CosmosTales 03.03.2012 14:26 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2O6sCOUGOE&lc=Ap4yYGfLdWXEFkAxmMWjwUv_zpR21FV4kgkyq6d8AoA&feature=inbox |
Kacio 03.03.2012 14:44 |
official release of the DVD is in a better quality This is a youtube video of Grey denatured |
deleted user 03.03.2012 14:45 |
Try a google search for a laserdisc rip. |
people on streets 03.03.2012 15:08 |
indeed. Laserdisc rip is the best so far. |
Hangman_96 03.03.2012 15:49 |
I hope they release it in Blu-ray some day. |
deleted user 03.03.2012 16:56 |
people on streets wrote: indeed. Laserdisc rip is the best so far.One in particular |
CosmosTales 03.03.2012 19:06 |
Amazing, i wasn't aware of the quality of this "Laserdisc versions"... All queen live shows should have been commercialized with this quality....?? |
madmetaltom 03.03.2012 20:28 |
Laserdisc FTW! |
inu-liger 03.03.2012 21:30 |
"Best Image Quality that i ever saw" That should actually read as: "Best image quality that I've ever seen" :) |
Gaabiizz 04.03.2012 02:03 |
inu-liger wrote: "Best Image Quality that i ever saw" That should actually read as: "Best image quality that I've ever seen" :) |
people on streets 04.03.2012 14:40 |
Kurgan wrote:Mine has this menu. Is this the one? Or is there a better one?people on streets wrote: indeed. Laserdisc rip is the best so far.One in particular |
deleted user 04.03.2012 16:18 |
Menu |
CosmosTales 05.03.2012 00:41 |
That should actually read as: "Best image quality that I've ever seen" Corrected :-( Sorry for my "stupid" bad english, i was going to write "seen" for the present but Queen shows like Budapeste took me back to the "past" :-) |
CosmosTales 05.03.2012 00:51 |
official release of the DVD is in a better quality This is a youtube video of Grey denatured It will be this year? If no where can i get a Laserdisc version from a secure seller on the web with the quality of this video? Thank you all |
pittrek 05.03.2012 03:02 |
Kacio wrote: official release of the DVD is in a better quality This is a youtube video of Grey denatured There is no official DVD of Budapest 86 |
pittrek 05.03.2012 03:04 |
Lostman wrote: I hope they release it in Blu-ray some day. No. They don't have the original negative anymore (at least a few years ago a certain Queenzone member claimed he didn't find it - he was supposed to find it for QP |
john bodega 05.03.2012 05:58 |
I'm not really crazy about any more 80's releases. I just wish they'd pull a finger out and get some fucking 70's stuff out the door. |
Makka 05.03.2012 07:54 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I'm not really crazy about any more 80's releases. I just wish they'd pull a finger out and get some fucking 70's stuff out the door.This is what I'm talkin' about! Just wish they'd fucken do it! |
KevoM 05.03.2012 08:15 |
Anything looks 'clear' at 360p !! |
The Real Wizard 05.03.2012 11:21 |
Makka wrote:And this is the year it's gonna happen. Trust me.Zebonka12 wrote: I'm not really crazy about any more 80's releases. I just wish they'd pull a finger out and get some fucking 70's stuff out the door.This is what I'm talkin' about! Just wish they'd fucken do it! |
deleted user 05.03.2012 11:31 |
I can't see it myself, what ever happened to the Hammersmith 75 release we were promised? |
The Real Wizard 05.03.2012 12:31 |
It may come this year. Not sure if that one is on the list, but there are releases planned. All we can do is wait and see. Personally, I'd prefer to see other 70s shows. After hearing the new audio mix of Hammersmith, I still prefer the TV broadcasts. |
on my way up 05.03.2012 13:35 |
I watched Hammy'79 last weekend and that one released - when done properly - would be the live release of all live releases. It has it all: tight and frantic sounding band (the faster songs), Freddie truly delivering the songs both vocally and performancewise (STL, WATC etc.), Roger with a astonishing version of I'm in love with my car, Freddie on superman shoulders:-), Brian playing silent night,... Earls Court, Hyde Park and Houston would be very lovely releases aswel... |
MERQRY 05.03.2012 19:08 |
on my way up wrote: I watched Hammy'79 last weekend and that one released - when done properly - would be the live release of all live releases. It has it all: tight and frantic sounding band (the faster songs), Freddie truly delivering the songs both vocally and performancewise (STL, WATC etc.), Roger with a astonishing version of I'm in love with my car, Freddie on superman shoulders:-), Brian playing silent night,... And the freddie's speeches are FANTASTIC too... "I keep the lager to myself" ha ha i love when freddie pour beer or water to the audience |
CosmosTales 05.03.2012 20:43 |
How good is the LASERDISC version of Wembley 86 compared to the Wembley DVD version released last year? |
MERQRY 05.03.2012 21:22 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Makka wrote:And this is the year it's gonna happen. Trust me.Zebonka12 wrote: I'm not really crazy about any more 80's releases. I just wish they'd pull a finger out and get some fucking 70's stuff out the door.This is what I'm talkin' about! Just wish they'd fucken do it! Mmm sorry for the negative comment (i hope i'm wrong) but i think when gary said this will be a good live year he talked about Queen+Adam Lambert project, so... i wanna belive |
