QueenZone discussion #1423234

BETA215 wrote: A shame it's too big, I can't handle it. ;)

Marknow wrote: Sounds like the piano goes as bit silly around 1:42 for a moment, listen from 1:35 - 1:45 and compare it to the released version. There is an extra piano note in there, maybe just a brush off a key? just as they fade in to Freddie on the piano, It's not in the released version.

Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote: May you all die in agony, except for Chiefmouse a little slower. Because the Chief needs to use Hitachi Magic wand (google it your wife knows for sure) Linaege : 2" pal video> studio transfer >queenzone>yourpatheticcollection :-)

alberbal12 wrote:

Marknow wrote: Sounds like the piano goes as bit silly around 1:42 for a moment, listen from 1:35 - 1:45 and compare it to the released version. There is an extra piano note in there, maybe just a brush off a key? just as they fade in to Freddie on the piano, It's not in the released version.

I said a long time before to Ghostwithasmile is BACK!, and he told me that the tape is as he transfer it. So maybe this can be a "different" version or maybe a fail in the tape. I suppose it,

Barry Durex wrote: Thanks for sharing you ugly fat bastard. What software are you guys using to play it? VLC doesn't seem able to handle it, or perhaps it's my CPU.

people on streets wrote: I use vlc and it plays fine. Maybe you need a plugin or so?

Barry Durex wrote:

people on streets wrote: I use vlc and it plays fine. Maybe you need a plugin or so?

I think it may be down to my old PC, although it plays 1080p mkv just fine. Do you know what ''plugins'' I might try?

Barry Durex wrote: Thanks Mark. I tried it but does not work either, breaking up etc. I'm pretty sure this massive file needs a faster CPU than I have.

Marknow wrote: Did you try Quicktime? https://www.apple.com/ie/quicktime/download/

brians wig wrote: Has anyone actually tried watching it on their TV set (assume you all know what one of those is?) through a media player? It astounds me that people only seem to watch videos on their computers.

Barry Durex wrote:

Marknow wrote: Did you try Quicktime? https://www.apple.com/ie/quicktime/download/

I'd rather forgo the file than install quickshit, LOL!

brians wig wrote: Has anyone actually tried watching it on their TV set (assume you all know what one of those is?) through a media player? It astounds me that people only seem to watch videos on their computers.

Barry Durex wrote:

people on streets wrote: I use vlc and it plays fine. Maybe you need a plugin or so?

I think it may be down to my old PC, although it plays 1080p mkv just fine. Do you know what ''plugins'' I might try?

Barry Durex wrote:

brians wig wrote: Has anyone actually tried watching it on their TV set (assume you all know what one of those is?) through a media player? It astounds me that people only seem to watch videos on their computers.

How sarky.

Marknow wrote: Sounds like the piano goes as bit silly around 1:42 for a moment, listen from 1:35 - 1:45 and compare it to the released version. There is an extra piano note in there, maybe just a brush off a key? just as they fade in to Freddie on the piano, It's not in the released version.

brians wig wrote: Has anyone actually tried watching it on their TV set (assume you all know what one of those is?) through a media player? It astounds me that people only seem to watch videos on their computers. Plays fine on my PC. Has everyone got FFDshow filters installed?

Raptor711 wrote: Could anyone share as a torrent, my conection interrumpts many time by the server and finally conclude it , when i unzip in sent me an error message , thanx!

The Real Wizard wrote:

Raptor711 wrote: Could anyone share as a torrent, my conection interrumpts many time by the server and finally conclude it , when i unzip in sent me an error message , thanx!

Hey Raptor - any word on the first gens of the Mexico '81 tapes?

Carlos Rivera wrote: People i see you have problems about download. So If you want the orginal file, here you have link Regards.

people on streets wrote:

Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote: May you all die in agony, except for Chiefmouse a little slower. Because the Chief needs to use Hitachi Magic wand (google it your wife knows for sure) Linaege : 2" pal video> studio transfer >queenzone>yourpatheticcollection :-)

Most people I know who talk this way are ugly and fat. And probably sexually frustrated. Not saying you are. Just saying. Thanks for the share though. Free rarities are always welcome!

Chief Mouse wrote: Ghost gave me a green light to share my 'enhancement' with you (as if it needed it be enhanced, it's pretty much perfect!). To be honest, it was done a while ago, for his TV documentary project as well as this comparison which was made purely to illustrate the differences. .

Raptor711 wrote: I need to search into a sea of tapes to find it :/ thats the reason why ive not shared yet

Mr.QueenFan wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote: Ghost gave me a green light to share my 'enhancement' with you (as if it needed it be enhanced, it's pretty much perfect!). To be honest, it was done a while ago, for his TV documentary project as well as this comparison which was made purely to illustrate the differences. .

Thanks a lot for sharing this version. It looks fantastic! You have a very experienced eye for videos. If you hadn't bring my attention to those colour spots on the Ghost's version i would have never notice it. Obviously, i need to raise my standarts when it comes to videos :-) And by the way, i think that it's amazing that you can cut more than 2,5 GB out of the video and still maintain information for it to be better looking than the original. And congratulations for your participation on the Dutch Queen documentary. It was very nice of the Ghost to remember a fellow Queenzoner for the project. Thanks again to both of you for this gem.

Chief Mouse wrote: Yes, his video is almost perfect. Those colour spots are classical "rainbows". Most old footage have this to an extent. And yeah, that's the power of H.264 :-) I could encode it to MPEG-2 with bitrate and filesize twice as big and it still would look 3 times worse compression-wise.

aristide1 wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote: Yes, his video is almost perfect. Those colour spots are classical "rainbows". Most old footage have this to an extent. And yeah, that's the power of H.264 :-) I could encode it to MPEG-2 with bitrate and filesize twice as big and it still would look 3 times worse compression-wise.

