| inu-liger 21.08.2005 23:10 |
I've decided to change the name of the "Queen Rare Video DVD Tree" to remove the DVD part, because I thought about something. With Blu-Ray and HD-DVD looming in the near horizon, what would you guys say to, instead of just making only DVD's to distribute among the Queen fan community (although they will still be the main focus of the tree, since not everyone will buy Blu-Ray players right away when it first comes out), that we can also distribute Blu-Ray discs as well, with the sourced video looking as it does on the original source (eg. VHS tapes), without the blockiness associated with DVD's MPEG-2 technology, despite the fact VHS tapes are notorious for their bad quality to begin with. That way, there is no loss of quality (in theory), and it (the videos) will still look as good as the source that it's captured from. I know I said last year that I was going to work on this in January earlier this year, but several things happened since that prevented this, mainly my having lost my job since then. But now that I have a fixed income, and since Blu-Ray will come out sometime eventually either late this year or spring 2006, I think it is better this way that I waited, since now that I should be able to get the multi-format VCR I've been looking for, and the Blu-Ray recorder eventually as well (which I expect to be expensive at first). What would you guys say to that? Or do we need to discuss this further? |
| Adam Baboolal 22.08.2005 01:09 |
Ain't gonna happen anytime soon. You're dreaming. The technology isn't even out yet. It'll be expensive for a good while too. It also won't be widespread for a while, either. What codec should be used for encoding? How do you make these discs? No software ready... Oh yeah, and the hardware to make these discs..? Not to mention the compatibility of homemade discs. Dvd's took a few years to take off, you know. Have you really thought this through?? I certainly don't think so. Dvd is a good format in the right hands. Blockiness? Sure, with rubbish encoding efforts, non-cleaned up video and insufficient planning. I suggest you look up the video forums where people actually guide you through how to make dvd's look good from shoddy material. Blu-ray is a long while off being completely available to the consumers. And that's on the level of being able to make our own material, burn it and then distribute it on compatible media. Peace, Adam. |
| inu-liger 22.08.2005 01:20 |
I suggest you look up the video forums where people actually guide you through how to make dvd's look good from shoddy material.Like videohelp.com? |
| djaef 22.08.2005 04:15 |
Yeah. It should be dvd. If for no other reason that dvd is only now becoming commonplace. If you did it in Blu-ray, even assuming the technology is released as you say, you might be sharing it with about 5 people. Dvd will reach the maximum number of people, while having a decent quality. We should go with the best most common technology available, and that is definately the dvd format. |
| Penis - Vagina 22.08.2005 05:50 |
Heck, even dual layer discs aren't cheap enough yet to get me into them. My drive supports them, but I'm not paying $7 each for a blank disc that might fail. My last batch of 100 single layers came out to 49 cents each. That's more like it. But enough about me.. It's just way too early and pricey to be thinking of such a thing yet. I hope that everyone who has the ability to do so, will torrent a DVD version, like I did with SNL. |
| inu-liger 22.08.2005 18:45 |
Well, again, I'm acknowledging that DVD WILL be the main way of distributing the rare videos, as well as torrents this time around (depending on users here) But I was trying to say that I would like to do Blu-Ray as well, since even DVD's at the max. bitrate still show a little bit of noise caused by the MPEG-2 compression. If I am not mistaken, compared to the maximum 9.8Mbps, Blu-Ray recorders can capture videos at around 20-30Mbps, which is a lot more and obviously involves less compression. But to each his own, I say. |
| Adam Baboolal 22.08.2005 18:59 |