e-man 06.03.2012 12:59 |
CosmosTales wrote: How good is the LASERDISC version of Wembley 86 compared to the Wembley DVD version released last year?interesting questions. I hope someone can answer |
Doga 06.03.2012 13:29 |
Actually, Budapest is the only one 80's gig i want to release by QP, in full hd glory and with a doc, of course. Is the best quality recording of Queen, and one of his best gigs ever, so is a obvious choice for me. If they didn't release Budapest, i'll wait for some Hammy, Houston, Rainbow, those incredible stuff. But please, no more 80's gigs. |
KevoM 06.03.2012 18:48 |
CosmosTales wrote: How good is the LASERDISC version of Wembley 86 compared to the Wembley DVD version released last year?I would have thought the laser disc to be a inferior to the DVD. I haven't seen the LD but I have seen other ones by Queen and other artists and TBH they're not as good as you think. I'd say on a par with SVHS. It's not like vinyl and cd/mp3 |
OwenSmith 07.03.2012 18:35 |
Kurgan wrote:Why can't you post a link to it then? Instead of making us all google for it and being uncertain whether we've got the right one or not.people on streets wrote: indeed. Laserdisc rip is the best so far.One in particular |
The Real Wizard 08.03.2012 10:32 |
So there are different laserdisc versions in varying quality? My brain just exploded. |
zoggie 08.03.2012 10:54 |
Their is two laserdisk versions I think |
zoggie 08.03.2012 10:54 |
and different rip so encoding it varies |
deleted user 08.03.2012 11:29 |
OwenSmith wrote: Why can't you post a link to it then? Instead of making us all google for it and being uncertain whether we've got the right one or not. ----------------------------------------------------------- If you are addressing me, I don't have a link. Here are some nice links for laserdisc info. http://www.queencollector.com/Laserdiscs/Budapest.htm http://www.queencollector.com/Laserdiscs/Budapest99.html |
OwenSmith 08.03.2012 15:53 |
I'm addressing this forum in general. People saying "hey make sure you get the right one" and posting pictures of the menus without explaining where they downloaded it from. There are two different front menus earlier in the thread so clearly each of those people has a download from somewhere. Please can they provide URLs, and also some clarity as to which of the two rips is better one. |
OwenSmith 08.03.2012 15:54 |
zoggie wrote: Their is two laserdisk versions I thinkIt is not clear to me from the info in this thread whether there are two different laserdiscs (as opposed to just a re-release for Japan in 1999), and/or whether there are two different rips. |
OwenSmith 08.03.2012 15:59 |
KevoM wrote:If you've seen SVHS recording broadcast PAL TV you have not seen it at its best. The luma and chroma have to be combined for broadcast analogue TV and no matter how good the SVHS deck seperates it there is loss that can never be recovered.CosmosTales wrote: How good is the LASERDISC version of Wembley 86 compared to the Wembley DVD version released last year?I would have thought the laser disc to be a inferior to the DVD. I haven't seen the LD but I have seen other ones by Queen and other artists and TBH they're not as good as you think. I'd say on a par with SVHS. It's not like vinyl and cd/mp3 I have a high end SVHS deck, and I used to record digital terrestrial TV on it from the set top box's S-video output. This means the luma and chroma has never been combined (aka wrecked) by PAL encoding. This produced much better results than analogue TV recordings. PAL SVHS is rated to 400 lines (VHS is 240). Laserdisc is rated to 500 lines so has higher resolution than SVHS, but on the other hand laserdisc is PAL encoded so has combined luma and chroma which SVHS doesn't have to suffer from. It is critial doing a laserdisc rip that a good 3D digital comb filter is used to seperate luma and chroma. |
OwenSmith 08.03.2012 16:08 |
EDIT: after several requests I have removed the links to the downloads. Apparenty the consensus is that this isn't done on Queenzone. While I don't agree, I will abide by the consensus. There is a discussion of this concert with a source for it here on a different Queen forum: link |
MERQRY 09.03.2012 00:28 |
I've a version of this gig that comes from a laser disc source and it has AWESOME quality, but i as i downloaded it years ago i can't remember what version is... i'd always wanna correct the speed of that version and make the final version of that gig (tought i can't share here cause is official) |
deleted user 09.03.2012 03:35 |
MERQRY wrote: thought i can't share here cause is officialQuite right, it is official and so of course no direct links should be shared here. |
OwenSmith 09.03.2012 04:20 |
kurgan100 wrote: MenuOK that's the menu for the torrent I downloaded from my posting above. It's still not clear to me whether people believe this to be the best version or not, posting one word "Menu" with a url is rather less clear than it could be. |
OwenSmith 09.03.2012 04:26 |
