen and feel like I'm on MDMA because of how pleasurable the additional visual details of a higher quality video look. Is that what you do?

I'm trying to understand you.

I don't know whether to hate you or pity you.

>Is that what you do?
Sometimes, yes.

>Why do people enjoy higher quality visuals in a visual medium?
It's a mystery we may never know.

So is it just a meme then? It doesn't sound like anyone actually has a real reason for caring this much.

I don't understand this "visual medium" argument. It's nice to have images to go along with a story instead of just reading a book or having someone tell you the story. That doesn't say anything about why people would care this much about making the images super high fidelity. Like it's convenient to get to go to work in a car instead of walking, but that doesn't mean I'm going to care if you add fifty tires to the car instead of the usual four.

How is it a meme if I just admitted it actually affects the experience for me?

I enjoyed Revolution.
Then again, most of the time I was enjoying the Eleanor Rigby aesthetic and the soundtrack.

Mad Mod did nothing wrong. Fuck the snots.

Because I don't believe you literally feel like you're on MDMA due to visual quality being improved.

I don't actually know how it feels, but in some cases I can imagine it's pretty close.

The visual medium is used as an argument because its not a story accompanied with pictures. It's a story told THROUGH pictures. If I only wanted to know the story of Teen Titans, I'd read a book if it existed. I want to watch Teen Titans, and if possible, I'd like to watch the best possible version. Which would you prefer to watch, the show on the left or the show on the right?

Shhhhhhh.

You could detelecine the scene to drop it down to 24 fps from 30 fps. It certainly wasn't animated at 30 fps, so the removal of 1/6 of the frames added to make it compatible with NTSC/ATSC broadcast standards won't take anything away from the original content and will improve compressibility.

>a story told THROUGH pictures

Exactly. It's just the medium, not the story itself. The visuals are there to help tell the story, not to obsess over as a thing in itself.

>If I only wanted to know the story of Teen Titans, I'd read a book if it existed.

I addressed this already. I like stories told with superpowered cartoon people fighting on a screen. You don't need to care about visual quality in the way you're talking about to prefer having any visuals at all over reading a book with no visuals. This goes back to the car with 50 wheels analogy. It's nice to get places in a car as an alternative to having to walk 20 miles. That doesn't mean I'm under some logical obligation to want that car to be ten times the size of a normal car with extra wheels and seats and the ability to travel at mach 3. None of that follows from simply preferring to have a car to get places in, just like none of this visual quality enhancement obsession follows from simply preferring to have cartoon people there to help tell a story.

>Which would you prefer to watch, the show on the left or the show on the right?

I honestly wouldn't care either way. They both look like Starfire to me. I wouldn't even notice the difference if I weren't deliberately looking for it in a side by side shot. And I don't get why that difference means anything to you. It looks fuzzier and more pixellated on the right. OK, great. I'm not allergic to pixels, seeing them doesn't cause me pain. If they do anything at all it's prompting me to think "hey, I notice some pixels."

>The visuals are there to help tell the story, not to obsess over as a thing in itself.
I guess we shouldn't give a shit about acting or cinematography in movies then, or the writing quality in books? All that matters is the story, so lets just forget the rest right?

>I addressed this already. I like stories told with superpowered cartoon people fighting on a screen. You don't need to care about visual quality
Then lets just turn all the characters into stick figures with nametags. It's all the same as long as the story is told right?

>I honestly wouldn't care either way.
That entire last post is just a long winded way of ignoring the question. If you had to pick one to watch, would you pick the right or left? It's not a hard question to fucking answer.

Think about this for a second. Your entire argument is asking why do people like QUALITY.

We needed more Blackfire eps. Heck a Starfire season woulda been nice.

You're the entire reason why DVDs are still being sold despite them being a wholly inferior format
It's been 10+ years, DVD needs to die

Izzat Hank Venture?

>You're the entire reason why DVDs are still being sold despite them being a wholly inferior format
>It's been 10+ years, DVD needs to die

I'm glad to see someone else thinks this way. I hate people who buy DVDs and then upscale them, claiming their player makes them look "just as good" as an HD blu-ray.

