Live in Buenos Aires 1981 [Chief Mouse 2016 Edition]

[QUOTE] [b]Barry Durex wrote:[/b]

Why an earth can't we find a good complete version of this concert after all these years that doesn't have logos slapped all over it?
[/QUOTE]

Apart from the "QTV" (obviously), the other logos were put there by the TV station.
Does anyone actually know if the concert was originally broadcast live?
If that's the case, then THAT will the only recording the TV station has: complete with logos.

[QUOTE]

[b]Oscar J wrote: [/b] Chief Mouse: Ideally noise reduction doesn't reduce details significantly. Have you tried Neat Video?[/QUOTE]

His AviSynth scripts are far more advanced than Neat Video

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote: [/b] Chief Mouse: Ideally noise reduction doesn't reduce details significantly. Have you tried Neat Video?[/QUOTE] Best explained if you've ever tried to denoise a grainy film photograph or grainy film HD video, some of the grain is actually detail, if you heavily remove it you also remove some of the detail hence the video would appear a bit more like plastic, which is because the denoiser probably isn't as smart to, say, differentiate some small spots or bumps on Freddie's cheek as detail instead of noise and other small things like that. In this case the detail is just covered with heavy noise so it's essentially the same situation. But then again it depends on how much you consider "significantly" :-) I've been using Neat Video since about 2010, usually I use MVDegrain2 for simple denoise tasks in Avisynth though. The raw source of Merqry most likely can be processed without a big loss of detail, in fact this very video on this thread was pretty noisy too, but Merqry's video seems even more so. The more noisy the video, the worse (like plastic) it will look once the noise is completely removed, usually it should compromise some small detail in exchange for a cleaner overall look. It would be much easier to say how it would look if we had a raw sample though. Hard to say from a few screenshots. I don't usually use Neat Video because to my knowledge Avisynth has many better options concerning different types of noise or grain. Neat Video is good for most videos though it will never accomplish something like this -  Sample of my 35mm photo which I denoised for Dreamstime stock site (they require really clean photos). Here is a comparison cropped at 100% zoom. While it's true that denoise on single photos works spatially-only as opposed to videos which also implement temporal approach (borrowing information from surrounding frames) the effect is still vaguely the same and can be seen here - .

[QUOTE] [b]brians wig wrote:[/b]
Apart from the "QTV" (obviously), the other logos were put there by the TV station.
Does anyone actually know if the concert was originally broadcast live?
If that's the case, then THAT will the only recording the TV station has: complete with logos.[/QUOTE]

Right. The concert was recorded exclusively for TV ("En directo"). So the logos ("9" and "Queen") were stamped EVEN in the master that is on QP, or the one that was on the tv channel in 80`s.
That master have MONO sound. In fact two audio tracks (One mono track with the comentator, and Another mono track with the sound of the gig). Argentina tv in these years was mostly mono.
Maybe the band, or the channel, or some radio station record a Stereo soundboard recording of that gig, but that is only speculations based on the soundboard recording of the first night.

Hey MerQry, we didn't get Stereo broadcasts in the UK until 1987 I think it was, and then it was pretty much London only until around 1989 when the rest of the country started to receive the Nicam Stereo broadcasts, so don't worry about yours being mono - everyone's probably was back in '81.

Ok. So now we know how Hernan Snow got a version on his DVD with no commentary....

Then the question is: Who the hell supplied Snow with such invaluable tapes? haha

As for mono/stereo: My parent told me that for a lot of concerts (including Live Aid) they would turn off the mono sound from the TV, and use the stereo sound from the FM radio instead. So don't feel bad about it being mono. A LOT of stuff was being broadcast on TV in mono.

To clarify, I was speaking of the QTV and Freddie Mercury logos, nothing else. Also the fact that no stereo audio recordings of this night have materialised in 35 years! Of course a decent mono recording is always welcome (bring it on please)

Chief Mouse: obviously you have a lot more experience than I in this field, but example two in this page does pretty much exactly the same thing as had been done in the video you attached: [url=https://www.neatvideo.com/examples.html ]https://www.neatvideo.com/examples.html[/url]

I do quite a bit of 3D rendering (path tracing) where you have to use a lot of denoising on your animations unless you have a whole bunch of computers helping to render. I usually set the Temporal Filter Threshold to 250, then in the filter settings I raise most parameters pretty high, except I set the "Noise reduction ammount: Y" to zero.

By doing so, you get very heavy denoising, but only temporal. And no plasticky look.

^ Interesting. I guess my Neat Video version of like 2.6 might explain it, took me more filters than one in Avisynth to effectively deal with film damage. I would like to try this myself to see how it holds up.