kurgan100 wrote:It's official in an utterly obsolete format and with media which is only available on the second hand market. I cannot buy a brand new laserdisc player and I cannot buy a brand new copy of the laserdisc, even if I wanted to do. Also by making us search for them, none of us know if we have the same copies.MERQRY wrote: thought i can't share here cause is officialQuite right, it is official and so of course no direct links should be shared here. This rip is in what I deem to be the grey area. Someone suggested I download a rip of the 2011 remaster of Queen II but because it is currently available I simply bought it. Stuff that was never available like bootlegs is similarly easy to categorise. Stuff that was available but is now obsolete and deleted is harder to classify. If Queen Productions sold this as a commercial DVD I'd be the first to delete my downloaded rip and buy the official version. |
OwenSmith 09.03.2012 04:29 |
MERQRY wrote: I've a version of this gig that comes from a laser disc source and it has AWESOME quality, but i as i downloaded it years ago i can't remember what version is...i'd always wanna correct the speed of that version and make the final version of that gig (tought i can't share here cause is official)Can you share a still frame of the top level menu so we'd at least know if we've got the same version? |
deleted user 09.03.2012 04:31 |
OwenSmith wrote: If Queen Productions sold this as a commercial DVD I'd be the first to delete my downloaded rip and buy the official version.Me too, but that still doesn't make it any less official in my eyes. |
deleted user 09.03.2012 04:34 |
OwenSmith wrote:In the versions I have seen so far, I consider this the best.kurgan100 wrote: MenuOK that's the menu for the torrent I downloaded from my posting above. It's still not clear to me whether people believe this to be the best version or not, posting one word "Menu" with a url is rather less clear than it could be. Perhaps others may have a different opinion. I hope this is more clear to you now. |
CosmosTales 09.03.2012 05:13 |
thought i can't share here cause is official Quite right, it is official and so of course no direct links should be shared here. __________________________________________________________________ Well, from a fan(ME) that already bought a bunch of Queen merchandize: Shirts to books, cds and dvds inthis last case 3 versions of the same concert ( Wembley) i have all the right to view and share any kind of Queen stuff official or unofficial |
deleted user 09.03.2012 05:32 |
CosmosTales wrote: Well, from a fan(ME) that already bought a bunch of Queen merchandize: Shirts to books, cds and dvds inthis last case 3 versions of the same concert ( Wembley) i have all the right to view and share any kind of Queen stuff official or unofficialYeah man, it's a free for all |
CosmosTales 09.03.2012 05:59 |
I have most of the things, what i dont have i just watch, i never download... |
OwenSmith 09.03.2012 06:00 |
I have edited my original post with the links, it now reads as: EDIT: after several requests I have removed the links to the downloads. Apparenty the consensus is that this isn't done on Queenzone. While I don't agree, I will abide by the consensus. There is a discussion of this concert with a source for it here on a different Queen forum: link |
plumrach 09.03.2012 06:09 |
just watched it and its excellent! |
people on streets 09.03.2012 07:46 |
kurgan100 wrote:IMHO It already was perfectly clear :-)OwenSmith wrote:In the versions I have seen so far, I consider this the best. Perhaps others may have a different opinion. I hope this is more clear to you now.kurgan100 wrote: MenuOK that's the menu for the torrent I downloaded from my posting above. It's still not clear to me whether people believe this to be the best version or not, posting one word "Menu" with a url is rather less clear than it could be. |
people on streets 09.03.2012 08:00 |
kurgan100 wrote: MenuSaw that one on demonoid. It has LPCM and a nice bitrate. Thanks for the info. |
Marknow 09.03.2012 08:33 |
How do you rip a LD properly? The DVD rips are 3.7 G.B, but LD's have roughly 64 G.B of info on each side, albeit analogue for video track and digital for audio track. You would think a digital copy would be way bigger? Or is that you can only rip them on the fly, ie as they play, you record them with a dvd recorder. Anybody have experience with this? |
people on streets 09.03.2012 08:48 |
Interesting questions! I'm wondering about that too. I also saw a 7,5 GB rip on newsgroups. Will check that one out as well. |
deleted user 09.03.2012 10:15 |
Some laserdisc 'rips' are simple copies from a laserdisc player to a dvd recorder via AV leads, then menus are added post. In that sense they are not really true rips. Heaven knows how the quality is maintained in some of the conversions I have seen. So you can see how there could be a considerable difference between some 'rips', even when taken from the same source. |
Marknow 09.03.2012 11:13 |
people on streets wrote: Interesting questions! I'm wondering about that too. I also saw a 7,5 GB rip on newsgroups. Will check that one out as well.Can you mail me a link to that one, by size alone is should be better. Cheers. |
Marknow 09.03.2012 11:22 |
