Talk:R5 (bootleg)

Untitled
The comment that DVD screeners are the chief source of pre-DVD release pirated movies has not been verified. As a matter of fact, an article has been published by Wired Magazine that states that high-quality pirated copies of many popular movies appear on the internet before the DVD screener is released. I think that the author should cite their source for their information. 24.21.8.150 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)DF
 * If you're really looking for citations check http://www.vcdq.com/index.php for yourself. Only telecines/workprints could possibly have r5/dvdscreener quality but those are sooo rare. If you feel like it scroll through a few hundred releases and check how often a TC/WP was available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfak wenwfksdfa (talk • contribs) 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed...pirated telecine's are a dying breed. And workprints, we're lucky if we get one-two per year of a decent film...even so, most workprints are sub-par quality wise.  But I guess it all depends on what your definition of "high-quality" is...if you think a telesync is high quality (which is probably what the MPAA wants new media to think ie. Wired Magazine) then okay..but if you actually download TS's you would know that most of them are absolute garbage.  It's very rare to get a good quality TS...they do exist (for example, the deju vu telesync by the group ORC, best TS i've ever seen in my life) but it's extremelt unlikely for this to happen.98.118.165.224 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)surge


 * Don't confuse TeleCine with TeleSync, it's not the same thing. A Telecine is a wet gate scanned copy of a film, often from the end phases of cutting the movie or from the copying of the original to cinema copies of the film and for the production of DVD screeners. a TeleSync is basicly a Crappy cam with the audio ripped directly from source at the cinema.
 * TeleCine is usually good quality when produced, 2000k or 4000k resolution where every frame is a keyframe, this is then made into something usable for digital NLE editing and then reprinted using an ARRI laserprinter on to new cinema grade stock. Thats when someone intercepts and copies the chit, and re-encode it into something practical and small, like a MPEG4 of some sort. This bootleg can be of hicher quality than the crap they send out as screener DVDs or even the cinema grade film copies. These are rare gems and they were rare even back when the Studios had no idea of what the word "Security" meant (They still dont but thats an other story).
 * /// Danyaelx (forgott to sign this, dont usually edit Wikipedia)

I suspect this is all BS
It's very possible R5 is just a very polished - Organized-crime supported - version of a common DVD screener or good TELECINE. The fact that NFO files from some teams state 'those are legal' can not be trusted unquestionably. I suspect those are just the same guys releasing TELECINES for years that just got 'smart' and made it organized. There are no sources of American Studios confirming this and frankly, it looks bizarre. Why would they go into such an underground ninja operation just to benefit the Russian market? It is only a minor market. And even if it was only an 'experiment', there are countries way more secure to do experiments since Russia aren't in the best terms with US. This is clearly fishy and it sounds like a scum by 'scene' teams going organized in russia. Still speculation of course but do take it into account. This is wikipedia relying on sources and frankly your sources are _very_ questionable. review them. --Leladax (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * i.e. to Elaborate:

