[MOVIE/PACK] 007 James Bond Complete Set 1962-2015 1080p BluRay x264-ETRG (46.8 GB)

iPhunwa2 | 94 points | May 19 2017 12:26:15

[MOVIE/PACK] 007 James Bond Complete Set 1962-2015 1080p BluRay x264-ETRG (46.8 GB) | Megalinks MegaDB [MOVIE/PACK] 007 James Bond Complete Set 1962-2015 1080p BluRay x264-ETRG (46.8 GB)

Link: | Megalinks MegaDB Link: CLICK HERE | Megalinks MegaDB CLICK HERE

Information: | Megalinks MegaDB Information:

Video | Megalinks MegaDB Video
Format : MP4 / x264 / [email protected]
Bitrate : 2000 Kbps
Frame Rate : 23,976 fps
Audio | Megalinks MegaDB Audio
Format : AAC or AC3
Bitrate : 96 Kbps
Channels : 2 Channels
Sample Rate : 48 KHz
Language : English

Movies included: | Megalinks MegaDB Movies included:

Dr. No, 1962, 
From Russia With Love, 1963, 
Goldfinger, 1964, 
Thunderball, 1965, 
You Only Live Twice, 1967, 
On Her Majesty's Secret Service, 1969, 
Diamonds Are Forever, 1971, 
Live and Let Die, 1973, 
The Man with the Golden Gun, 1974, 
The Spy Who Loved Me, 1977, 
Moonraker, 1979, 
For Your Eyes Only, 1981, 
Never Say Never Again, 1983, 
Octopussy, 1983, 
A View To A Kill, 1985, 
The Living Daylights, 1987, 
Licence to Kill, 1989, 
Goldeneye, 1995, 
Tomorrow Never Dies, 1997, 
The World is Not Enough, 1999, 
Die Another Day, 2002, 
Casino Royale, 2006, 
Quantum of Solace, 2008, 
Skyfall, 2012, 
Spectre, 2015

FAQ

What is this link?

Its a link protector hiding the actual MEGA link. Open the link above and enter the captcha to get access to the file/folder. If you're using JDownloader, simply copy the link and it should decrypt the link by itself without you having to enter the captcha.

Are the files RAR'd?

In most cases they are. I run a script that changes the md5 hash of the files, renames them and RAR's them automatically. This is done in order to protect the files from being taken down earlier. If you have an issue with the files being RAR'd I suggest you look elsewhere.

Would a re-upload be possible?

I'm sorry but I don't keep back ups of the files once they're uploaded. I would suggest you import the file/folder before downloading them, just to have a copy on your account.

Do you take requests?

I don't take requests personally, but I do go through the weekly request thread from time to time and try to fill as many requests as I can. Before making a request, make sure you use the search to look for if something has already been posted or not.

[-] elitenls | 11 points | May 19 2017 20:17:11

I'm going to start out by saying thank you OP, this is effing awesome | Megalinks MegaDB thank you OP, this is effing awesome even though I'm not going to grab these. I have an an honest question, so please don't take it as criticism.

In this day and age, why the hell is anyone still using x264 to encode anything? I mean, each one of these files is what, 1.5-2.5GB, right? If they were done in 25RF HEVC (x265) they'd be between 500-800MB and the same quality.

It just doesn't make sense to me - but I'm sure one of the nice people here could give me an explanation. It's like the 1080p newer movies out running 8-10GB each, when they could be < 1GB HEVC. It just boggles my mind. :(

[-] stuey909 | 8 points | May 20 2017 00:20:41

I like x264 because it means i can play it on my ps4 without having to convert it.

[-] TubbyBud | 2 points | May 19 2017 21:01:55

I feel like a complete noob asking this, but what is the difference between x265 and x264, other than file size as you mention?

[-] Bonpar | 5 points | May 19 2017 22:24:37

check out Tigole's x265 encodes of James Bond collection, perfect

[-] pmetel | 1 points | May 20 2017 14:19:25

i think its down :(

[-] Bonpar | 5 points | May 20 2017 14:26:37

oh my bad, sorry, I meant apekat, they work together now, search on (for example) torrentproject(dot)se for james bond apekat, but of course I dont encourage you to download these torrents because piracy is bad

[-] elitenls | 1 points | May 19 2017 21:16:00

Efficiency in lower bit rate and file size is really the only difference.

[-] IgnoreMyName | 2 points | May 19 2017 21:53:35

I did not know that. I thought x264 was better because of the bigger file size files had. If I were to download Interstellar 10gb in x264 and x265, you're saying they would look and sound exactly the same? Granted they came from the same source file and encoded in x264 or x265?

[-] Bonpar | 5 points | May 19 2017 22:22:56

No, x265 would have better video quality

[-] IgnoreMyName | 3 points | May 19 2017 22:23:55

Shiiiiet. Better video quality AND smaller file size? What is this wizardry??

[-] Bonpar | 5 points | May 19 2017 22:40:24

dont get me wrong, if you have a 10 GB x265 movie and 10 GB x264 movie, x265 movie would have much better video quality (depends on encoder)

but if you have for example 5 GB x265 movie and 10 GB x264 movie, the quality would be the same (also depends on the encoder)

[-] elitenls | 3 points | May 20 2017 00:02:03

Exactly; this is why I posed the question. Since Joy and Shaanig, and UTR in general started doing nothing but x265 (well Shaanig still does both), I started questioning why the whole Scene didn't switch its standards. I mean I get the rules - but I don't get why they don't update.

HEVC has been mainstream for like two years now. I'm not going to re-encode my BluRay collection for Plex because it'll take too damn long, but I'd love to see huge sources of x265 BluRays out there that I could replace the x264 rips that I've accumulated.

I rarely even open the BluRays I buy anymore. LOL

[-] elitenls | 3 points | May 20 2017 00:05:53

The answer to your question is MPEG-2 vs MP3 (I don't know how old you are, but if you were around in '98-'99, this was huge). It's a more efficient codec, so it loses a fuck ton less of the data when converting, and combines the bits better.

Ever watch Silicon Valley? It's like Pied Piper. The algorithm for condensing the files is better written (in the case of x264 vs x265, it's a natural progression as it's an iteration of the main scheme, just like MPEG-2 to MP3). 😊

[-] IgnoreMyName | 2 points | May 20 2017 00:25:11

Gotcha. Thank you for the explanation.

[-] ipaqmaster | 2 points | May 24 2017 02:14:05

Unfortunately x265 is fucking fantastic, but even at my parents house I've had this issue. Nothing in the theatre room supports it. Fucking nothing. None of the SONY/LG/Something that browses DLNA can play it back. And I tell you it works wonders for cartoons considering static backgrounds and all make it easy/low moving parts compared to an actual movie...

But the truth is, it's good, but not everywhere yet, and not as easy. Even then, x265 takes more effort to Encode, AND Decode... so not every device that CAN play it back, will have a good time (tried plex-web'ing on an old 3G iPhone and 2G iPad over wifi with a x265 video a while back, frame loss everywhere with 1080p footage and very warm.. poor iDevices)

It's great for content junkies and myself in this case with Plex, servers and a nice tv to play it back on via the app (Which allows conversion if needed) but most little media boxes or DTVs, anything that scans network only supports DLNA which is just pretty much a directory listing and doesn't give plex the opportunity to convert stuff down.

A real "Support it or no playback." scenario we're in with x265 at the moment. Even if a software update came out, it's possible many devices still couldn't pull the weight too.. so it's really annoying.

Unfortunately, where there's space, settle for x264.. for compatibility reasons at the moment.. (Or build your own media center and not buy those premade dtv boxes etc) but non-enthusiasts typically don't do that.