kurgan100 wrote: Some laserdisc 'rips' are simple copies from a laserdisc player to a dvd recorder via AV leads, then menus are added post. In that sense they are not really true rips. Heaven knows how the quality is maintained in some of the conversions I have seen. So you can see how there could be a considerable difference between some 'rips', even when taken from the same source.Yeah the quality on the version you have is the best I have seen. Some people swear on RGB, but others say S-Video is the way to go, you would think S-Video, Shame there is no lineage with the LD rips. |
people on streets 09.03.2012 12:13 |
Marknow wrote:Finished downloading and was asked for a password... sh*t!people on streets wrote: Interesting questions! I'm wondering about that too. I also saw a 7,5 GB rip on newsgroups. Will check that one out as well.Can you mail me a link to that one, by size alone is should be better. Cheers. |
deleted user 09.03.2012 12:22 |
Marknow wrote: .......by size alone is should be better.Larger size does not necessarily mean better quality. |
Marknow 09.03.2012 12:42 |
kurgan100 wrote:I'm just guessing the guy who made a 2 dvd set knew what he was doing.Marknow wrote: .......by size alone is should be better.Larger size does not necessarily mean better quality. Could be black and white for all I know, that's why I want a look at it. |
Marknow 09.03.2012 13:10 |
people on streets wrote:Marknow wrote:Finished downloading and was asked for a password... sh*t!people on streets wrote: Interesting questions! I'm wondering about that too. I also saw a 7,5 GB rip on newsgroups. Will check that one out as well.Can you mail me a link to that one, by size alone is should be better. Cheers. That's a shame. |
MERQRY 09.03.2012 15:07 |
people on streets wrote:kurgan100 wrote: MenuSaw that one on demonoid. It has LPCM and a nice bitrate. Thanks for the info. Yeah! i have this one! i also think is the best rip (for now) |
OwenSmith 09.03.2012 16:39 |
Posting went wrong, ignore this. Pressed wrong button. |
OwenSmith 09.03.2012 16:49 |
Marknow wrote: How do you rip a LD properly? The DVD rips are 3.7 G.B, but LD's have roughly 64 G.B of info on each side, albeit analogue for video track and digital for audio track. You would think a digital copy would be way bigger?Laserdiscs contain analogue uncompressed video (eg. like WAV for audio) whereas DVDs contain lossy MPEG2 video (eg. like MP3 for audio). This is what makes the DVD of the laserdisc a lot smaller. Calling it a rip is misleading. Even the audio can't be a direct rip, laserdisc uses 44.1/16 like CD whereas DVD is 48/16 so even if the SPDIF digital stream is captured it has to be sample rate converted. RGB vs. S-Video out of the laserdisc player is irrelevant. The video on the laserdisc is composite anyway so has to be split into Component form for DVD encoding. How much of that should be done at which point in the recording chain depends on the equipment being used. Plus RGB to Component requires a colour space conversion which if done wrong can cause problems, whereas S-Video to Component doesn't have that problem. If I were designing a laserdisc copier from scratch I'd digitise the raw composite video in very high quality and sample rate in a computer and then do everything else digitally ie. luma/chroma seperation, further decoding to Component for MPEG encoding etc. This may be close to what happens if you connect a laserdisc player to a video capture card on a PC. |
Marknow 09.03.2012 17:24 |
OwenSmith wrote:Marknow wrote: How do you rip a LD properly? The DVD rips are 3.7 G.B, but LD's have roughly 64 G.B of info on each side, albeit analogue for video track and digital for audio track. You would think a digital copy would be way bigger?Laserdiscs contain analogue uncompressed video (eg. like WAV for audio) whereas DVDs contain lossy MPEG2 video (eg. like MP3 for audio). This is what makes the DVD of the laserdisc a lot smaller. Calling it a rip is misleading. Even the audio can't be a direct rip, laserdisc uses 44.1/16 like CD whereas DVD is 48/16 so even if the SPDIF digital stream is captured it has to be sample rate converted. RGB vs. S-Video out of the laserdisc player is irrelevant. The video on the laserdisc is composite anyway so has to be split into Component form for DVD encoding. How much of that should be done at which point in the recording chain depends on the equipment being used. Plus RGB to Component requires a colour space conversion which if done wrong can cause problems, whereas S-Video to Component doesn't have that problem. If I were designing a laserdisc copier from scratch I'd digitise the raw composite video in very high quality and sample rate in a computer and then do everything else digitally ie. luma/chroma seperation, further decoding to Component for MPEG encoding etc. This may be close to what happens if you connect a laserdisc player to a video capture card on a PC. Sounds great to me. The audio alone on a proper DVD release should be around 1.2GB LPCM sourced from AVI, not MPEG2. The 1 DVD release should be 3 DVD's at least, from a 25ish GB digital AVI source, resulting in a 9ish GB DVD file, which is still compressed. |
Marknow 09.03.2012 17:25 |