I don't know about animations but any kind of denoise on real-world video will leave its trace even if the output looks like almost the same, some detail will be lost and if the noise & denoise is really heavy the video might end up with a slightly smeared look. Or maybe not. It depends on the particular video but since we don't have a raw sample, there's nothing much more to say as I only speculate right now. I am not familiar with the latest version of Neat Video but through the years of denoising hundreds of videos I've yet to see absolutely no detail loss in heavy noise videos when denoised. Sure they look a lot better and pretty much the same but some small spots or things in the background might get a bit distorted or start disappearing, especially if I add a debanding filter (which I sometimes do) which smooths out the uniform areas even more to make the image look cleaner where denoiser fails (useful in some cases, it can reduce the polarization effect in Caracas video, for example). But then again I probably look way too much into details.

By the way, any chance one of the reasons you denoise your animations is aliasing? Depending on the amount of it, it can be easily fixed without denoising. Or is it something else? I am not into 3D graphics at all.

[QUOTE] [b]brians wig wrote:[/b]

Hey MerQry, we didn't get Stereo broadcasts in the UK until 1987 I think it was, and then it was pretty much London only until around 1989 when the rest of the country started to receive the Nicam Stereo broadcasts, so don't worry about yours being mono - everyone's probably was back in '81.

Ok. So now we know how Hernan Snow got a version on his DVD with no commentary....[/QUOTE]

Hernán took the DVD we all know, processed it, and there's the result.

Audio wise, he deleted Badía's parts analyzing the spectre and deleting the unwanted frequencies. That's why it sounds like empty in the encore gaps.

Nothing new for us.

Oh, no i´m not offended at all! Sorry if i "sound" offended, i wrote that commentary so fast, maybe.

Indeed 1981 was quite a "different world" concerning tv broadcast technology/quality. I was asking and my tapes comes from a tv special that my local channel did in 1991 because Freddie`s death. That´s why it says "Freddie Mercury" and that´s why isn`t the complete thing (the space between songs, and some bits of songs intros are gone, but it has all the songs, including Get Down Make Love) but other side we have that intresting footage that Pittrek (and i) loves with the crowd at the end. And audio it´s a little tad better than other sources.

Chief Mouse, here i upload a little sample file. I belive is not worth to work with this, because the result wont be better that the nice work you did last year with this gig. It´s not the raw file (raw file is uncompressed avi and it´s too heavy) but it´s an untoched h264 file with 5.073 kbps bitrate.

http://www.mediafire.com/watch/71bbwwu8g86dnve/craz.mp4

Am I right in thinking the two U-matics contain the complete broadcast without commentary in hifi mono? I know both u-matic and betacam are hifi formats, but obviously only if the source was also hifi. Perhaps you can also confirm exactly what is on each and every tape as I am a little confused.

Grabbed latest demo of Neat Video from their site. Limitations are: up to 30 minutes long video, up to 720p resolution and it leaves a mark on your clip, the functionality itself is not limited as far as noise removal. Original - 3 instances of Neat Video with Dust & Scratches + max Temporal processing applied - Avisynth - Original - 3 instances of Neat Video with Dust & Scratches + max Temporal processing applied - Avisynth - As shown above, Neat Video can't remove all of the scratches even applied 3X with max settings, plus it smears out the uniform areas and some information is lost. Neat Video crop - Avisynth crop - .

[QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Well, i´ll try to explain. There are two complete different things:

1)Master tapes (or it´s copies)*
2)My tapes**

*The master tapes are three U-matics tapes. The First aparently has interviews, soundchecks, etc, the Second has the first half of the gig, and the Third has the second half. Queen have a copy of that masters (or the masters itself) in his archive. Canal 9 used to have a copy too, but with time they only found ONE of the three U-matics in their archives. That masters has two mono audio tracks (comentator and the sound of the gig). U-matics allow one hour of footage each. Master tapes have a decent very good quality as we can see on Rare Live.

**My tapes (two U-matics) comes from a uknown copy of that master, but it´s an edit that the local tv station (i´m not from buenos aires) of my city did in 1991 because Freddie´s death. A kind of special, that´s why the "Freddie Mercury" stamped on it.
They cut all the sections where comentator speaks and some intros by the band. Why they did that i don´t know.
It contains all the songs, even Get down make love. And lovely unseen footage of the crowd at the end.

So: My U-matics tapes don´t have the two audio tracks but only one. With the comentator on it, but paradoxically without him because footage are cut. My tapes are not the masters but a copy of a copy made by the station.

Pros? A)Unseen Crowd footage at the end with audio of a video-feed sourced Save Me from first night.

B)Better audio,at least a bit.

C)Video quality is far from good but not so bad.

Cons? A)Edited footage

B) "Freddie Mercury" stamp

C) Noise on the video.

I have two tapes more (two betacam). Betacam allows hi-fi audio. The first betacam comes from ATC (another tv channel of Buenos Aires). It contains the know interview footage, but many unseen footage too. Intresting footage, but at the moment i won´t tell you more.
My second Betacam is broken. I have to fix it. I hope to find footage from third night there, but may be a deception. Or not. Content there is uknown. A mistery.