Was Tokyo 1975 filmed? If so how well? I thought that this show was not filmed.[/QUOTE]
From queenconcerts.com:
[b]Apparently recorded by a local TV station, full recording might be
somewhere in the archives. 3 songs are widely available (and wrongly
marked as 19.04.1975) - Now I'm Here, Killer Queen and In The Lap Of The
Gods... revisited. Other commonly available Japanese footage from 1975
includes: Queen arriving at the Haneda airport from Honolulu (JAL 61,
April 17), press conference with Queen in the Tokyo Prince hotel (April
18) and tea ceremony + some promo video shooting for the Star Senichiya
TV programme (April 20).[/b]
It was not the same tour as the Hammy concert- Tokyo (Sheer Heart Attack Tour), Hammersmith (A Night At The Oper Tour), but at least it's from the same year...:)
queenside · Member since
i'd like to see hammy '75 concert officially released even if it's with no dvd extras. at least it would be the best a/v version of that fantastic concert. but there will be some interviews with brian and roger by bob harris (brian said it on his site) and maybe audio commentary like on rock montreal dvd
Adam Baboolal · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Negative Creep wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]gordonl wrote: [/b]
It was mentioned that there are few shows worthy of HD due to the filming quality (Montreal/Budapest?), with shows like Wembley being as good as they could be on DVD already
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] It wouldn't surprise me if he's said that - but plenty of so called "standard definition" video would hugely benefit from a bluray release. Just for starters - you're guaranteed a proper lossless audio track. Then there's the fact that the Wembley DVD in particular is nowhere even near full DVD quality as the bit rate is so low. Basically any analogue sourced video would benefit from blu-ray - as long as the producers go back to the master and transfer at the higher rate.
====================== What do you mean, "a proper lossless audio track"? Dvd can handle an uncompressed PCM track, you know. Also, the producers DON'T need to go back to the master video and transfer at a higher rate. They will have already transferred the video at the best possible quality available at the time. Think about it - would it make sense to transfer a video at a decent rate for dvd, but not for anything better in the future? No. And as we all know, Wembley is stuck at a much lower video based rate anyway, so it can't be pushed higher without looking bad.When transferring anything, it's almost always going to be at the best possible quality available unless it's restricted by something. The Bond series of films is a good example. They had all the bond films scanned digitally at a rate of 4k around 6-7 years ago. That's well above the current 1920x1080 "HD" video resolution! Future proofing where possible. I don't doubt that a higher bitrate will bring it up a bit, but it won't improve it by much, so why bother? So much effort for little return, quality-wise. [/QUOTE]Adam.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
neokaden · Member since
see the quality available there concert at the Hammersmith Odeon 1979 [/QUOTE][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uqD3QX0QXQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uqD3QX0QXQ[/url] [/QUOTE][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82sFRw1NDPs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82sFRw1NDPs[/url] [/QUOTE][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_NeqJlrINc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_NeqJlrINc[/url] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]If only ... [/QUOTE]
Negative Creep · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/b]
What do you mean, "a proper lossless audio track"? Dvd can handle an uncompressed PCM track, you know. Also, the producers DON'T need to go back to the master video and transfer at a higher rate. They will have already transferred the video at the best possible quality available at the time. Think about it - would it make sense to transfer a video at a decent rate for dvd, but not for anything better in the future? No. And as we all know, Wembley is stuck at a much lower video based rate anyway, so it can't be pushed higher without looking bad.When transferring anything, it's almost always going to be at the best possible quality available unless it's restricted by something. The Bond series of films is a good example. They had all the bond films scanned digitally at a rate of 4k around 6-7 years ago. That's well above the current 1920x1080 "HD" video resolution! Future proofing where possible. I don't doubt that a higher bitrate will bring it up a bit, but it won't improve it by much, so why bother? So much effort for little return, quality-wise.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Well, I meant exactly what I wrote. Most DVDs don't have a lossless audio soundtrack. Even DVD singles rarely had PCM despite there being more than enough room.
And producers WOULD need to go back to masters to do new transfers - it's a bit naive to think everything that's ever been released on DVD is sitting somewhere in a digitally superior state than DVD at it's highest resolution. Very few DVDs operate at the level they can do, becuse the aim with most DVD has been to put as much on them as possible regardless of the impact on the quality.