Marknow wrote:Sounds great to me.OwenSmith wrote:Marknow wrote: How do you rip a LD properly? The DVD rips are 3.7 G.B, but LD's have roughly 64 G.B of info on eachside, albeit analogue for video track and digital for audio track. You would think a digital copy would be way bigger?Laserdiscs contain analogue uncompressed video (eg. like WAV for audio) whereas DVDs contain lossy MPEG2 video (eg. like MP3 for audio). This is what makes the DVD of the laserdisc a lot smaller. Calling it a rip is misleading. Even the audio can't be a direct rip, laserdisc uses 44.1/16 like CD whereas DVD is 48/16 so even if the SPDIF digital stream is captured it has to be sample rate converted. RGB vs. S-Video out of the laserdisc player is irrelevant. The video on the laserdisc is composite anyway so has to be split into Component form for DVD encoding. How much of that should be done at which point in the recording chain depends on the equipment being used. Plus RGB to Component requires a colour space conversion which if done wrong can cause problems, whereas S-Video to Component doesn't have that problem. If I were designing a laserdisc copier from scratch I'd digitise the raw composite video in very high quality and sample rate in a computer and then do everything else digitally ie. luma/chroma seperation, further decoding to Component for MPEG encoding etc. This may be close to what happens if you connect a laserdisc player to a video capture card on a PC. The audio alone on a proper DVD release should be around 1.2GB LPCM sourced from AVI, not MPEG2. The 1 DVD release should be 3 DVD's at least, from a25ish GB digital AVI source, resulting in a 9ish GB DVD file, which is still compressed, but better. |
OwenSmith 09.03.2012 19:53 |
kurgan100 wrote:I've now watched this DVD image on my Oppo 95 BD player and it is very good. This looks like a far better concert than Wembley. It's nice to hear John actually speak too when he's around the city.OwenSmith wrote:In the versions I have seen so far, I consider this the best. Perhaps others may have a different opinion. I hope this is more clear to you now.kurgan100 wrote: MenuOK that's the menu for the torrent I downloaded from my posting above. It's still not clear to me whether people believe this to be the best version or not, posting one word "Menu" with a url is rather less clear than it could be. I never understood why Queen go on about and produce so many versions of Wembley. Knebworth was always the one that I felt was the big one, but then I'd seen Deep Purple at Knebworth the year before. Wembley was always "so what?" for me. Live Magic has much better performances on it than Live at Wembley. This Budapest copy has further confirmed my mediocre opinion of the Wembley shows. (For the record, I was at the Newcastle show on the Magic tour. It was a good night.) |
OwenSmith 09.03.2012 20:01 |
Marknow wrote:Sounds great to me.The audio alone on a proper DVD release should be around 1.2GB LPCM sourced from AVI, not MPEG2. The 1 DVD release should be 3 DVD's at least, from a 25ish GB digital AVI source, resulting in a 9ish GB DVD file, which is still compressed.AVI is a container. It can contain audio and video in many different formats. It can also be very compressed or only lightly compressed like any other container. So saying you want audio and video from an AVI source says nothing. The audio is already uncompressed LPCM. The only way it could get bigger would be to increase sample rate or bit depth. If the multi-track masters still exist and were recorded on analogue this might be possible, but I can't see the point. The audio here is quite good, though I wish they'd mixed a bit more of the crowd in. Generally this is wishful thinking. We know Budapest was shot on film, the negative is apparently lost, and the only digital copies are ones derived from laserdisc or VHS. So there's no point saying you'd like 25GB source, we know it doesn't exist. |
Marknow 09.03.2012 20:50 |
OwenSmith wrote:Marknow wrote:Sounds great to me.The audio alone on a proper DVD release should be around 1.2GB LPCM sourced from AVI, not MPEG2. The 1 DVD release should be 3 DVD's at least, from a 25ish GB digital AVI source, resulting in a 9ish GB DVD file, which is still compressed.The audio is already uncompressed LPCM. The only way it could get bigger would be to increase sample rate or bit depth. If the multi-track masters still exist and were recorded on analogue this might be possible, but I can't see the point. The audio here is quite good, though I wish they'd mixed a bit more of the crowd in.. The LD audio is Dolby 2.0 ac3 not LPCM, this is from a PAL LD, you could get pcm from a NTSC LD but not a PAL one. source link Audio Audio could be stored in either analog or digital format and in a variety of surround sound formats; NTSC discs could carry two analog audio tracks, plus two uncompressed PCM digital audio tracks, which were CD encoded channels, (EFM, CIRC, 16-bit and 44.1 kHz sample rate).[14] PAL discs could carry one pair of audio tracks, either analog or digital; in the UK, the term LaserVision is used to refer to discs with analog sound, while LaserDisc is used for those with digital audio. The digital sound signal in both formats are EFM-encoded as in CD.[14] Dolby Digital (also called AC-3) and DTS—which are now common on DVD titles. |
Marknow 09.03.2012 20:55 |