Everything should be released on blu-ray these days. There's no excuse. Companies just love to cram more and more episodes onto a single DVD with a shitton of compression...because they know dipshits will buy it.

*10+ years since blu ray hit the market

>Then lets just turn all the characters into stick figures with nametags.

I said twice now at least "within reason." If the screen is just a bunch of black and white static or stick figures then I could see not wanting that. That's not what we're talking about though. We're talking about the same images, only one is a little less fuzzy. It's basically the difference between back when I wore glasses in grade school vs. when I stopped bothering with them. As in I can notice a difference, but I don't care at all about that difference. If I were made completely blind then I would have a problem with that, but a little extra fuzziness and visible pixels aren't offensive or painful in the least.

>ignoring the question

It's not ignoring the question. If two things are equally preferable, it doesn't make sense to say you'd pick one over the other except by coinflip or some other arbitrary decision making technique. I can't answer your question by picking one over the other without lying because they're completely interchangeable to me. If seeing pixels really caused people that much discomfort the original Mario Bros wouldn't still be played by millions still to this day. It's not like everyone has to want to play on a Play Station 12 or whatever number it's on just because video games are a visual medium and the graphics are better. That argument is nonsense.

>I said twice now at least "within reason."
No you only said it once, and that was when talking about the static in which case there would be no images.

And don't try and ignore the point. If you don't care the slightest about video quality, why can't we just use stick figures with nametags? It's still the same story, it's still the same characters, it's still the same action, so whats wrong?

>but a little extra fuzziness and visible pixels aren't offensive or painful in the least.
Since you operate on a different level then most people, I'll tell you that it is offensive to me. It bothers me when quality is shit and I can't enjoy a show as much if it isn't higher quality. Just like I don't like random crackling noises in my music.

>because they're completely interchangeable to me.
No they aren't. You said it yourself that one you can see pixels and the other you can't. Personal preference dictates that you couldn't give a shit, but for the majority of the population, they will pick one without pixels because it looks better to them.

Here I'll change it up a bit. Which would you prefer, a normal shirt, or a shirt with a gigantic stain on it.

It looks better, people like things that look nice. People enjoy higher quality things. Most people don't like low quality things.

That's the answer to you question
>Why do people like quality
>Because it looks nice.

Blu-rays are too expensive to make for such a relatively small market of people with players.

You're either a liar or don't know how to ctrl+F. Here:

>within reason
>within reason

I admit that I missed the second one.

>why can't we just use stick figures with nametags?

Because within reason. We're not talking about changing the characters into something entirely different, we're talking about how you have some inexplicable obsession with eliminating visible pixels.

>Which would you prefer, a normal shirt, or a shirt with a gigantic stain on it.

All my shirts have stains on them. I just put them in the freezer at night instead of washing them so they don't smell. Meaning I at least don't care enough to actively transform my stained shirts into normal shirts. It's not like having a stain on them causes me pain. That sounds like some bizarre social brainwashing if something that petty somehow matters to you.

>All my shirts have stains on them. I just put them in the freezer at night instead of washing them so they don't smell. Meaning I at least don't care enough to actively transform my stained shirts into normal shirts. It's not like having a stain on them causes me pain.

Are you ...
Are you making a fake example or is this true for you?

> We're not talking about changing the characters into something entirely different
But they aren't. The characters are still exactly the same. The visuals are there to help tell the story, not to obsess over as a thing in itself. Within the story, there is no difference.

>All my shirts have stains on them. I just put them in the freezer at night instead of washing them so they don't smell.
That's fucking disgusting.

It works fine, the bacteria that make dirty clothes smell can't survive in the temperatures of a freezer. Look it up.

Within reason. If you want a more specific criterion for what within reason means, a reverse image search still needs to be able to identify the character under different visual qualities for it to count as just a quality change vs. an entirely different image.

What would ever cause you to look that up and how long have you gone without washing your clothes?

>Blu-rays are too expensive to make for such a relatively small market of people with players.

Blu-ray players are super cheap these days and more and more people have them.

"More and more" is still a relatively tiny number. Nearly everyone has a DVD player.

>a reverse image search still needs to be able to identify the character under different visual qualities
Disregarding how this has no relevancy to the point, that's what the nametag is for. Or do you think it couldn't recognize the word "Starfire".

