I shared this dvd with the intention togive back to the nice people here who have also shared with the community. I repeat I did not make the 1st DVD of the 2,(wich I "was" gonna share here as well)so why am I the one to be cut down for being generous. Ive never felt so unwelcome for sharing somthing before this is just crazy...
Peace,
------
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Far out !
Thank you ever so much ! ! !
Thank you ever so much ! ! !
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
If these people weren't so stubborn and ignorant...
[/QUOTE]
Sharing could be so nice if you would not feel compelled to pop up in so many threads to belittle sharers and make them feel bad
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Most of the videos shared here are lossy
[/QUOTE]
That's the nature of online sharing of DVDs - they are lossy. VOB files are compressed, i.e. DVDs are lossy. You don't expect us to share 80 GB original avi files, do you?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
most Queen DVDs are lossy, for two reasons: a) some people want to keep the best versions for themselves, or b) they simply don't know that a regular DVD over 60 minutes long is lossy, so they simply encode 110 minutes or so onto a single disc, and call it a day.
[/QUOTE]
Allegations (sharers keeping the best version for themselves) and belitteling (sharers are too lazy or stupid to do it "right")
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
However, there *is* an untouched copy of this Buenos Aires show out there, so when an alternative is available, people should reserve the right to be critical of how someone went out of their way to destroy a perfectly good recording.
[/QUOTE]
No, the sharer did not "destroy" a perfectly good recording. Did you destroy the master tape of the 8mm video of Montreal when you shared an xth gen copy here? When you knew a master copy exists? Did you "piss into the trading pool" and did you give Queen collectors a bad name by sharing this xth gen copy? Did you keep the best version for yourself?
I suppose the answer to these questions is "no" -everybody here was thankful for the effort you made to create a live sound track to the video. Nobody felt the need to attack you for sharing a lossy copy, you got nothing but praise for your effort.
It would be nice if you would stop attacking sharers who just share with the best intentions. I would be eternally grateful if you reconsider your attitude, seriously.
If these people weren't so stubborn and ignorant...
[/QUOTE]
Sharing could be so nice if you would not feel compelled to pop up in so many threads to belittle sharers and make them feel bad
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Most of the videos shared here are lossy
[/QUOTE]
That's the nature of online sharing of DVDs - they are lossy. VOB files are compressed, i.e. DVDs are lossy. You don't expect us to share 80 GB original avi files, do you?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
most Queen DVDs are lossy, for two reasons: a) some people want to keep the best versions for themselves, or b) they simply don't know that a regular DVD over 60 minutes long is lossy, so they simply encode 110 minutes or so onto a single disc, and call it a day.
[/QUOTE]
Allegations (sharers keeping the best version for themselves) and belitteling (sharers are too lazy or stupid to do it "right")
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
However, there *is* an untouched copy of this Buenos Aires show out there, so when an alternative is available, people should reserve the right to be critical of how someone went out of their way to destroy a perfectly good recording.
[/QUOTE]
No, the sharer did not "destroy" a perfectly good recording. Did you destroy the master tape of the 8mm video of Montreal when you shared an xth gen copy here? When you knew a master copy exists? Did you "piss into the trading pool" and did you give Queen collectors a bad name by sharing this xth gen copy? Did you keep the best version for yourself?
I suppose the answer to these questions is "no" -everybody here was thankful for the effort you made to create a live sound track to the video. Nobody felt the need to attack you for sharing a lossy copy, you got nothing but praise for your effort.
It would be nice if you would stop attacking sharers who just share with the best intentions. I would be eternally grateful if you reconsider your attitude, seriously.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PixieStix wrote: [/QUOTENAME] If you dont want it dont get it.
If I get all these bad bitchy comments there most likely wont be a disk2 here for a long while.
Screen Shots
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7787/cap002yx3.jpg
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7590/cap003gu6.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3276/cap004tl7.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/4623/cap005nw3.jpg
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3237/cap006ym0.jpg [/QUOTE]
I'd like to see disc 2 please mate.
Thanks for this share.
