brians wig
Download tsmuxer (it's free) and use that to demux.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
pittrek
[QUOTE] [b]Barry Durex wrote:[/b]
^ I can't see an option to demux in mkvtoolnix for windows.
Regarding this share, is some or all of the video de-interlaced?
That's why I asked if you used an LCD monitor.[/QUOTE]
The final video is encoded as interlaced top field first, I can't tell you about the sources
^ I can't see an option to demux in mkvtoolnix for windows.
Regarding this share, is some or all of the video de-interlaced?
That's why I asked if you used an LCD monitor.[/QUOTE]
The final video is encoded as interlaced top field first, I can't tell you about the sources
Barry Durex
Thanks brians wig, that software demuxed the mkv.
It reports the source video as interlaced.
Just my opinion but I think de-interlaced video looks better on LCD monitors.
It reports the source video as interlaced.
Just my opinion but I think de-interlaced video looks better on LCD monitors.
Ghostwithasmile is BACK!
OKay call me stupid. But I need a answer to this question:
I downloaded the Pittrek share of the reel tape and the video source. My question is: during SAD the sound changes from reel tape to video source (what comes next ?..) , the audio from the reel tapes and the video source (channel 4 , granada ?) are these taken from the same audio multi tracks or is the audio of the video source a unique audio source taken from the camera microphones ?
So is the sound of both taken from the same source ? I am asking this because the audio of the video source is quite different but this could be the problem of high generations VHS copies.
I downloaded the Pittrek share of the reel tape and the video source. My question is: during SAD the sound changes from reel tape to video source (what comes next ?..) , the audio from the reel tapes and the video source (channel 4 , granada ?) are these taken from the same audio multi tracks or is the audio of the video source a unique audio source taken from the camera microphones ?
So is the sound of both taken from the same source ? I am asking this because the audio of the video source is quite different but this could be the problem of high generations VHS copies.
brians wig
[QUOTE] [b]Barry Durex wrote:[/b]
Thanks brians wig, that software demuxed the mkv.
It reports the source video as interlaced.
Just my opinion but I think de-interlaced video looks better on LCD monitors.[/QUOTE]
Personally I like to watch videos on a thing called a television set and even though I now have a modern HD TV, I still prefer video to be interlaced ESPECIALLY if that's the source.
Of course, with this edit being from a variety of sources, deinterlacing it all would have been a better option.
When video editing, I still use an old CRT so I can see that the finished output is interlaced and, more importantly, in the correct field order. There's nowt worse than an exclusive, only one of its kind, video from some muppet that hasn't a clue about field orders and you end up with those awful horizontal lines that flicker and jerk on any movement.
Sorry. getting off my soapbox now.
Thanks brians wig, that software demuxed the mkv.
It reports the source video as interlaced.
Just my opinion but I think de-interlaced video looks better on LCD monitors.[/QUOTE]
Personally I like to watch videos on a thing called a television set and even though I now have a modern HD TV, I still prefer video to be interlaced ESPECIALLY if that's the source.
Of course, with this edit being from a variety of sources, deinterlacing it all would have been a better option.
When video editing, I still use an old CRT so I can see that the finished output is interlaced and, more importantly, in the correct field order. There's nowt worse than an exclusive, only one of its kind, video from some muppet that hasn't a clue about field orders and you end up with those awful horizontal lines that flicker and jerk on any movement.
Sorry. getting off my soapbox now.
Barry Durex
^ I have a thing called an LCD HD television set ;-)
I agree that if your HD "TV" is a CRT (unlikely) then an interlaced video would indeed look mighty fine on it.
LCD TVs however are not interlaced and some of those interlaced videos from the RT box set look horrible on them.
De-interlace those same videos and they look great.
Just my preference I guess.
I agree that if your HD "TV" is a CRT (unlikely) then an interlaced video would indeed look mighty fine on it.
LCD TVs however are not interlaced and some of those interlaced videos from the RT box set look horrible on them.
De-interlace those same videos and they look great.
Just my preference I guess.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:[/b]
are these taken from the same audio multi tracks or is the audio of the video source a unique audio source taken from the camera microphones ?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's a mono video feed, independent from the multi-tracks being recorded by the band.