Tell me whats wrong with using stick figures and nametags if visual quality doesn't matter.

I'm sure it does. But that's not what makes me flabbergasted.

You don't need to wash them at all if you put them in the freezer. You're acting like if you say one week or five years it'd make some horrible difference. This is your social brainwashing speaking. The bacteria literally cannot survive in freezer temperatures, there's nothing wrong with using the freezer for that purpose. It works no matter how much it doesn't sync up with your brainwashing.

lack of bacteria =/= clean

Holy shit this isn't 2010 anymore

Movies on blu-ray cost 20 dollars, max. A player is only 100 or so, maybe even less
It's super affordable to upgrade and you won't regret it.

Within reason. If they're entirely different characters that are just labeled with nametags then that would actually begin to interfere with the story.

Here's a new analogy. I don't care how fancy an envelope containing my utility bill looks. But if it's to the point where it's no longer even in an envelope but inside a piece of used toilet paper then it would begin to no longer properly do its job as a medium for that utility bill. This is a completely different situation from going around talking about how you need your envelopes to only ever be made from the highest quality Broussonetia papyrifera trees on the basis that mail is a paper medium.

There are things that you do not want on your skin other than just bacteria, user.

There's a reason they make antibacterial soap.

Like what exactly? The only difference is if you stain your shirt with a drink or something it'll still be there.

Dirt goes from your shirt onto your skin. Including non-bacterial or microbial material. This irritates the skin and can cause things like acne by getting in your pores.

>Within reason
You keep saying this but it is within reason.

>If they're entirely different characters that are just labeled with nametags
They aren''t. They still move the same, act the same, have the same voice actors, and play the same roles. The only difference is that they are now stick figures. The visuals are just a means to the story, are they not? So whats the issue?

Let me counteract your analogy. You are assuming the toilet paper would no longer do its job properly for the bill, but in the scenario I lay down, the toilet paper does its job just as well as any envelope. So who cares if it's wrapped in toilet paper? You definitely shouldn't right?

I don't have acne on my chest and I've been doing this for years.

I'm talking about other people, dumbass. Not myself, I have a player (but no discs, ironically, because virtually no cartoons exist on Blu-ray).

>You live in the same planet as someone who puts their shirts in the freezer

I'm genuinely glad for you, but, the same cannot be said for everyone. It's more than social conditioning.

>it is within reason

It isn't within reason per the reverse image search criterion. A show can (and often will) be broadcast in low quality without people claiming that show has been replaced with a counterfeit. If you were to start broadcasting stick figures on a show that wasn't stick figures before then literally everyone would notice. So that's about as far away from reason as is possible short of not having any imagery at all and just broadcasting audio or text.

>The visuals are just a means to the story, are they not? So whats the issue?

The issue is you're no longer talking about quality, you're talking about actual alteration per the reverse image search criterion. If an objectively operating computer program can no longer identify the stick figures as the same characters, then it's fair to say they aren't the same characters. That interferes with the story. Fuzziness in visual quality while still showing the same characters doesn't interfere with the story. I can't even notice fuzziness unless I'm trying to look for it, whereas you can't not notice stick figure replacement. Two different things.

>Still using reverse search criteria
If the show was broadcasted from the start as stick figures then it would be able to reverse image it. You are also disregarding the fundamental fact that reverse searching isn't infallible, and varies between person to person, which you can tell when people ask for sauce on Sup Forums. This criteria of your is useless in this discussion.

My computer can't tell this is Raven, but I can. Your computer probably can't tell this is Raven, but you can.

Stick figures doesn't interfere with the story as everything is literally the same.

> I can't even notice fuzziness unless I'm trying to look for it,
Not everyone is you. I notice it even without looking for it.

>Stick figures doesn't interfere with the story as everything is literally the same.

