Bohemian Rhapsody original 2" video transfer

The Real Wizard wrote:

Raptor711 wrote:

Could anyone share as a torrent, my conection interrumpts many time by the server and finally conclude it , when i unzip in sent me an error message , thanx!

Hey Raptor - any word on the first gens of the Mexico '81 tapes?

<IMG SRC="http://www.quickmeme.com/img/6b/6b18e352740523d302052e137b1cfb52fe8433cdccf0a7f7e5abc1115e4f1b7d.jpg">

Downloading now, can't wait to see it. Many thanks!

Carlos Rivera wrote:

People i see you have problems about download.
So If you want the orginal file, here you have

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dms16ind99calu8/Boh%20Rhap%20Trillion%202inch%20video%20transfer%201975.mov?dl=0

Regards.

I could finally download it.
Thanks Carlos :)

And, of course, a big thank to Sikke por sharing this superb file :)

Thanks for this!

Took 10 mins for all 2.9Gb to download using work connection!

Brought to mind the 56k modem days (or 28.8k), when 50Mb was something you'd leave to download overnight.

I need to search into a sea of tapes to find it :/ thats the reason why ive not shared yet

people on streets wrote:

Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:

May you all die in agony, except for Chiefmouse a little slower. Because the Chief needs to use Hitachi Magic wand (google it your wife knows for sure)

Linaege : 2" pal video> studio transfer >queenzone>yourpatheticcollection :-)

Most people I know who talk this way are ugly and fat. And probably sexually frustrated. Not saying you are. Just saying.

Thanks for the share though. Free rarities are always welcome!

I was only quoting John Cleese mr. Rouers.... just my kind of humor. I don;t read the topics here, just post something in a while.

Chief Mouse wrote:

Ghost gave me a green light to share my 'enhancement' with you (as if it needed it be enhanced, it's pretty much perfect!).
To be honest, it was done a while ago, for his TV documentary project as well as this comparison which was made purely to illustrate the differences.
.

Thanks a lot for sharing this version. It looks fantastic!
You have a very experienced eye for videos. If you hadn´t bring my attention to those colour spots on the Ghost´s version i would have never notice it. Obviously, i need to raise my standarts when it comes to videos :-)

And by the way, i think that it´s amazing that you can cut more than 2,5 GB out of the video and still maintain information for it to be better looking than the original.

And congratulations for your participation on the Dutch Queen documentary. It was very nice of the Ghost to remember a fellow Queenzoner for the project.

Thanks again to both of you for this gem.

Raptor711 wrote:

I need to search into a sea of tapes to find it :/ thats the reason why ive not shared yet

What else is in the sea?

Mr.QueenFan wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote:

Ghost gave me a green light to share my 'enhancement' with you (as if it needed it be enhanced, it's pretty much perfect!).
To be honest, it was done a while ago, for his TV documentary project as well as this comparison which was made purely to illustrate the differences.
.

Thanks a lot for sharing this version. It looks fantastic!
You have a very experienced eye for videos. If you hadn´t bring my attention to those colour spots on the Ghost´s version i would have never notice it. Obviously, i need to raise my standarts when it comes to videos :-)

And by the way, i think that it´s amazing that you can cut more than 2,5 GB out of the video and still maintain information for it to be better looking than the original.

And congratulations for your participation on the Dutch Queen documentary. It was very nice of the Ghost to remember a fellow Queenzoner for the project.

Thanks again to both of you for this gem.

You're welcome!

Yes, his video is almost perfect. Those colour spots are classical "rainbows". Most old footage have this to an extent.

And yeah, that's the power of H.264 :-) I could encode it to MPEG-2 with bitrate and filesize twice as big and it still would look 3 times worse compression-wise.

not so much interesting, many 80s transfers from oficial records , unlabeled (just remember the tape brand and color)

Chief Mouse wrote:

Yes, his video is almost perfect. Those colour spots are classical "rainbows". Most old footage have this to an extent.

And yeah, that's the power of H.264 :-) I could encode it to MPEG-2 with bitrate and filesize twice as big and it still would look 3 times worse compression-wise.

You are right in principle. But this is Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) not H.264.
HOW and WHY would you make a MPEG-2 at 120 Mbps? Just to prove it's a stupid thing? Well... it is.

I am surprised to see this pro transfer of a pro tape. In fact it's more like a archival backup, not a common transfer.
Not sure if the owner specified the format or the technician decided by himself. Maybe he is a queen fan too (or just a fan of quality image).

aristide1 wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote:

Yes, his video is almost perfect. Those colour spots are classical "rainbows". Most old footage have this to an extent.