You are right in principle. But this is Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) not H.264. HOW and WHY would you make a MPEG-2 at 120 Mbps? Just to prove it's a stupid thing? Well... it is. I am surprised to see this pro transfer of a pro tape. In fact it's more like a archival backup, not a common transfer. Not sure if the owner specified the format or the technician decided by himself. Maybe he is a queen fan too (or just a fan of quality image).

Chief Mouse wrote: Ghost gave me a green light to share my 'enhancement' with you (as if it needed it be enhanced, it's pretty much perfect!). To be honest, it was done a while ago, for his TV documentary project as well as this comparison which was made purely to illustrate the differences. Note: deinterlaced to double fps https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/e281/4c7rafj5ve9r95w7g.jpg" border="0" alt="Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire" /> https://mega.co.nz/#!TBFSySBL!sEG7eO3swWX9yKSCHlZaPOHbsc-KNm5N6MQycm6qqoo .

Chief Mouse wrote:

aristide1 wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote: Yes, his video is almost perfect. Those colour spots are classical "rainbows". Most old footage have this to an extent. And yeah, that's the power of H.264 :-) I could encode it to MPEG-2 with bitrate and filesize twice as big and it still would look 3 times worse compression-wise.

You are right in principle. But this is Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) not H.264. HOW and WHY would you make a MPEG-2 at 120 Mbps? Just to prove it's a stupid thing? Well... it is. I am surprised to see this pro transfer of a pro tape. In fact it's more like a archival backup, not a common transfer. Not sure if the owner specified the format or the technician decided by himself. Maybe he is a queen fan too (or just a fan of quality image).

Nothing to do with the original MOV file. I was discussing my version with MrQueenFan. Comparing the bitrate and filesize of my MKV version had I made an MPG file of this. I don't remember the exact bitrate anymore, it was likely around 4,5-5,5 Mbps. And DVD files are usually 8-9.8 Mbps (thus twice as big filesize) and still look much worse than H.264 compression-wise. With this I was trying to prove that MPEG2 (DVD) compression sucks compared to H.264. Not sure how this slipped past you - I thought the meaning was clear.

Chief Mouse wrote: Ghost gave me a green light to share my 'enhancement' with you (as if it needed it be enhanced, it's pretty much perfect!). To be honest, it was done a while ago, for his TV documentary project as well as this comparison which was made purely to illustrate the differences. Note: deinterlaced to double fps https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/e281/4c7rafj5ve9r95w7g.jpg" border="0" alt="Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire" /> https://mega.co.nz/#!TBFSySBL!sEG7eO3swWX9yKSCHlZaPOHbsc-KNm5N6MQycm6qqoo .

aristide1 wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote:

aristide1 wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote:

Only for this time, can't you just forget about "your version", spare us of the before-after pictures, and enjoy the video as it is?

tomchristie22 wrote: Can't say I'm a fan of the boosted framerate on the Chief Mouse version, but nice touch-up otherwise. Many thanks to both of you for sharing!

tomchristie22 wrote: Well, it's an artificial effect, but I wouldn't fault it for that if I liked the way it looks. I guess it's just a case of it looking 'cheap' as a result of the framerate being higher than usual (an argument which pertains more to film usually). Whether it's a matter of 60fps inherently looking 'too smooth' and resultantly displeasing to the human eye (I'm sure anyone who saw The Hobbit in 48 fps understands the resulting dizziness in the moving shots), or just that we're used to lower framerates in video presentation, I don't know.

pittrek wrote:

tomchristie22 wrote: Can't say I'm a fan of the boosted framerate on the Chief Mouse version, but nice touch-up otherwise. Many thanks to both of you for sharing!

I'm not a big fan of it too. If it was shot on PAL video, why convert it to something else? But the cleanup is great as usual

Chief Mouse wrote: But you're wrong there though, about the artificial matter. As well as it is still PAL and not converted as Pittrek suggested. It is merely a simple deinterlacing when done the way it's supposed to be done. There are 2 fields of picture per one frame. What deinterlacing does is separate them thus making two individual frames. So nothing artificial there - it's all real information that's on the video file. (A comment for Nitroboy - blending is a way of deinterlacing but it's the worst way. Separating fields is the way to go :) Anyway, I see what you mean.) Usually what I do (most of the times to save file space or if the source is film) is making it like this (double FPS) and drop every second or first frame thus making it 25 FPS progressive (or 29.97 NTSC, depends on your video). Why make it double FPS on first hand? Because that's what deinterlacers do. You can choose afterwards whether you like it smoother or not. When I don't want it smoother, I add this line to my Avisynth script "SelectEven()" or "SelectOdd()" - doesn't really matter that much which one you choose but you can probably see what these mean, you're selecting every other frame (dropping the other ones). My point is that, this is natural not artificial and the look or effect is to blame, since you're just not used to it. This is NOT the same thing as adding fake frames which I did for stuff like St Paul and San Francisco (8 mm films which are originally about 18 FPS and look jerky). Nothing fake here, just working with what we got - the fields. Anyway, it is easily fixed, just convert it to 25 FPS with some sort of software. Or if you're familiar with Avisynth, you can add SelectEven() in your script. I hope I made sense!

peckery wrote: Sorry for wasting time if this has been said before (I tried a "search" first) but I'd love to see what the Chief could do with Earl's Court 77. Pittrek did a very good job a few years ago but maybe various aspects could be "enhanced" eg clarity of detail. I know it would be a huge job but maybe it could be done gradually, with the aim of making it a Christmas present .... Likewise Houston 77. I remember that one being good quality but again, maybe there is room for improvement.... Just an idea....