When a band professionally records a show, they tend to have two sets of cables flying around to two mixing boards. One is set up for the house mix, and the other for the recording feed. You need to have two separate mixes, as what sounds good in the room will almost certainly not be what sounds good on tape.
But when it's for a TV broadcast like this, it's a lot simpler. They just take a mono (or maybe stereo) mix from the board's auxiliary channel, since it was only intended to be broadcast once or twice and didn't need a ton of work to be done on it after the fact.
are these taken from the same audio multi tracks or is the audio of the video source a unique audio source taken from the camera microphones ?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's a mono video feed, independent from the multi-tracks being recorded by the band.
When a band professionally records a show, they tend to have two sets of cables flying around to two mixing boards. One is set up for the house mix, and the other for the recording feed. You need to have two separate mixes, as what sounds good in the room will almost certainly not be what sounds good on tape.
But when it's for a TV broadcast like this, it's a lot simpler. They just take a mono (or maybe stereo) mix from the board's auxiliary channel, since it was only intended to be broadcast once or twice and didn't need a ton of work to be done on it after the fact.
Ghostwithasmile is BACK!
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:[/b]
are these taken from the same audio multi tracks or is the audio of the video source a unique audio source taken from the camera microphones ?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's a mono video feed, independent from the multi-tracks being recorded by the band.
When a band professionally records a show, they tend to have two sets of cables flying around to two mixing boards. One is set up for the house mix, and the other for the recording feed. You need to have two separate mixes, as what sounds good in the room will almost certainly not be what sounds good on tape.
But when it's for a TV broadcast like this, it's a lot simpler. They just take a mono (or maybe stereo) mix from the board's auxiliary channel, since it was only intended to be broadcast once or twice and didn't need a ton of work to be done on it after the fact.[/QUOTE]
Thank you sir a complete satisfying answer! 5 stars answer ! I cannot find the "like" button otherwise I would have pressed it a 100 times.
[QUOTE] [b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:[/b]
are these taken from the same audio multi tracks or is the audio of the video source a unique audio source taken from the camera microphones ?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's a mono video feed, independent from the multi-tracks being recorded by the band.
When a band professionally records a show, they tend to have two sets of cables flying around to two mixing boards. One is set up for the house mix, and the other for the recording feed. You need to have two separate mixes, as what sounds good in the room will almost certainly not be what sounds good on tape.
But when it's for a TV broadcast like this, it's a lot simpler. They just take a mono (or maybe stereo) mix from the board's auxiliary channel, since it was only intended to be broadcast once or twice and didn't need a ton of work to be done on it after the fact.[/QUOTE]
Thank you sir a complete satisfying answer! 5 stars answer ! I cannot find the "like" button otherwise I would have pressed it a 100 times.
jabbo5150
Thanks for the suggestions! I will try those.
Again, I think the Oppo will handle the .mkv file fine, I am just not sure what I would need to format the disc as so the player would read it.
Again, I think the Oppo will handle the .mkv file fine, I am just not sure what I would need to format the disc as so the player would read it.
jabbo5150
So I just burned the MKV file onto a Mac/PC compatible disc in Toast 11 and the Oppo played it just fine, once I found the folder the file was in. Looked great. Nice work.
Mr.QueenFan
Pittrek, thanks a lot for sharing this video. Your editing skills are amazing. Well donne!
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:[/b]
are these taken from the same audio multi tracks or is the audio of the video source a unique audio source taken from the camera microphones ?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's a mono video feed, independent from the multi-tracks being recorded by the band.
When a band professionally records a show, they tend to have two sets of cables flying around to two mixing boards. One is set up for the house mix, and the other for the recording feed. You need to have two separate mixes, as what sounds good in the room will almost certainly not be what sounds good on tape.
But when it's for a TV broadcast like this, it's a lot simpler. They just take a mono (or maybe stereo) mix from the board's auxiliary channel, since it was only intended to be broadcast once or twice and didn't need a ton of work to be done on it after the fact.[/QUOTE]
I have one question about the sound:
During "Son and Daughter" right after the intro, Freddie goes "So, watch out!" . It´s obvious that the word "out" is longer in the audio than in the video. Is there any explanation to this?