And yeah, that's the power of H.264 :-) I could encode it to MPEG-2 with bitrate and filesize twice as big and it still would look 3 times worse compression-wise.

You are right in principle. But this is Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) not H.264.
HOW and WHY would you make a MPEG-2 at 120 Mbps? Just to prove it's a stupid thing? Well... it is.

I am surprised to see this pro transfer of a pro tape. In fact it's more like a archival backup, not a common transfer.
Not sure if the owner specified the format or the technician decided by himself. Maybe he is a queen fan too (or just a fan of quality image).

Nothing to do with the original MOV file. I was discussing my version with MrQueenFan. Comparing the bitrate and filesize of my MKV version had I made an MPG file of this. I don't remember the exact bitrate anymore, it was likely around 4,5-5,5 Mbps. And DVD files are usually 8-9.8 Mbps (thus twice as big filesize) and still look much worse than H.264 compression-wise. With this I was trying to prove that MPEG2 (DVD) compression sucks compared to H.264.
Not sure how this slipped past you - I thought the meaning was clear.

Chief Mouse wrote:

Ghost gave me a green light to share my 'enhancement' with you (as if it needed it be enhanced, it's pretty much perfect!).
To be honest, it was done a while ago, for his TV documentary project as well as this comparison which was made purely to illustrate the differences.

Note: deinterlaced to double fps

<a href="https://www.mediafire.com/view/?4c7rafj5ve9r95w" target="_blank"><img src="https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/e281/4c7rafj5ve9r95w7g.jpg" border="0" alt="Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire" /></a>

https://mega.co.nz/#!TBFSySBL!sEG7eO3swWX9yKSCHlZaPOHbsc-KNm5N6MQycm6qqoo .

Chief Mouse wrote:

aristide1 wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote:

Yes, his video is almost perfect. Those colour spots are classical "rainbows". Most old footage have this to an extent.

And yeah, that's the power of H.264 :-) I could encode it to MPEG-2 with bitrate and filesize twice as big and it still would look 3 times worse compression-wise.

You are right in principle. But this is Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) not H.264.
HOW and WHY would you make a MPEG-2 at 120 Mbps? Just to prove it's a stupid thing? Well... it is.

I am surprised to see this pro transfer of a pro tape. In fact it's more like a archival backup, not a common transfer.
Not sure if the owner specified the format or the technician decided by himself. Maybe he is a queen fan too (or just a fan of quality image).

Nothing to do with the original MOV file. I was discussing my version with MrQueenFan. Comparing the bitrate and filesize of my MKV version had I made an MPG file of this. I don't remember the exact bitrate anymore, it was likely around 4,5-5,5 Mbps. And DVD files are usually 8-9.8 Mbps (thus twice as big filesize) and still look much worse than H.264 compression-wise. With this I was trying to prove that MPEG2 (DVD) compression sucks compared to H.264.
Not sure how this slipped past you - I thought the meaning was clear.

Chief Mouse wrote:

Ghost gave me a green light to share my 'enhancement' with you (as if it needed it be enhanced, it's pretty much perfect!).
To be honest, it was done a while ago, for his TV documentary project as well as this comparison which was made purely to illustrate the differences.

Note: deinterlaced to double fps

<a href="https://www.mediafire.com/view/?4c7rafj5ve9r95w" target="_blank"><img src="https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/e281/4c7rafj5ve9r95w7g.jpg" border="0" alt="Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire" /></a>

https://mega.co.nz/#!TBFSySBL!sEG7eO3swWX9yKSCHlZaPOHbsc-KNm5N6MQycm6qqoo .

My mistake. I have to pay the price for not reading all the posts.

On the other hand, i think i've captured the essence of this share: For the first time on this forum, an (almost) master was shared in an (almost) raw format. Without any livingroom/bedroom work involved.

Only for this time, can't you just forget about "your version", spare us of the before-after pictures, and enjoy the video as it is?

Many thanks Chief & Ghost ! Excellent quality. This 5 min film is maybe the most important film/video in my life because watching it a few times in 75 turned me onto pop/rock music, which has been my main interest/hobby ever since !

aristide1 wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote:

aristide1 wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote:

Only for this time, can't you just forget about "your version", spare us of the before-after pictures, and enjoy the video as it is?

Aristide1, as far as I'm aware there are no rules on here that prohibit touching the files shared here. Sikke himself asked me to do something with it and it was about half a year ago. The picture was also made for him. Hadn't he asked me, I wouldn't have bothered - it's a great video as it is. He also told me to go ahead and post it here and I did. No one is forcing you to download it. That is all.