QueenZone discussion #1301096

people on streets wrote: indeed. Laserdisc rip is the best so far.

inu-liger wrote: "Best Image Quality that i ever saw" That should actually read as: "Best image quality that I've ever seen" :)

Kurgan wrote:

people on streets wrote: indeed. Laserdisc rip is the best so far.

One in particular

Kacio wrote: official release of the DVD is in a better quality This is a youtube video of Grey denatured

Lostman wrote: I hope they release it in Blu-ray some day.

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.

Makka wrote:

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!

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,...

The Real Wizard wrote:

Makka wrote:

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!

And this is the year it's gonna happen. Trust me.

CosmosTales wrote: How good is the LASERDISC version of Wembley 86 compared to the Wembley DVD version released last year?

CosmosTales wrote: How good is the LASERDISC version of Wembley 86 compared to the Wembley DVD version released last year?

Kurgan wrote:

people on streets wrote: indeed. Laserdisc rip is the best so far.

One in particular

zoggie wrote: Their is two laserdisk versions I think

KevoM wrote:

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

MERQRY wrote: thought i can't share here cause is official

kurgan100 wrote: Menu

kurgan100 wrote:

MERQRY wrote: 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.

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)

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.

OwenSmith wrote:

kurgan100 wrote: Menu

OK 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.

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 unofficial

kurgan100 wrote:

OwenSmith wrote:

kurgan100 wrote: Menu

OK 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.

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: Menu

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.

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.

Marknow wrote:

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 wrote: .......by size alone is should be better.

kurgan100 wrote:

Marknow wrote: .......by size alone is should be better.

Larger size does not necessarily mean better quality.

people on streets wrote:

Marknow wrote:

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.

Finished downloading and was asked for a password... sh*t!

people on streets wrote:

kurgan100 wrote: Menu

Saw that one on demonoid. It has LPCM and a nice bitrate. Thanks for the info.

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?

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.

Marknow wrote:

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.

kurgan100 wrote:

OwenSmith wrote:

kurgan100 wrote: Menu

OK 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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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 .Wav

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. link

Miklos wrote:

pittrek wrote:

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

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).

kurgan100 wrote: Was this filmed in widescreen then?

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 1.185:1

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...

kurgan100 wrote: Since the laserdisc of Budapest was a Japanese release I would have thought was NTSC http://www.queencollector.com/Laserdiscs/index.html

Marknow wrote: Is this inaccurate so? link

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 .Wav

Erm? 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???

kurgan100 wrote:

Marknow wrote: Is this inaccurate so? link

That appears to be a CDV

Marknow wrote:

kurgan100 wrote:

Marknow wrote:Is this inaccurate so?link

That appears to be a CDV

So the DVD is ntsc to pal anyway? Sorry for the confusion, that explains a lot.

kurgan100 wrote:

Marknow wrote:

kurgan100 wrote:

Marknow wrote:Is this inaccurate so?link

That appears to be a CDV

So the DVD is ntsc to pal anyway? Sorry for the confusion, that explains a lot.

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: link

kurgan100 wrote: Marknow wrote:link looks like the same German release ( Cat no. 080 5101)

Marknow wrote: Is this inaccurate so? link

OwenSmith wrote:

Marknow wrote:Is this inaccurate so?link

If 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 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?

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.