Sorry about 928, just ignore him, he's a total arsehole!
If I get all these bad bitchy comments there most likely wont be a disk2 here for a long while.
Screen Shots
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7787/cap002yx3.jpg
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7590/cap003gu6.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3276/cap004tl7.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/4623/cap005nw3.jpg
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3237/cap006ym0.jpg [/QUOTE]
I'd like to see disc 2 please mate.
Thanks for this share.
Sorry about 928, just ignore him, he's a total arsehole!
Hey, guys. I'm still downloading this gig (about a 75% complete) so with the VLC I made some screenshots:
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/3185/vlcsnap20218hr4.jpg
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5259/vlcsnap25060yi1.jpg
If you see them, you will see that this gig is not in widescreen, but in fullscreen, keeping the original 4:3 TV transmission.
For me this is great, because I prefer to keep the original 4:3. ;) And, of course, thanks again for sharing this great gig!
See ya later!
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/3185/vlcsnap20218hr4.jpg
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5259/vlcsnap25060yi1.jpg
If you see them, you will see that this gig is not in widescreen, but in fullscreen, keeping the original 4:3 TV transmission.
For me this is great, because I prefer to keep the original 4:3. ;) And, of course, thanks again for sharing this great gig!
See ya later!
The truth of the matter is this, I believe. There are two camps, within the trading community, and both are acceptable, but are not usually accepted by each other. Please indulge me and let me try to explain, what I perceive to be 'the way of things'.
The greater majority of traders are no different than the folks who loved having a worn cassette of a dirty, scratched old vinyl lP that was damaged from inner groove distortion. They would rather watch a movie or concert on a poor quality, damaged VHS tape, than not have anything. These folks hear 'nothing' wrong with a typically encoded 128 kbps mp3 or perhaps a VBR encoded mp3. They honestly don't hear much of a difference and don't understand what all the fuss is about. These folks 'swear' that their old 21" RCA TV has a much nicer picture than their neighbor's new 50" Panasonic Plasma screen . . . you get the idea.
The other side of the coin, are the ones, like myself, that strive for the absolute best quality that can be found. I've worked with music, audio and video professionally. I very much can hear/see a difference between multi-gen vs. master tapes, lossless encoding versus typical MP3 encoding, etc. That being said, I do know from personal experience, that encoded material that has been processed properly, can make great strides in actually 'undoing' some lossy damage.
Personally, I will always sing the praises of 'higher' quality. Nevertheless, I'm not so obstinate and naive as to believe that Dolby AC3, encoded with a pro-grade encoder at high bit rates, is discernible from LPCM audio. Hollywood does it all the time. Mind you, they aren't using Tmpeg or Tsunami to do the encoding. *grin*
Whether you encode mpeg-2 video streams at the maximum 9500 kbps, or at SP mode bitrates of only 4700 kbps, it is, by its very media type, ALL LOSSY. mpeg = lossy in all situations at all times. However, the degree of compression, and the quality of the encoder, determines the quality of the final encoded product. You can't compare the tmpeg encoder or pinnacle, or mainconcept to that of a full-fledged professional encoder like Canopus Pro or Cinema Craft Encoder. Neither can you compare the audio quality of an Dolby audio track that has been encoded with the $$$ SurCode Procoder with one like Tmpeg includes as a plugin with its products. Sometimes, these types of variances bare a great deal of relevance.
Personally, I wish that the folks using consumer-grade Wal-Mart VCRs to transfer their precious, rare tapes would go pound sand. I wish that everyone used high end pro-grade S-VHS decks and Super Beta HiFI machines. Everyone should have a good TBC, a good Video enhancer/detailer, a good color proc and use only high-grade (non oxidizing) gold plated connections. Unfortunately, building up a bevy of hobbyist tools like this costs literally thousands of dollars. I've been working on it since over 2 years. I don't earn $60K+ a year, so it takes time. (And cussing at other eBay bidders for outbidding you. . . lol.)
