All Final Round Masters Rounds from 1968 Onward

[MuniGrit]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

I love how some people say that as if it’s a negative.

It's not a negative but it is what it is. Not sure why some people fight it so much.  There is a difference in being down 53 and 55 since you actually had to stop and sleep on it. In Tiger's case it is similar to how MJ never played in a game 7 finals.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

It's not a negative but it is what it is. Not sure why some people fight it so much.  There is a difference in being down 53 and 55 since you actually had to stop and sleep on it. In Tiger's case it is similar to how MJ never played in a game 7 finals.

You only say it because it’s said as a slight negative. The Jack comparison makes that more obvious.

[MuniGrit]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

You only say it because it’s said as a slight negative. The Jack comparison makes that more obvious.

 

[iacas]

Then why mention it? We all know it.

Exactly.

[MuniGrit]

21 minutes ago, iacas said:

Then why my ruin it? We all know it.

Exactly.

You would have to ask the guy who brought it up first.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, MuniGrit said:

You would have to ask the guy who brought it up first.

You were the one harping on it again. Comparing it to 1986.

@brocks mentioned it because of those like you who like to mention it as a negative.

[jamo]

I really wish the other majors would do this.

[nevets88]

Obviously they're doing this for promotional purposes but I wonder how much of it is they don't like people uploading their own recordings, people watching on unofficial sources. 

There are more and more videos of all sorts of tournaments on YouTube out there and it's probably going to be a bigger problem (for TPTB) in the future. 

[nevets88]

Interesting watching 2005, not sure if it occurred before in 2004 or earlier, but you notice the mix between SD and HD cameras. They'll have on the same shot, an HD camera on one angle and an SD on another. I noticed this in 2005 too. Man, SD is utter crap. My eyes started to bleed. How did we manage? 

[iacas]

51 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Interesting watching 2005, not sure if it occurred before in 2004 or earlier, but you notice the mix between SD and HD cameras. They'll have on the same shot, an HD camera on one angle and an SD on another. I noticed this in 2005 too. Man, SD is utter crap. My eyes started to bleed. How did we manage? 

You think that's bad…

 

[nevets88]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

You think that's bad…

 

Ouch. I could have sworn the broadcasts I watched in real time were better quality than some of the YT vids, no wonder.

I wonder if TPTB might be opening a Pandora's Box. You get people used to broadcasts with no commercials, they'll be less tolerant of ads in the future?

[iacas]

1987 tops out at 640 x 480 (or 650):

[youtube] PreYFbNZpVU: Downloading webpage
[youtube] PreYFbNZpVU: Downloading video info webpage
[youtube] PreYFbNZpVU: Extracting video information
[info] Available formats for PreYFbNZpVU:
format code  extension  resolution note
249          webm       audio only DASH audio   70k , opus @ 50k, 69.72MiB
250          webm       audio only DASH audio   83k , opus @ 70k, 86.56MiB
140          m4a        audio only DASH audio  139k , m4a_dash container, mp4a.40.2@128k, 193.07MiB
171          webm       audio only DASH audio  164k , vorbis@128k, 166.56MiB
251          webm       audio only DASH audio  165k , opus @160k, 170.07MiB
160          mp4        194x144    144p  135k , avc1.4d400c, 30fps, video only, 99.30MiB
278          webm       194x144    144p  136k , webm container, vp9, 30fps, video only, 104.83MiB
242          webm       324x240    240p  220k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 202.87MiB
133          mp4        324x240    240p  233k , avc1.4d400d, 30fps, video only, 218.40MiB
243          webm       488x360    360p  466k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 370.64MiB
134          mp4        488x360    360p  488k , avc1.4d401e, 30fps, video only, 431.12MiB
244          webm       650x480    480p  706k , vp9, 30fps, video only, 675.98MiB
135          mp4        650x480    480p  897k , avc1.4d401e, 30fps, video only, 885.04MiB
17           3gp        176x144    small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2@ 24k
36           3gp        320x238    small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2
18           mp4        486x360    medium , avc1.42001E, mp4a.40.2@ 96k
43           webm       640x360    medium , vp8.0, vorbis@128k (best)

 

[nevets88]

I'm expecting some video whizzes to make some cool mashups, remixes or some kind of cool edits with all this material.

[colin007]

Weird...they took down 2002...any reason for that??

[nevets88]

2 hours ago, colin007 said:

Weird...they took down 2002...any reason for that??

It's not listed, which is weird, but it's there. Might be editing or something. Ah, they uploaded a better quality video it seems. Guess enough people were complaining about their eyes bleeding.

 

[jamo]

39 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

It's not listed, which is weird, but it's there. Might be editing or something. Ah, they uploaded a better quality video it seems. Guess enough people were complaining about their eyes bleeding.

2002 was the only one that I tried to download a week ago that wasn't at least in 720p, so it makes sense that they rey-loaded it. 

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, jamo said:

2002 was the only one that I tried to download a week ago that wasn't at least in 720p, so it makes sense that they rey-loaded it. 

This. I’ll have to get the newer version here soon.

[Dr. Manhattan]

On 3/22/2018 at 10:10 AM, iacas said:

You think that's bad…

 

 

Haha, they listened. Much better copy of it on there now.