Re: Wembley - the pixelization on it is hilarious - I'd just LOVE to watch that on a big TV. I've no idea what you mean by Wembley "being stuck at a much lower video based rate" - the bit rate of the DVD as it stands is probably less than what DVD can actually offer. It was recorded on analogue - the current DVD doesn't do it justice on a normal sized TV, let alone a bigger one.
inu-liger · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Negative Creep wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/b]
What do you mean, "a proper lossless audio track"? Dvd can handle an uncompressed PCM track, you know. Also, the producers DON'T need to go back to the master video and transfer at a higher rate. They will have already transferred the video at the best possible quality available at the time. Think about it - would it make sense to transfer a video at a decent rate for dvd, but not for anything better in the future? No. And as we all know, Wembley is stuck at a much lower video based rate anyway, so it can't be pushed higher without looking bad.When transferring anything, it's almost always going to be at the best possible quality available unless it's restricted by something. The Bond series of films is a good example. They had all the bond films scanned digitally at a rate of 4k around 6-7 years ago. That's well above the current 1920x1080 "HD" video resolution! Future proofing where possible. I don't doubt that a higher bitrate will bring it up a bit, but it won't improve it by much, so why bother? So much effort for little return, quality-wise.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Well, I meant exactly what I wrote. Most DVDs don't have a lossless audio soundtrack. Even DVD singles rarely had PCM despite there being more than enough room.
And producers WOULD need to go back to masters to do new transfers - it's a bit naive to think everything that's ever been released on DVD is sitting somewhere in a digitally superior state than DVD at it's highest resolution. Very few DVDs operate at the level they can do, becuse the aim with most DVD has been to put as much on them as possible regardless of the impact on the quality.
Re: Wembley - the pixelization on it is hilarious - I'd just LOVE to watch that on a big TV. I've no idea what you mean by Wembley "being stuck at a much lower video based rate" - the bit rate of the DVD as it stands is probably less than what DVD can actually offer. It was recorded on analogue - the current DVD doesn't do it justice on a normal sized TV, let alone a bigger one.
---------------
They COULD have increased the average bitrate of the video by dropping the DTS track, since it was upmixed anyways - do QPL seriously not realize there are a TON of audio receivers out there that can process a fake surround sound upmix?? And DTS has the same bitrate as PCM at best (although I believe there is a 718kbps option as well...), so that was a complete waste of disc space at the expense of PQ. And yes, it has major block hell going on, no matter what people say otherwise!
Seriously, QPL are lazy ass bastards - they can't be arsed to transfer the multitracks and create a true 5.1 mix for the DVD, YET two years later they go through them anyways to extract Freddie's isolated microphone and piano tracks for the Q+PR 2005-06 tours!
Adam Baboolal · Member since
NC, my observation is not a naive opinion at all. Just ask yourself about the expense and time of getting something transferred more than once. And of course the main reason to transfer something like this is to retain the quality where and when possible. With video, you don't want to keep playing back that material as each time it's played back, it gets worse. That's why when we film a show, we always transfer our tapes FIRST and then archive them where, It's (hopefully) never touched again. Its only played one time after recording and that's because we want the least amount of wear on the tape. So then have the best quality copy and the tape is treated as a backup of the material where it's only used again when absolutely necessary.In fact, I remember transferring a particular film on a Hi-8 tape. The first time was through a fairly low compression codec on a consumer pc card, but the sizes were enormous for 2001, so it was altered and ultimately not kept in its correct state. Then 5 years later it was transferred again to get the best possible quality from it. This was done on a much more expensive and high end system. However, the quality by then was shown to be grainier than previously realised and not much, if any improvement was gained. Now I understand it's maybe not the best comparison, but here's my point. 1, the more expensive transfer showed up more grain. And 2, didn't really improve the quality or detail. Also, it's worth noting that the resolution of both transfers were identical.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Ultimately, it's a mixed bag on whether it should be done. If it is done, the results are semi-predictable. As I have shown above. Our tape gained little to none over the previous copy we had. With the Wembley video, the same could be said for that being transferred again. And you don't need me to tell you that bog standard video like Wembley doesn't get much better as it's upscaled either. And finally, what's the point in re-transferring it, re-editing it and remixing/syncing it all for a re-release?[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Btw, on the liner notes for the Wembley Dvd, it says the default track is PCM stereo. So, it does have PCM after-all.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Adam.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]P.s. Inu, where did you hear that the audio was upmixed 5.1? I hadn't heard that before. [/QUOTE]
inu-liger · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/b]
P.s. Inu, where did you hear that the audio was upmixed 5.1? I hadn't heard that before.
[/QUOTE]
I read it here on QZ. I think QPL said themselves it was upmixed rather than truly re-mixed. Caused a lot of controversy here at the time. Notice on the packaging it doesn't have the DTS 96/24 logo that the other DVD's with the real 5.1 mixes have, but rather just the regular logo?
AlexRocks · Member since
So what I was saying was that I think that it would make sense to release both Hammersmith shows since they are obviously the same venue and the tracklisting is different and the latter would give more appeal to the public which I always understood was the concern with the first. At least in comparison to latter shows...I also think it would help expand the running time and make the release just all around more significant. There is no reason why EVERY SINGLE show has to be unto itself...