I too used to give a good ripping to those whom I felt were dirtying the trading pool. I'm still tempted to do it much more often that I'd care to admit. I too have downloaded shows that were purported by the uploader to be "A" quality, when in fact, the show looked like poop. Nincompoops who muddy up the trading pool get on my nerves too - either they don't care or they don't know the difference. In either case, it just spreads the mud around. However, those of who really care about quality, have to try make a difference. If you have something really good, don't hoarde it. Get it out there and help lessen the amount of crap in the pool.
DOH! My typewriter just ran out of ink . . .lol. Seriously though, folks. We all want the best for the trading community. Dumbasses - smarten up. Overly protective 'uber' collectors, try to develop patience.
Just my 4 cents.
The greater majority of traders are no different than the folks who loved having a worn cassette of a dirty, scratched old vinyl lP that was damaged from inner groove distortion. They would rather watch a movie or concert on a poor quality, damaged VHS tape, than not have anything. These folks hear 'nothing' wrong with a typically encoded 128 kbps mp3 or perhaps a VBR encoded mp3. They honestly don't hear much of a difference and don't understand what all the fuss is about. These folks 'swear' that their old 21" RCA TV has a much nicer picture than their neighbor's new 50" Panasonic Plasma screen . . . you get the idea.
The other side of the coin, are the ones, like myself, that strive for the absolute best quality that can be found. I've worked with music, audio and video professionally. I very much can hear/see a difference between multi-gen vs. master tapes, lossless encoding versus typical MP3 encoding, etc. That being said, I do know from personal experience, that encoded material that has been processed properly, can make great strides in actually 'undoing' some lossy damage.
Personally, I will always sing the praises of 'higher' quality. Nevertheless, I'm not so obstinate and naive as to believe that Dolby AC3, encoded with a pro-grade encoder at high bit rates, is discernible from LPCM audio. Hollywood does it all the time. Mind you, they aren't using Tmpeg or Tsunami to do the encoding. *grin*
Whether you encode mpeg-2 video streams at the maximum 9500 kbps, or at SP mode bitrates of only 4700 kbps, it is, by its very media type, ALL LOSSY. mpeg = lossy in all situations at all times. However, the degree of compression, and the quality of the encoder, determines the quality of the final encoded product. You can't compare the tmpeg encoder or pinnacle, or mainconcept to that of a full-fledged professional encoder like Canopus Pro or Cinema Craft Encoder. Neither can you compare the audio quality of an Dolby audio track that has been encoded with the $$$ SurCode Procoder with one like Tmpeg includes as a plugin with its products. Sometimes, these types of variances bare a great deal of relevance.
Personally, I wish that the folks using consumer-grade Wal-Mart VCRs to transfer their precious, rare tapes would go pound sand. I wish that everyone used high end pro-grade S-VHS decks and Super Beta HiFI machines. Everyone should have a good TBC, a good Video enhancer/detailer, a good color proc and use only high-grade (non oxidizing) gold plated connections. Unfortunately, building up a bevy of hobbyist tools like this costs literally thousands of dollars. I've been working on it since over 2 years. I don't earn $60K+ a year, so it takes time. (And cussing at other eBay bidders for outbidding you. . . lol.)
I too used to give a good ripping to those whom I felt were dirtying the trading pool. I'm still tempted to do it much more often that I'd care to admit. I too have downloaded shows that were purported by the uploader to be "A" quality, when in fact, the show looked like poop. Nincompoops who muddy up the trading pool get on my nerves too - either they don't care or they don't know the difference. In either case, it just spreads the mud around. However, those of who really care about quality, have to try make a difference. If you have something really good, don't hoarde it. Get it out there and help lessen the amount of crap in the pool.
DOH! My typewriter just ran out of ink . . .lol. Seriously though, folks. We all want the best for the trading community. Dumbasses - smarten up. Overly protective 'uber' collectors, try to develop patience.
Just my 4 cents.
Woaw... sounds like Chinese for me, because I'm not that much into video for the moment... but I think you got it, the idea of quality has to be defended, whether in video or audio (I don't want to start again a mp3/flac discussion, but if we can do something right for the quality and everybody is winning something in it, I think we should do that !).