It interferes a little bit. I admit I could watch it and it wouldn't be that bad, but it could take me some time to figure out which stick figure is which here and there (even with nametags since you'd have to take a second to read them then and at that point you'd be making it less of a cartoon and more of a book), and that would interfere with the story. In any event this is different from the visual quality increase example because in neither version of visual quality will I ever have trouble identifying which character is which. So here's the point: if I don't have to think about it, then it's fine. It's doing its job by not making me think about it. If you increase the visual quality, I'm not going to think about it even less because I'm already not thinking about it at all. What you're valuing in visual quality is apparently something other than letting you enjoy a show without thinking about it, and I have no idea what that something is.

>slightly increased visual quality?

I own the whole series on DVD. Believe me, it is not a slight increase.

Bumping for interest.

>I have no idea what that something is
It's fucking quality. What we value in visual quality is quality, the principle of something looking nice!

This is a pointless debate because I am now realizing that this entire thing boils down to you not giving a shit about quality. That's what this is and what you need to realize; a lot of people like quality, quality is nice. If something someone likes can have its quality improved, then that's good.

Nice looking things look nice, and people like looking at nice things. It furthers their enjoyment, it enhances the experience. It's that simple.

This, and better yet it's FUCKING BETTER

Do you walk from place to place with 100% perfect efficiency, using only the absolute minimum amount of effort required to move each individual muscle in your body? If not, why not? It's better to do it that way, isn't it? Or maybe even though it's better you don't care because beyond a basic threshold of getting the job done quality improvement doesn't actually add anything to your daily living experience.

>Do you walk from place to place with 100% perfect efficiency, using only the absolute minimum amount of effort required to move each individual muscle in your body? If not, why not?
Because using a car is more efficient you dumbfuck. What the hell kind of analogy is this?

anti-bacterial soap is a literal meme and is extremely dangerous for continued human habitation of the Earth

I'm not talking about car sized trips, I'm talking about when you walk. Or do you not even walk to get sandwiches from the other room?

not them but I don't walk for entertainment but if I did I probably would try to so I could have fun trying it

To begin with, that was the most retarded analogy I have ever heard. Are you seriously trying to compare quality of life to quality within an entertainment medium? You are retarded. Also, it's true that I don't walk with 100% efficiency when I walk, but it's dumb to say that if I did my life wouldn't be improved. That's downright wrong.

I'll try and make this plain and simple again. Entertainment was made for us to enjoy. Now combine that with
>Nice looking things look nice, and people like looking at nice things. It furthers their enjoyment, it enhances the experience. It's that simple.
So if we make more quality entertainment, then people will enjoy it more, and the entertainment will be doing its job better of entertaining us.

People like quality, but you don't care. That's why you can't understand it.

>Exactly. It's just the medium, not the story itself. The visuals are there to help tell the story, not to obsess over as a thing in itself.
The medium defines the type of story you can tell. Teen Titans would not be the same story if it weren't animated. The visuals are important because animation is a visual medium, just as the actors and set are important in a play or the use of language is important for a book. Where you draw the line is perhaps a matter of subjective taste; some people don't mind a poorly-produced play or a sloppily-edited novel. Others prefer a higher level of production quality. That's all fine. What I take issue with is your implication that visual quality doesn't matter at all in a visual medium. That's just wrong.

The entertainment detail doesn't really matter, you could easily come up with the same basic analogy by replacing walking with eating ice cream (for fun, not to keep from starving to death). You wouldn't sit there trying to get 100% maximum enjoyment out of every little contact of ice cream with your tongue, would you? There's a threshold of good enough where the ice cream eating process is doing its job at being enjoyable, and increasing quality just for the sake of increasing quality wouldn't really add anything to the experience.

>muh story
>not caring about the visuals first and foremost
Holy shit, do I hate people like you.

Why don't you just go to a museum and look at paintings then?

Not an argument.
And maybe I will.

See you are still doing it
>There's a threshold of good enough
And yours is clearly low compared to the others. And there isn't anything wrong with wanting to make 'good enough' into 'great'.

> increasing quality just for the sake of increasing quality wouldn't really add anything to the experience.
That's it. I'm done. You are either dumber than a brick or one of the smartest trolls on Sup Forums. Either way, I can't do this anymore.

Remember the first time BTVS aired in HD and they screwed up a lot of the framing and all of the night lighting effects that had been applied in post?

>never washing your clothes
>storing them in your fucking freezer

This thread was a mistake.