--Leladax (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Get TELECINEs out for years (by ripping in a common Local Cinema)
 * Realize you can make direct profit out of it
 * Stop releasing them on the internet first
 * Call them R5 (Or have some idiot call them 'R5' since they don't understand what's going on)
 * 'Beat the other pirates' by having the TELECINEs first out
 * Profit
 * But that’s exactly what the article is saying: That they are created by the organized crime: The media reproduction and artist extortion mafia. Otherwise known as the “movie studios”.
 * Also, relying on “sources” is like “Oh, you just wrote it here on this site, so it’s unreliable and worthless. Buuut, if you put it on another site, that site looks (note: not is) like “serious business”, you use another name, and mention that one, then suddenly it becomes reliable and completely acceptable!”. Now that’s just beyond completely retarded! In fact it is well known as the ad populum fallacy. Only completely blind cattle people or total retards rely on “sources”. Also only people that dumb are so egocentric, to think that their own trust in some “sources” means, that everyone else thinks exactly the same. This is especially bad with cattle people who think what is their leader’s view/opinion, would be their own. They don’t even know what a trustworthy source is, when it bites them in the ass! Yet, they assume it’s good for everyone else on the whole freaking planet! Get some fucking perspective! “Sources” are completely and utterly worthless! Either you checked it with your own eyes, and subtracted the distortion of those senses from it, and acknowledged, that their brains distorted it even further by the very definition of how they work, or you don’t know shit!
 * With the rest, you’re only a MAFIAA troll, spreading the usual FUD.
 * So GTFO our Internet!
 * — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are talking crap and speculating like hell. If you read the telecine article or check your favorite predb, then you can read/know that TC releases are not that common. I think you confuse it with TS, where the source is a camcorder. The so called TC and TS are the bootleg releases the studio's want to compete, by providing a higher quality copy to sell.
 * Your elaboration is incorrect. There are many different groups that have released R5's. See . Don't try to find conspiracy theories where there are none.
 * I got some reading for you:
 * http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081204011229AAYDgaL (nice answer + it cites the original source for the scene R5 tag)
 * http://forum.dvdtalk.com/international-dvd-talk/508251-early-released-russian-dvds-hollywood-films-no-english-audio-options.html (the best: a discussion with Russians, especially this post)
 * http://www.ultimateavmag.com/news/041204dvds/ (predates R5 + New York Times article with the idea of cheaper dvd's)
 * http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/what-does-r5-mean/ (already as source, but read the comment)
 * To conclude, I do think you have a point by saying there are no sources from studios. It would be nice to have these. I think we need to search in the Russian language for these. But the sources from the scene are accurate: the R5 tag exists and is used for those dvd sources. Also, you don't give me sources that calls this BS. --Ondertitel (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't insult my intelligence. I know well what a telesync is. Before calling people stupid first read the arguments. --Leladax (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, good job giving completely unreliable evidence once more hence proving my point. Yahoo answers? That's comedic at least. --Leladax (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You already insulted your own “intelligence” enough yourself, by spewing above bullshit. — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It was hard, but I found reliable sources. Now I'm sure you talked crap. I didn't call you stupid, but your reasoning was way off because TC is so rare (and the confusion with TS is very common). I was well aware of your arguments/speculation. Still, you were right for asking better sources. Next time, try to be a bit more constructive. --Ondertitel (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * oh I'm very constructive; giving a detailed account, in spite of wikipedia having this unreliable page for so long, of why r5 may be a creation of organized crime and not anything legal created by studios that never confirm it themselves. Would it be 'constructive' to bury my head in the sand and repeat the same unsubstantiated ideas? --Leladax (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, the chief source in this topic is a blog. The fact that it has 'cnn' in its hostname doesn't stop making it a blog. --Leladax (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there's a report of 169 pages titled THE FILM INDUSTRY IN THE FEDERATION OF RUSSIA A report for the European Audiovisual Observatory by Nevafilm with contributions from RFilms. Second, there is a Russian news article. Both good sources. Now we've established that those early disks exist. Next, there is an established scene group called PUKKA that decided to tag these releases R5. This is backed by the nfo on vcdquality, a reputable site with nfo's from scene releases. Next, there are blogs/piracy oriented news sites (I don't call them blogs as they are run by multiple people) that confirm this. Next, there is an article of release dates of R5 disks where they try to predict the release dates:  You can verify yourself that they weren't that much off: . Sometimes early, sometimes late.
 * The reason I think that there are no English news sources confirming this is the following: the big studios don't distribute the movies themselves in Russia. They gave it in license and the pressing plants are now in Russia itself to reduce the cost (transport) and to be faster: illegal bootleg releases are really early in Russia. Also, the Russian market is very different than the US or Europe. I now know this because I read about the Russian situation when searching for reliable sources. Also, check the report if you want it detailed.
 * Next, I did not write the article. I provided the sources and removed some duplicate crap, therefor I see no reason to doubt it's factual accuracy, especially when I read a forum topic of Russians discussing the situation. Yes, ~80% of all DVDs sold in Russia are illegal, thus it's organized. That's why you try to brew your conspiracy theory.
 * You never said something about my two new sources. You didn't provide contradictory sources, nor did anyone else. I see no one else here doubting this, nor on those blogs. The way you talk and what you write makes me think you are a troll. --Ondertitel (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * personally attacking someone as troll doesn't make the case clearer. --Leladax (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * He only stated a fact. He only guessed it. But I second his opinion. Get back to snorting cocaine in your movie executive office. Or how about actually creating a movie that is worth some money, instead of threatening and attacking your own clients?? I’ve worked in that industry, and I’ve seen too many of your type. You’ll destroy yourself with that behavior. And that’s a good thing.
 * — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)