This means the DVD also has up scaled audio, From LD Dolby 2.0 AC3 @ 16 bit 41000hz to LPCM @ 16bit 48000hz.. The audio makes up 1.06 GB of the DVD leaving 2.6GB for 88mins of video at a bitrate of 3.8mbps. A DVD rip should be around 9GB with LPCM audio at 16bit 41000hz, with a video bitrate of around 8mbps.Keep in mind the DVD is MPEG2. A digital video copy should be ripped from LD through Composite or S-Video(depends on which side of the fence you sit on) to JPEG @ 25fps and converted to AVI through avisynth, which would be very big. Record the audio as a 16bit 41000hz stereo .Wav |
deleted user 10.03.2012 04:48 |
Since the laserdisc of Budapest was a Japanese release I would have thought was NTSC http://www.queencollector.com/Laserdiscs/index.html |
brians wig 10.03.2012 05:04 |
Marknow wrote: The audio makes up 1.06 GB of the DVD leaving 2.6GB for 88mins of video at a bitrate of 3.8mbps.And that is EXACTLY why all of the Queen DVDs of mine that have been "out there" for the last 12 years, are all encoded with ac3 audio. What's the point in having LPCM sound and a shit quality picture when you can maximise the video bitrate and still get ac3 audio at 256kb/s or higher (especially as most of the Queen stuff from non-official sources is mono anyway). It's laughable that so many people demand lossless audio on DVDs these days yet are prepared to compromise on video quality! |
brians wig 10.03.2012 05:12 |
Marknow wrote: A digital video copy should be ripped from LD through Composite or S-Video(depends on which side of the fence you sit on) to JPEG @ 25fps and converted to AVI through avisynth, which would be very big.Record the audio as a 16bit 41000hz stereo .WavErm? Captured to jpeg and then converted to avi???? What video capture software do you use???? Everything I've ever used or come across captures straight to DV AVI files at sizes of around 12gb an hour. Sure. You can change the capture settings to either a more lossy format or an uncompressed AVI (about 100gb per hours footage: but what's the point?), but DV AVI is the standard (default) capture format. Where on earth do you get "jpeg" capture from??? |
OwenSmith 10.03.2012 05:15 |
Marknow wrote:The LD audio is Dolby 2.0 ac3 not LPCM, this is from a PAL LD, you could get pcm from a NTSC LD but not a PAL one. linkMy interpretation of that page is PAL laserdsics could either have analogue sound or digital sound (whereas NTSC discs could have both), and by digital sound it means Linear PCM. When that page means AC3 it tends to specifically say so. The info file for the download I have has this to say about the transfer: == Specifications == Type: Laserdisc to DVD Source: Pal Laserdisc Encoder Used: CCE 2.70, 20 Pass Software Used: Virtual VCR, Creative Wavestudio, VirtualDub, Avisynth, CCE 2.70, DVDMaestro. Audio Format: Uncompressed Wave Creator: ??? AC3 on PAL laserdiscs was very rare, because it meant one of the analogue soundtracks was lost to the AC3 so if you didn't have an AC3 decoder you got only mono audio from the other analogue soundtrack. With NTSC you could have digital stereo LPCM, then AC3 5.1 in one analogue track and the other analogue as mono for the ultimate fallback. Also all the stuff about AC3 on laserdisc talks about 5.1 at 384kbps, I've never seen anything else mentioned and certainly not AC3 2.0. I've seen pictures of this laserdisc in YouTube clips of it, and it clearly says "Stereo Digital Audio" on the label. This DVD is only 90 minutes long. That's short enough for LPCM audio and still allowing plenty of bit rate for the video. It was peaking at 8.8mbps when I was watching it, that's higher than many feature films on DVD. Given that the original audio is LPCM on the laserdisc, I think it is right in this case to preserve that. I agree for longer DVDs that DD2.0 using 256kbps or more is probably the way to go to avoid wrecking the video. |
Mkls 10.03.2012 06:06 |
. |
Mkls 10.03.2012 06:15 |
as for ALL the unused footage mow that is a sad story |
pittrek 10.03.2012 06:26 |
Miklos wrote:pittrek wrote:You quoting me wrong here :). To make everyone again commpletely updated and clear on Budapest (and i have to repeat this every 3 years as people dont remember and make up stories: In 2004 I was asked by QPL to make enquiries about the location and existence of both the final and the not used negatives (had written authorization by QPL.. signed by the big guy in Montreux). Went back to a certain archivist in 2005, with news about the existing negative of the FINAL version - > I was told "yes thank you great". Asked GB many times, he never could tell me how far the negotioations went. The final negative film is in the possession of the Hungarian State Film Archives (they were also offering state of the art HD transfer (4K / DaVinci etc), but I was never informed about the negotioations which either happened or not until today. THe Hungarian State owns the film negative, but QPL owns the rights to release it so neither of them can do anything without agreeing with each other. (my huess is that by 2012 they have already agreed and QPL might have now a HD transfer , ready for blu ray release).Lostman wrote: I hope they release it in Blu-ray some day.No. They don't have the original negative anymore (at least a few years ago a certain Queenzone member claimed he didn't find it - he was supposed to find it for QP Well I know my memory isn't what is used to be - thanks for the clarification :-) |
