MAGIC Live in Budapest- Best Image Quality that i ever seen
100 postsPage 5 of 7
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Marknow · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]people on streets wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b] [QUOTE] [b]people on streets wrote:[/b] 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.[/QUOTE] Can you mail me a link to that one, by size alone is should be better. Cheers.[/QUOTE]
Finished downloading and was asked for a password... sh*t![/QUOTE]
That's a shame.
MERQRY · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]people on streets wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]kurgan100 wrote:[/b] [url=http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg688/scaled.php?server=688&filename=pdvd000bg.png&res=medium]Menu[/url][/QUOTE] Saw that one on demonoid. It has LPCM and a nice bitrate. Thanks for the info.[/QUOTE] Yeah! i have this one! i also think is the best rip (for now)
OwenSmith · Member since
Posting went wrong, ignore this. Pressed wrong button.
OwenSmith · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
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?[/QUOTE]
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 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]OwenSmith wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b] 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?[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
Marknow · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Marknow wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]
[b]OwenSmith wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b] 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?[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] 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 a25ish GB digital AVI source, resulting in a 9ish GB DVD file, which is still compressed, but better.
OwenSmith · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]kurgan100 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]OwenSmith wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]kurgan100 wrote:[/b]
[url=http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg688/scaled.php?server=688&filename=pdvd000bg.png&res=medium]Menu[/url][/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
I've now watched this DVD image on my Oppo 95 BD player and it is very good. This looks like a far better concert than Wembley. It's nice to hear John actually speak too when he's around the city.
I never understood why Queen go on about and produce so many versions of Wembley. Knebworth was always the one that I felt was the big one, but then I'd seen Deep Purple at Knebworth the year before. Wembley was always "so what?" for me. Live Magic has much better performances on it than Live at Wembley. This Budapest copy has further confirmed my mediocre opinion of the Wembley shows.
(For the record, I was at the Newcastle show on the Magic tour. It was a good night.)
OwenSmith · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]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.[/QUOTE]
AVI is a container. It can contain audio and video in many different formats. It can also be very compressed or only lightly compressed like any other container. So saying you want audio and video from an AVI source says nothing.
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.
Generally this is wishful thinking. We know Budapest was shot on film, the negative is apparently lost, and the only digital copies are ones derived from laserdisc or VHS. So there's no point saying you'd like 25GB source, we know it doesn't exist.
Marknow · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]OwenSmith wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]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.[/QUOTE]
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..[/QUOTE]
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.
source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc
Audio Audio could be stored in either analog or digital format and in a variety of surround sound formats; NTSC discs could carry two analog audio tracks, plus two uncompressed PCM digital audio tracks, which were CD encoded channels, (EFM, CIRC, 16-bit and 44.1 kHz sample rate).[14] PAL discs could carry one pair of audio tracks, either analog or digital; in the UK, the term LaserVision is used to refer to discs with analog sound, while LaserDisc is used for those with digital audio. The digital sound signal in both formats are EFM-encoded as in CD.[14] Dolby Digital (also called AC-3) and DTS—which are now common on DVD titles.
Marknow · Member since
This means the DVD also has up scaled audio, From LD Dolby 2.0 AC3 @ 16 bit 41000hz to LPCM @ 16bit 48000hz.. The audio makes up 1.06 GB of the DVD leaving 2.6GB for 88mins of video at a bitrate of 3.8mbps.
A DVD rip should be around 9GB with LPCM audio at 16bit 41000hz, with a video bitrate of around 8mbps.Keep in mind the DVD is MPEG2. 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
Unknown
Since the laserdisc of Budapest was a Japanese release I would have thought was NTSC
[QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
The audio makes up 1.06 GB of the DVD leaving 2.6GB for 88mins of video at a bitrate of 3.8mbps.[/QUOTE]
And that is EXACTLY why all of the Queen DVDs of mine that have been "out there" for the last 12 years, are all encoded with ac3 audio.
What's the point in having LPCM sound and a shit quality picture when you can maximise the video bitrate and still get ac3 audio at 256kb/s or higher (especially as most of the Queen stuff from non-official sources is mono anyway).
It's laughable that so many people demand lossless audio on DVDs these days yet are prepared to compromise on video quality!
brians wig · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
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[/QUOTE]
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???
OwenSmith · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]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.
My interpretation of that page is PAL laserdsics could either have analogue sound or digital sound (whereas NTSC discs could have both), and by digital sound it means Linear PCM. When that page means AC3 it tends to specifically say so.
The info file for the download I have has this to say about the transfer:
AC3 on PAL laserdiscs was very rare, because it meant one of the analogue soundtracks was lost to the AC3 so if you didn't have an AC3 decoder you got only mono audio from the other analogue soundtrack. With NTSC you could have digital stereo LPCM, then AC3 5.1 in one analogue track and the other analogue as mono for the ultimate fallback. Also all the stuff about AC3 on laserdisc talks about 5.1 at 384kbps, I've never seen anything else mentioned and certainly not AC3 2.0.
I've seen pictures of this laserdisc in YouTube clips of it, and it clearly says "Stereo Digital Audio" on the label.
This DVD is only 90 minutes long. That's short enough for LPCM audio and still allowing plenty of bit rate for the video. It was peaking at 8.8mbps when I was watching it, that's higher than many feature films on DVD. Given that the original audio is LPCM on the laserdisc, I think it is right in this case to preserve that.
I agree for longer DVDs that DD2.0 using 256kbps or more is probably the way to go to avoid wrecking the video.