What codec is used for bluray? Could you post your results? Or are you going on word of mouth? I've yet to see the differences posted anywhere. But the rule of thumb is shit in shit out. This is proven again with the latest Warner Brothers dvd's. The Wizard of Oz looks incredible on the latest release out soon. The older release in comparison isn't as great. There's a marked difference. And this proves that if you feed the right material in, it'll work well. However, that doesn't mean that worse off video can't be helped... Here's something funny. They recently developed a system that captures Hi-Def images to a video camera at 29MB. Is it any good? No. It looks like shit. Even old, old analog recordings look better. The lesson? More bitrate doesn't mean better. I've made dvd's at 4MB bitrates that look pretty amazing. Smooth and with very little to get worried over. Video noise is everywhere and you can't eliminate it because that's what makes the picture breathe with life. Take it away and you'll notice what a mistake it is to do that. I've yet to see something bad on dvd other than amateurish results from people who really don't have a clue what they're doing. This includes blunders and mistakes made by some big studios. There's a good example, actually. Some big studios get dvd wrong and it shows that if you haven't a clue about what to do, you'll get a crap dvd resulting from that. Peace, Adam. P.S. What forums? I've had good things from the Vegas Video forums. Not to mention Creative Cow forums, too. |
| inu-liger 22.08.2005 21:06 |
I'll have a look at the white paper specs on my computer later tonight, and post the information on Blu-Ray. |
| inu-liger 22.08.2005 22:48 |
"What codec is used for bluray? Could you post your results?" Three codecs are used for Blu-Ray: MPEG-2 MPEG-4 AVC SMPTE VC-1 Taken from the white papers: Max. Bitrate: 40Mbps HD (High Definition) 1920x1080 x 59.94-i, 50-i (16:9) 1920x1080 x 24-p, 23.976-p (16:9) 1440x1080 x 59.94-i, 50-i (16:9) MPEG-4 AVC / SMPTE VC-1 only 1440x1080 x 24-p, 23.976-p (16:9) MPEG-4 AVC / SMPTE VC-1 only 1280x720 x 59.94-p, 50-p (16:9) 1280x720 x 24-p, 23.976-p (16:9) SD (Standard Definition) 720x480 x 59.94-i (4:3/16:9) 720x576 x 50-i (4:3/16:9) |
| Tero 23.08.2005 00:29 |
I'm probably just talking out of my arse again (as usual with all these technical topics :P ), but is the quality problem really caused by the limits of the discs? The current DVD resolution is somewhere around 720x576 pixels, which is twice as much as the standard television. Admittedly HDTV has better resolution than that, but I don't think anybody really expects decades old analogue videos to have that kind of quality... At least not unless you have professional equipment to scan the original film negatives. I would be more inclined to think the blockiness (both now and in the future) is caused by second rate amateurs doing VHS to DVD-conversions with their $200 recordable DVDs set on 8h per disc mode. |
| John S Stuart 23.08.2005 09:29 |
Tero: I would be more inclined to think the blockiness (both now and in the future) is caused by second rate amateurs doing VHS to DVD-conversions with their $200 recordable DVDs set on 8h per disc mode. How very true that is. When I first bought a video recorder, I would NEVER use the long-play feature. (That is 8hrs from a 4hr tape), because it said on page three of the manual, "Long Play drastically reduces quality". Now I own a Stand-alone DVD Recorder, I too keep that at the one hour setting - because it provides the best quality available. (OK for a complete concert, I can set it for two hours without much noticable difference - but that is still better than the DVD 8hr mode). My point is that if you have a quality chain - you will end up with a quality product. But if you have a sh*t link anywhere in that chain - then ultimately you will end up with a sh*t product. Things like "Greatest Hits" or "Live At Wembley" will always be remixed from master materials - but bits of Queen on "Tiswas" will never be bettered than the quality of the master VHS. |
| KevMull 24.08.2005 11:07 |
There's something wrong if you can't get a good quality transfer from VHS to DVD. I have done a few FULL concerts (120mins VHS/SVHS) to single layer DVD-R and they are identical in quality. You're doing something VERY wrong if you're getting poor quality trasnfers, artefacts etc at 120 mins or less. What is the point of using such high bit rates for VHS transfers any way? 6mbs should be ample for VHS/SVHS using DD audio. Blu-Ray is an overkill unless you want to store several hour sworth on one disk. Let's not get carried away with all this HDTV/Blu Ray/HD-DVD when it isn't even out yet (in most countries). |
| PieterMC 24.08.2005 11:10 |
I don't think anybody here is going to be trading stuff on Blu Ray media anytime soon. |
| KevMull 24.08.2005 18:31 |
Talking of 'Hi-def DVD'... The only Queen concerts that will benefit from a 'high def transfer', official release are those originally recorded on film, i.e. Budapest, Houstan etc. Now they would look AWESOME |