Mkls 10.03.2012 06:32 |
. |
deleted user 10.03.2012 07:27 |
Was this filmed in widescreen then? |
Mkls 10.03.2012 07:51 |
kurgan100 wrote: Was this filmed in widescreen then?its a good question, the director said it was filmed with the 4:3 video format in mind when composing the pictures, but i am sure someone will tell us more with some technical background. You can see the original film ratio in the 16cam version. Remember the whole reason for this movie was - Queen is willing to come and play in Hungary and get lower revenue from relatively cheap tickets and at the same time the Hungarian state film company pays everything (crew/equipment/raw film/post production) for the film and delivers them in 90 min releasable video format for western europe/ROW, while film revenues from and for "communist block countries" going to Hungary. This was a deal struck by QPL and the promoter, at that time it was reported to be the most expensive film ever made in Hungary till 1986, with costs around 1 million usd . The 90min long version, the butchering and the 4:3 format was all by the request of QPL to fit in the "long format 90 mins" concert film on vhs ... Judging by the lead-in of the film reels (as seen on the 16cam version) it was 1.85:1 aspect ratio, with left and right matted in the camera viewfinder to make it 4:3 when composing the pictures, with the video version it became effectively 4:3 with left and right side cut off) |
OwenSmith 10.03.2012 08:10 |
Miklos wrote:The 90min long version, the butchering and the 4:3 format was all by the request of QPL to fit in the "long format 90 mins" concert film on vhs ... Judging by the film reels it was 1.185:1This was dumb even in the late 1980s. There is no reason on VHS (PAL or NTSC) or laserdisc (PAL or NTSC) to restrict the running length to 90 mins. The first restriction you run into is CLV laserdisc is 60 minutes per side so that would make 2 hours. But 2 disc laserdisc sets were often issued, it wasn't a particularly price conscious market given how expensive laserdiscs were to start with. This stupidity continues to this day. The Q+PR Ukraine concert is 2 hours on the official DVD, but we all know it was a 2.5 hour concert and big tracks like Radio Ga-Ga were cut. There is no reason a DVD-9 can't hold a 2.5 hour concert, and the two CD version can also hold 78 * 2 = 156mins = 2 hours 36 mins. There was no need to cut Kharkov at all. Dumb, just dumb. This all makes me fear for anything new that Queen Productions bring out. The only thing I will say in their credit is they seem to like the DVDs having LPCM and DTS 5.1 sound, rather than crappy DD 5.1. |
Mkls 10.03.2012 08:29 |
90 mins was the standard long format music vhs release at that time, maybe a tape of 120 mins would have costs 0.25 pence more, making the profit shrink by 25K , if they sell 100.000 tapes in Europe alone... The laserdisc market was a niche market always, I dont think they considered a longer version for LD, it was all about making a quick VHS release for a film they didnt effectively pay for, and sell as many copies as possible for the european concert goers who had seen Queen the previous year... |
OwenSmith 10.03.2012 09:13 |
Miklos wrote: 90 mins was the standard long format music vhs release at that time, maybe a tape of 120 mins would have costs 0.25 pence more, making the profit shrink by 25K , if they sell 100.000 tapes in Europe alone... The laserdisc market was a niche market always, I dont think they considered a longer version for LD, it was all about making a quick VHS release for a film they didnt effectively pay for, and sell as many copies as possible for the european concert goers who had seen Queen the previous year...Yeah, and it sucks. It shows that the priority was purely profit, not on getting a proper representation of the concert. |
Marknow 10.03.2012 10:19 |
kurgan100 wrote: Since the laserdisc of Budapest was a Japanese release I would have thought was NTSC http://www.queencollector.com/Laserdiscs/index.html Is this inaccurate so? link |
deleted user 10.03.2012 10:30 |
Marknow wrote: Is this inaccurate so? linkThat appears to be a CDV |
Marknow 10.03.2012 10:33 |
brians wig wrote:Marknow wrote: A digital video copy should be ripped from LD through Composite or S-Video(depends on which side of the fence you sit on) to JPEG @ 25fps and converted to AVI through avisynth, which would be very big.Record the audio as a 16bit 41000hz stereo .WavErm? Captured to jpeg and then converted to avi???? What video capture software do you use???? Everything I've ever used or come across captures straight to DV AVI files at sizes of around 12gb an hour. Sure. You can change the capture settings to either a more lossy format or an uncompressed AVI (about 100gb per hours footage: but what's the point?), but DV AVI is the standard (default) capture format. Where on earth do you get "jpeg" capture from??? My sincere apology this should have said M-JPEG, not JPEG. This is just the capture codec I would use to copy a analogue signal to digital. link MJPEG captures 4 Red to 2 Green to 2 Blue Pixels(4:2:2). DV only handles 4 Red to 1 Green to 1 Blue Pixels.(4:1:1). Therefore MJPEG preserves more of the color saturation than DV. DV was only created to get info on smaller, slower media. All the professionals were pissing and moaning about it in the beginning but have begun to accept it. Laserdiscs are uncompressed analog video. That is why they are so big.They also are in 4:2:2 colorspace, which would benefit from MJPEG compression, not DV (or MPEG which is worse than DV). I miss MJPEG. Ifyou truly want to archive your Laserdiscs, then capture in MJPEG. Later you can screw it all up by compressing it to MPEG2 for DVD viewing. |