Anyway, many thanks for the original sharer. I haven't downloaded your files because video is not of my priorities and I don't know that much in this field. But I thank you for the willing to share, if anybody has said something here that was against your will to share instead of against quality, then it was not that great. Maybe you should ask to someone who really knows about video before sharing next time, wel lthat is what I would do, because as you read before some people won't share here if the quality is not generally improved (once again a mp3/Flac thing...), so we might be careful with our shares !
Anyway, have a happy life on Queenzone, and don't worry, you are thanked for you will to share anyway !!
regards,
Olivier,
France.
Anyway, many thanks for the original sharer. I haven't downloaded your files because video is not of my priorities and I don't know that much in this field. But I thank you for the willing to share, if anybody has said something here that was against your will to share instead of against quality, then it was not that great. Maybe you should ask to someone who really knows about video before sharing next time, wel lthat is what I would do, because as you read before some people won't share here if the quality is not generally improved (once again a mp3/Flac thing...), so we might be careful with our shares !
Anyway, have a happy life on Queenzone, and don't worry, you are thanked for you will to share anyway !!
regards,
Olivier,
France.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Most of the videos shared here are lossy[/QUOTE]
That's the nature of online sharing of DVDs - they are lossy. VOB files are compressed, i.e. DVDs are lossy. You don't expect us to share 80 GB original avi files, do you?[/QUOTE]
No, of course not. If you want to get technical, then yes, every DVD is technically lossy. But honestly, a 2 hour concert should not be 4 gb with ac3 audio. It should be split over two discs and have LPCM audio to maximize its quality.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Did you destroy the master tape of the 8mm video of Montreal when you shared an xth gen copy here? When you knew a master copy exists? Did you "piss into the trading pool" and did you give Queen collectors a bad name by sharing this xth gen copy? Did you keep the best version for yourself?[/QUOTE]
First, at the time I created this video, I didn't know the master copy existed. The fact that I used mostly LA audio indicates that I was still under the impression (as was everyone else) that the video was from LA. The discovery of the master copy indicated that the video was actually from Montreal, and that was much later.
Second, the old video and the master copy run at different speeds, so I would have to do the work all over again, which I really didn't feel like doing, as it had taken about 2 months to create the first version. Also, at the time, I didn't have software to encode DVD (which I stated at the time), so svcd was the best I could do. Anyone is free to ask me to send them the WAV file and they can synch it to a DVD themselves or even share it here.
[QUOTE]It would be nice if you would stop attacking sharers who just share with the best intentions. I would be eternally grateful if you reconsider your attitude, seriously.[/QUOTE]
Most of my posts on this subject are about the policies, not the people themselves. I even stated in this very topic that commenting about a recording's quality shouldn't have to be taken personally by the person who shared it, as they're most likely not the person who created it. This is a forum, so people should be free to comment on quality. Unless it's someone like Gym Bitch, of course.
That's the nature of online sharing of DVDs - they are lossy. VOB files are compressed, i.e. DVDs are lossy. You don't expect us to share 80 GB original avi files, do you?[/QUOTE]
No, of course not. If you want to get technical, then yes, every DVD is technically lossy. But honestly, a 2 hour concert should not be 4 gb with ac3 audio. It should be split over two discs and have LPCM audio to maximize its quality.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Did you destroy the master tape of the 8mm video of Montreal when you shared an xth gen copy here? When you knew a master copy exists? Did you "piss into the trading pool" and did you give Queen collectors a bad name by sharing this xth gen copy? Did you keep the best version for yourself?[/QUOTE]
First, at the time I created this video, I didn't know the master copy existed. The fact that I used mostly LA audio indicates that I was still under the impression (as was everyone else) that the video was from LA. The discovery of the master copy indicated that the video was actually from Montreal, and that was much later.
