| DQ1 27.05.2013 04:26 |
Queen - Live St. Paul Civic Center 1980 Clips (USA). I've never seen these, very nice and Freddie's voice was top notch during this 1980 tour. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7gIy4NHfqA |
| pittrek 27.05.2013 07:07 |
I have uploaded some time ago a speed-corrected master copy with correct track order, but it was years ago and I don't know if the links will be still OK. I know that the owner wanted to make a HD copy but I don't know how far did he get |
| mooghead 27.05.2013 12:33 |
"the owner wanted to make a HD copy but I don't know how far did he get" This is a strange thing to say, the youtube clip makes a point of saying it can be viewed in 1080 HD. It isn't HD and never can be. Its like uploading a Laurel and Hardy film to the internet in 1080p and saying 'it's in HD now'. It isn't. |
| Thistle 27.05.2013 13:15 |
mooghead wrote: "the owner wanted to make a HD copy but I don't know how far did he get" This is a strange thing to say, the youtube clip makes a point of saying it can be viewed in 1080 HD. It isn't HD and never can be. Its like uploading a Laurel and Hardy film to the internet in 1080p and saying 'it's in HD now'. It isn't.The owner of the original recording - shot on 8mm film - CAN produce an HD copy, direct from his film. Perhaps the shared footage is lower-gen, like he copied it to another tape for someone, and they shared it out? It would depend on how the transfer was made for the shared version - it could have been transfered from VHS to a shitty DVD recorder, then ripped to PC, edited with a shitty programme and then converted to a YT compatibe format. But if it comes direct from the ORIGINAL, it could be HD. I *think* :) |
| Chief Mouse 27.05.2013 13:32 |
Technically it could be transferred into 720p. Super 8mm film can potentionally have up to twice the resolution of standard definition. I don't think though that it would look that much better than it already does in the video above, due to lighting, grain etc. But it would be a slight improvement probably. |
| Thistle 27.05.2013 13:40 |
Cheers, Mouse :) |
| MackMantilla 27.05.2013 17:50 |
Mouse Rapist wrote: Technically it could be transferred into 720p. Super 8mm film can potentionally have up to twice the resolution of standard definition. I don't think though that it would look that much better than it already does in the video above, due to lighting, grain etc. But it would be a slight improvement probably.Let's hope the owner of this master tape can transfer it to 720 ;) |
| pittrek 28.05.2013 01:33 |
The 8mm footage was transferred on DVD in standard resolution and sold on eBay, later it got bootlegged and sold as a bonus disc to I think "It's A Killer" bootleg. The transfer sucks, the person or company didn't transfer it with the correct speed and encoded it with 29.97fps. The owner of the footage came here last year (?) and wrote he needs money for a HD transfer, I don't know how it ended. The youtube video comes from the DVD, it was just upconverted from 480i to 1080p. You can upscale anything to 1080p, even a 360x240 video, but the result can be never remotely as good as a proper 1080p scan of the original negative. 8mm can be scanned at 1080p without any problems, here is a nice example of an 8mm footage scanned at SD resolution and upscaled to 1080p vs. the same footage scanned at HD resolution (and color corrected) : link |
| MackMantilla 28.05.2013 12:17 |
is it expensive to transfer 8mm to HD? maybe some QZ users could make a donation to the taper.. |
| BETA215 27.12.2014 11:56 |
pittrek wrote: I have uploaded some time ago a speed-corrected master copy with correct track order, but it was years ago and I don't know if the links will be still OK. I know that the owner wanted to make a HD copy but I don't know how far did he getCan you reupload that copy? I can't find it. I have the normal version. |
| pittrek 27.12.2014 15:33 |
BETA215 wrote:I'll try, give me a few days, maybe I can ispire somebody to do it better ?pittrek wrote: I have uploaded some time ago a speed-corrected master copy with correct track order, but it was years ago and I don't know if the links will be still OK. I know that the owner wanted to make a HD copy but I don't know how far did he getCan you reupload that copy? I can't find it. I have the normal version. |
| Barry Durex 27.12.2014 17:47 |
Is the youtube video taken from the dvd or is it a different transfer? |
| BETA215 27.12.2014 17:52 |
According to Pittrek: "The youtube video comes from the DVD, it was just upconverted from 480i to 1080p. You can upscale anything to 1080p, even a 360x240 video, but the result can be never remotely as good as a proper 1080p scan of the original negative." |
| Barry Durex 27.12.2014 17:56 |
The colours on the youtube video look brighter than I remember. |
| Chief Mouse 14.02.2015 05:07 |
Listen all you people, come gather around! :) Do you think it's worth doing something like this? It's by no means a perfect method since it has its flaws but maybe it could be a good alternative version. . |
| pittrek 14.02.2015 06:08 |
Is the left side my version or the raw master? |
| Chief Mouse 14.02.2015 06:10 |
pittrek wrote: Is the left side my version or the raw master?Left side is the original NTSC version. I de-interlaced it though. |
| brians wig 14.02.2015 07:06 |
Cheap enough to (professionally) make a new transfer to an HD output by scanning each frame. £60 or so. Just need the original film. |
| Chief Mouse 14.02.2015 07:11 |
Mr Wig, did you get my PM I sent some time ago? Nothing too important though :) |
| pittrek 14.02.2015 07:54 |
Chief Mouse wrote:I'm asking because I want to do a mkv with restored original framerate, adding this kind of stabilisation would be nicepittrek wrote: Is the left side my version or the raw master?Left side is the original NTSC version. I de-interlaced it though. |
| Thistle 14.02.2015 09:23 |
Stabilisation looks great, Chief :) |
| Chief Mouse 14.02.2015 09:31 |
Thanks! Though it's not actually a real stabilization. I made the frame count higher - original is roughly 18-19 fps, I created sort of fake frames by morphing / interpolating them so that it is "real" 29.97 fps instead of just converted 29.97 fps with blends and frame dups like the original has. Thus it runs smoother and tricks the eye in thinking it's more steady :) |
| Chief Mouse 15.02.2015 03:55 |
I feel this might pop up on the Announce forum sometime soon :) (note that it has some defects. my method is not perfect) Download this for proper viewing. This time it's a finished sample. I also corrected the speed (approximately). The audio is from the corrected version (also slowed down). https://mega.co.nz/#!eA8mRQBA!XHJDQ_sJt5f0SzdtSoQC4hT2uwJVy2AYTzlk7zzAb9M Or if you can't be bothered to download, watch it here - . |
| BETA215 15.02.2015 07:33 |
Great! :-O |
| Barry Durex 15.02.2015 08:29 |
Chief Mouse, here is another 8mm youtube clip you might want to play with. link |
| Chief Mouse 15.02.2015 15:50 |
Barry Durex wrote: Chief Mouse, here is another 8mm youtube clip you might want to play with. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckhNmNOSMU8 Not sure it's worth to work on it - it wouldn't look that much better. I'll do some tests though. And people, check the announce forum regarding my previous posts in this thread! :) |
| brians wig 17.02.2015 15:53 |
Barry Durex wrote: Chief Mouse, here is another 8mm youtube clip you might want to play with. linkAnd the link is now dead. Did anyone download it? |
| Barry Durex 17.02.2015 16:18 |
Sikke removed it so I guess he now doesn't want it shared. It was labelled Europe 78 and was just under 3 minutes with audio (mainly WATC) |
| dajalma 29.10.2017 00:51 |
repost pleasse |