Marknow 10.03.2012 10:36 |
kurgan100 wrote:Marknow wrote: Is this inaccurate so? linkThat appears to be a CDV So the DVD is ntsc to pal anyway? Sorry for the confusion, that explains a lot. |
deleted user 10.03.2012 10:42 |
Marknow wrote:The Catalogue No. reveals it to be a German CDV (PAL) that I was not aware of, so perhaps the rip was taken from such a disc.kurgan100 wrote:So the DVD is ntsc to pal anyway? Sorry for the confusion, that explains a lot.Marknow wrote:Is this inaccurate so?linkThat appears to be a CDV Here's another link to it: link |
Mkls 10.03.2012 11:02 |
Since GT is frequently reading Queenzone and he is definitely one of the good guys - if you reading this, and GB or QPL or Simon Lupton or whoever is in charge now of finding old footage, is interested then contact me and i will supply the clues who to contact or where to search more. |
Marknow 10.03.2012 14:28 |
kurgan100 wrote:Marknow wrote:The Catalogue No. reveals it to be a German CDV (PAL) that I was not aware of, so perhaps the rip was taken from such a disc. Here's another link to it: linkkurgan100 wrote:So the DVD is ntsc to pal anyway? Sorry for the confusion, that explains a lot.Marknow wrote:Is this inaccurate so?linkThat appears to be a CDV link |
deleted user 10.03.2012 14:38 |
Marknow wrote: link -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's looks like the same German release ( Cat no. 080 5101) Here it is again: link |
Marknow 10.03.2012 14:47 |
kurgan100 wrote: Marknow wrote:link looks like the same German release ( Cat no. 080 5101)Does it simply mean Polydgram released it in UK and Picture Music International had the German release through EMI, both with the same Cat Number?So there are two identical Pal releases, one German LazerDisc and one UK Laserdisc. |
Marknow 10.03.2012 15:32 |
A little more digging tells me it was manufactured in the UK but sold only in Germany. |
OwenSmith 10.03.2012 17:38 |
Marknow wrote: Is this inaccurate so? linkIf you open the largest version of the picture of the disc itself, it is very easy to see the label says STEREO DIGITAL AUDIO. That's Linear PCM as I was saying earlier, not AC3. Hence why the DVD copy has Linear PCM audio. |
Marknow 10.03.2012 17:57 |
OwenSmith wrote:Very good, up until that link I thought the DVD rip was from the known NTSC LD, if it was it could have had Dolby digital 2.0, which I think is ac3?Marknow wrote:Is this inaccurate so?linkIf you open the largest version of the picture of the disc itself, it is very easy to see the label says STEREO DIGITAL AUDIO. That's Linear PCM as I was saying earlier, not AC3. Hence why the DVD copy has Linear PCM audio. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to do this. Thanks to all for the help. |
OwenSmith 10.03.2012 20:14 |
Marknow wrote: Very good, up until that link I thought the DVD rip was from the known NTSC LD, if it was it could have had Dolby digital 2.0, which I think is ac3?AC3 is another name for Dolby Digital. AC3 is short for Audio Codec 3 (not sure why the 3, perhaps the third one they developed?). So just as DD can be 2.0 or 5.1 or other combinations, so can AC3. On Laserdisc it was usually called AC3 and everyone talked about AC3 decoders. The terminology changed by the time DVD came along and everyone was talking about Dolby Digital. I don't know why this changed. On laserdisc AC3 was usually 384kbps 5.1. There was little point putting AC3 2.0 on laserdisc because that could be done just as well with the two channel linear PCM audio and was compatible with a lot more people's equipment. That's not to say there weren't any AC3 2.0 discs, just that they're not common. I make no distinction between laservision, laserdisc and CD-Video. They are all just marketing name changes for the same underlying technology, and although they were meant to mean something (name change to laserdisc when digital audio came in) they aren't applied consistently enough to be certain what is being discussed. |
Marknow 10.03.2012 22:01 |
Thank you for the information Owen. |
Doga 12.03.2012 19:53 |
I remember Brian said in his soapbox QP are working in the 3d release of Budapest. Maybe it means they have the full film in their archives |
OwenSmith 17.03.2012 12:50 |
Oh please no, anything but 3D! Useless gimmick, it makes my head hurt. |
The Real Wizard 21.09.2012 12:50 |
P-Tr extinction event wrote: Since GT is frequently reading Queenzone and he is definitely one of the good guys - if you reading this, and GB or QPL or Simon Lupton or whoever is in charge now of finding old footage, is interested then contact me and i will supply the clues who to contact or where to search more.Some inquiring minds are curious to know if this was followed up on.. |