Second, the old video and the master copy run at different speeds, so I would have to do the work all over again, which I really didn't feel like doing, as it had taken about 2 months to create the first version. Also, at the time, I didn't have software to encode DVD (which I stated at the time), so svcd was the best I could do. Anyone is free to ask me to send them the WAV file and they can synch it to a DVD themselves or even share it here.
[QUOTE]It would be nice if you would stop attacking sharers who just share with the best intentions. I would be eternally grateful if you reconsider your attitude, seriously.[/QUOTE]
Most of my posts on this subject are about the policies, not the people themselves. I even stated in this very topic that commenting about a recording's quality shouldn't have to be taken personally by the person who shared it, as they're most likely not the person who created it. This is a forum, so people should be free to comment on quality. Unless it's someone like Gym Bitch, of course.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PixieStix wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I shared this dvd with the intention togive back to the nice people here who have also shared with the community. I repeat I did not make the 1st DVD of the 2,(wich I "was" gonna share here as well)so why am I the one to be cut down for being generous. Ive never felt so unwelcome for sharing somthing before this is just crazy...[/QUOTE]
928 may not have the greatest sense of tact, but don't let one person scare you away from here. Seriously, if you shared this at The Traders' Den or Dime, the moderators would have pulled it within minutes, not only because of the quality, but because it contains official material (part of Dust was on the Rare Live compilation). And if you'd argue your point, you'd probably be banned.
We're all well aware that you didn't create this video, so the criticism for its quality isn't personally directed at you. It's just very frustrating for some of us that most Queen DVDs could be in better quality. Most of the people who create these DVDs have good intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that the quality could be better with a bit of knowledge about transferring and DVD encoding, as Snivlle stated above.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What is the "untouched copy", Bob?[/QUOTE]
The VHS, which must be out there. Ideally, the best audio source should be synched to this and burned over two DVDs so we can have the best version possible.
Btw... fantastic post, Snivlle.
928 may not have the greatest sense of tact, but don't let one person scare you away from here. Seriously, if you shared this at The Traders' Den or Dime, the moderators would have pulled it within minutes, not only because of the quality, but because it contains official material (part of Dust was on the Rare Live compilation). And if you'd argue your point, you'd probably be banned.
We're all well aware that you didn't create this video, so the criticism for its quality isn't personally directed at you. It's just very frustrating for some of us that most Queen DVDs could be in better quality. Most of the people who create these DVDs have good intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that the quality could be better with a bit of knowledge about transferring and DVD encoding, as Snivlle stated above.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What is the "untouched copy", Bob?[/QUOTE]
The VHS, which must be out there. Ideally, the best audio source should be synched to this and burned over two DVDs so we can have the best version possible.
Btw... fantastic post, Snivlle.
Can anybody seed, please?
Having downloaded 91,8% of the file I can neither burn a dvd nor delete it. Pleeeaaase....
Having downloaded 91,8% of the file I can neither burn a dvd nor delete it. Pleeeaaase....
Please seed
Thanks to all the seeders. Although cropped I think the quality looks rather good on this remaster, even when compared to a copy I made myself direct from a qtv broadcast at Pontins many years ago. The sound quality seems much better too (IMHO)
Just to clarify, this is what you are getting. There is only one dual channel audio track and the concert itself is 100 minutes (3.31GB) over four vobs - well you do the maths...........
[url=http://www.queen.snowproducciones.com.ar/ARG3pal-2.html]http://www.queen.snowproducciones.com.ar/ARG3pal-2.html[/url]
Disc 1
Thanks for this Pixie Stix
I seeded until 1:1
Just to clarify, this is what you are getting. There is only one dual channel audio track and the concert itself is 100 minutes (3.31GB) over four vobs - well you do the maths...........
[url=http://www.queen.snowproducciones.com.ar/ARG3pal-2.html]http://www.queen.snowproducciones.com.ar/ARG3pal-2.html[/url]
Disc 1
Thanks for this Pixie Stix
I seeded until 1:1
Please, somenone seed.
thanks in advance.
thanks in advance.
the torrent stopped at 85.8 %. 3 users more have the same percent, keep seeding people.