On youtube, every version seems to have the same editing, so i don´t know if a "different" version was ever aired with the original audio or not.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:[/b]
are these taken from the same audio multi tracks or is the audio of the video source a unique audio source taken from the camera microphones ?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's a mono video feed, independent from the multi-tracks being recorded by the band.
When a band professionally records a show, they tend to have two sets of cables flying around to two mixing boards. One is set up for the house mix, and the other for the recording feed. You need to have two separate mixes, as what sounds good in the room will almost certainly not be what sounds good on tape.
But when it's for a TV broadcast like this, it's a lot simpler. They just take a mono (or maybe stereo) mix from the board's auxiliary channel, since it was only intended to be broadcast once or twice and didn't need a ton of work to be done on it after the fact.[/QUOTE]
I have one question about the sound:
During "Son and Daughter" right after the intro, Freddie goes "So, watch out!" . It´s obvious that the word "out" is longer in the audio than in the video. Is there any explanation to this?
On youtube, every version seems to have the same editing, so i don´t know if a "different" version was ever aired with the original audio or not.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
I have one question about the sound:
During "Son and Daughter" right after the intro, Freddie goes "So, watch out!" . It´s obvious that the word "out" is longer in the audio than in the video. Is there any explanation to this?
[/QUOTE]
Plenty of the vocals on the multi-track / bootleg version are overdubs, including lead vocals.
The most obvious example is during Liar, where "time after time" and "liar" overlap.
I have one question about the sound:
During "Son and Daughter" right after the intro, Freddie goes "So, watch out!" . It´s obvious that the word "out" is longer in the audio than in the video. Is there any explanation to this?
[/QUOTE]
Plenty of the vocals on the multi-track / bootleg version are overdubs, including lead vocals.
The most obvious example is during Liar, where "time after time" and "liar" overlap.
pittrek
Not only "out", if you look at Modern Times, every last word in every line of Freddie sounds longer, the sound usually ends when Freddie's mouth is already closed. We were talking about it a long time ago and since other elements, like the drums or the backing vocals fit perfectly, the most probable answer is that almost all of Freddie's vocals were overdubbed to be "perfect" so that the live album would work best
cmi
It's really pity to know that Freddie probably spent the whole day to re-record his vocals for this concert.
And after 40 years it still didn't deserve the proper release.
Same for November shows...
And after 40 years it still didn't deserve the proper release.
Same for November shows...
Mr.QueenFan
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Not only "out", if you look at Modern Times, every last word in every line of Freddie sounds longer, the sound usually ends when Freddie's mouth is already closed. We were talking about it a long time ago and since other elements, like the drums or the backing vocals fit perfectly, the most probable answer is that almost all of Freddie's vocals were overdubbed to be "perfect" so that the live album would work best[/QUOTE]
OK, this is what i thought.
One can conclude that this 2 song set was a promo video made Queen´s management for TV´s around the world (and possibly promoters), to promote the future live album that was later shelved. This means that they had everything in place for the release of the live album. I wonder why it was shelved at the last minute.
Either way, i think it´s worth to keep searching for the whole video, because it´s fantastic.
I´m really looking forward for their Rainbow project.
Once again Pittrek, you did a fantastic job with this video.
Not only "out", if you look at Modern Times, every last word in every line of Freddie sounds longer, the sound usually ends when Freddie's mouth is already closed. We were talking about it a long time ago and since other elements, like the drums or the backing vocals fit perfectly, the most probable answer is that almost all of Freddie's vocals were overdubbed to be "perfect" so that the live album would work best[/QUOTE]
OK, this is what i thought.
One can conclude that this 2 song set was a promo video made Queen´s management for TV´s around the world (and possibly promoters), to promote the future live album that was later shelved. This means that they had everything in place for the release of the live album. I wonder why it was shelved at the last minute.
Either way, i think it´s worth to keep searching for the whole video, because it´s fantastic.
I´m really looking forward for their Rainbow project.
Once again Pittrek, you did a fantastic job with this video.