Live In Japan 1982 HD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MscyRnqizxw

My friend Dylan has Seibu Lion VHS Footage in 1080p

http://youtu.be/yiI6-Ztbn3U

it looks no better than the laserdisc....which is still the best way to enjoy Queen Live....it offers more official concert releases and in better quality than dvd....it almost matches bluray.....but the sound is better than blu ray....

[QUOTE] [b]pestgrid wrote:[/b]

it looks no better than the laserdisc....which is still the best way to enjoy Queen Live....it offers more official concert releases and in better quality than dvd....it almost matches bluray.....but the sound is better than blu ray....[/QUOTE]

All the same, I wish it'd be released on Blu-ray sometime soon, or at least on DVD+CD.

Was it originally filmed or video taped?

Neither of the links above are in HD. It's just the original video which is probably in 480p upscaled to 720p and 1080p.

It looks like it was recorded on video just like Wembley and most other pro-shot concerts. I'm not sure if there exists any more concerts in film with the exception of Montreal and Budapest which we already have proper HD releases of.

[QUOTE] [b]The Kurgan wrote:[/b]

Was it originally filmed or video taped?[/QUOTE]

Looks like video to me

I think both 'Queen Live in Japan 1982' and 'Queen We Are The Champions Final Live in japan 1985' were recorded on tape.

Ain't no HD. Upconverted piece of standart definition crap. And yeah looks like being shot on tape.

May I ask what the name of the VHS video tape was? Was it released in all territories?

It is worth noting that Japan 1982 was released in Japan in HD format in 1983. Queen live in Japan VHD Laser-disc.

http://www.popsike.com/QUEEN-MEGA-RARE-PROMO-VHD-LASERDISC-LD-JAPAN-82-DVD/160522723331.html

Was VHD really HD ? I thought the video was still just SD, like LDs

No chance it's HD - why do tonnes of YT videos claim to be in HD when they clearly ain't???

^ to get more views and subs. I suppose. Basically all what they do is add some sharpen, denoise, contrast, render in 720p and it's HD (not!) Lol. *HD* sounds "cooler". Some don't even do the above but simply stretch it to 16:9 to fill the screen (I fucking hate that) and convert into HD. Not to mention they do additional re-compressing sometimes degrading quality a lot so at the end what you see on youtube looks even worse than the original. Even more so if the uploader claims it's "remastered" and doesn't really know what he's doing therefore ruining it like overboosting saturation or whatever. That case is the worst.

[QUOTE]

[b]pittrek wrote: [/b] Was VHD really HD ? I thought the video was still just SD, like LDs[/QUOTE]

To be honest I don't know mate. I know GB has one of these maybe he can give a proper answer in regard to quality versus other formats. [url=http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1215986/queen-rock-montreal-unusual-formats.aspx]http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1215986/queen-rock-montreal-unusual-formats.aspx[/url]

Maybe it was considered HD back in 1983 but has surpassed by other formats since. I would like to see what kind of quality it has.

Some general info here [url=http://disclord.tripod.com/vhddiscworld/id7.html]http://disclord.tripod.com/vhddiscworld/id7.html[/url]

VHD compared to LD and CED

If VHD had been released in American in 1982 as orignally planned, there
is no question, in terms of features and quality, it would have beat
both CED and LaserDisc. Of course, I'm referring to the quality of LD at
that time - as compared to late-era LD, VHD would lose. But back in
1982, it was a big winner. How was VHD better?

PICTURE QUALITY -
While VHD had only 250 lines of horizontal resolution and about 70
lines of chroma resolution, it still had a very sharp picture with no
drop-outs or visual anomalies. Unlike an Extended Play LD, VHD can never
suffer from crosstalk. While both CED and VHD are stylus-based
capacitance disc systems, a CED image is always slightly pasty and
filled with numerous drop-outs. Not so with VHD. Both systems also
employ a 'buried subcarrier' for chroma encoding, which on CED, results
in a 'thready' look to vertical transitions (due to the placement of the
chroma within the luminance and the comb-filter used). In comparison,
the VHD image is smooth and clear with minimal dot-crawl. JVC somehow
managed to produce discs that are free of visual artifacts. VHD dosen't
skip like CED either - like LD, a VHD disc must be either clearly
defective or scratched for it to skip.

Sound Quality - Again,
VHD is head-and-shoulders above both CED and analog LD. From the
beginning, JVC included a noise reduction system for VHD audio. As a
result, even mono discs are noise free - there's no ticks or pops to be
heard. Even visual disturbances on screen do not cause audible artifacts
(unlike CED or analog LD). And due to the frequencies used to encode
the FM audio signals, there is no high end "splatter" or problems
dealing with high-level, high frequency sounds like LD.

Special
Effects - In comparison to CLV LD, VHD is clearly the winner. VHD can
do crystal-clear slow motion, fast-forward and reverse and can quickly
(within 4 seconds) search to any of the 54,000 tracks on one side of the
disc. It can also do time and chapter searches. VHD is also capable of
freeze frame and normal speed reverse play. As compared to CED, VHD wins
every time. CED's seek times are slow, and effects quality is poor. CED
also never offered any form of slow motion or reverse play.

Durability
- LD wins here, but VHD is a close second. The VHD discs are protected
in a tough plastic caddy, like CED, but unlike CED, the discs have no
grooves to damage. Since the VHD stylus tracks with 1/10th the surface
pressure of CED, a VHD disc will last for over 10,000 plays and the
stylus for over 2,000 hours. CED can't come close to this type of
performance.