Blu-ray vs DVD

Serious discussion about the band known as QUEEN.

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby TheHero » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:39 pm

Yes, the Live In Budapest VHS with the Live Magic
artwork sorely needed an upgrade. But the Montreal gig had already (2001) been upgraded with a THX certified DTS 5.1 Dolby Surround DVD by Pioneer artists.

 
TheHero
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 3671
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Europe
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 383 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby sbrown » Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:21 pm

Kes wrote:Yeah, with Budapest, I've always felt the intro and non concert footage might have been filmed on videotape, as those bits have always been of lower quality than the actual concert itself.


Just had a look. Definitely film, but possibly a mobile 16mm film as opposed to the 32mm film the concert was shot on.
 
sbrown
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 437
Images: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:40 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby Kes » Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:45 pm

Just know it looked crap on the VHS, and didn't seem to improve any across to DVD or bluray.
What is left of your dream?
Just the words on your stone.
A man who learnt how to teach,
But forgot how to learn.
 
Kes
Moderator
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 14901
Images: 747
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:41 am
Location: London, England
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby Sir Didymus » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:43 pm

Kes wrote:Rainbow though, is a funny situation, as although it was recorded on videotape, they very quickly transferred it to celluloid, for cinematic release. In doing that, they then didn't have the problem of trying to refurbish thirty year old video. Consequently I think Rainbow on bluray comes out of it better than say the Tribute Concert.

My personal viewpoint is that the Rainbow bluray isn't really that far behind the proper filmed gigs in picture quality when compared to say Hammersmith 75


From my limited understanding of these things via the Doctor Who dvd range (which is probably the best set of 'tape-remasters' you can get), transferring a videotape to film would actually reduce the picture quality, so if they'd kept the original master tapes, they'd look better.

The likely problem with the tribute concert, as well as being broadcast live at the time, warts and all, is that video tape hardware had developed considerably since Rainbow was shot, and as such, cheaper videotape was now available.

The BBC shot on 2" quad format videotape until around 1984, when they switched to 1" videotape. Technically inferior, causing greater video noise and multi-generation picture degredation, it did allow for previously unheard of effects such as slo-mo, still frame and reverse play, and allowed editors to shuttle pictures, jog to and mark edit points accurately, which is why everyone moved over.

But it does mean that anything shot on videotape in the UK from 1984 to about 1998 when digicam started to take off, looks terrible.
"Years will come, years will go, and politicians will do f*** all to make the world a better place. But all over the world, young men and young women will always dream dreams and put those dreams into song."
The Count
 
Sir Didymus
Suburban Wonderfox
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2453
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Manchester, mostly.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 106 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby Kes » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:35 pm

I was told one of the reasons Live Aid looks a bit crap, was that they ran the video lines down the edge of the stadium, literally plonked right on top of the sound ones, this then caused a certain amount of interference between the two sets of cables. Apparently, that's what all those diagonal lines are all about.
What is left of your dream?
Just the words on your stone.
A man who learnt how to teach,
But forgot how to learn.
 
Kes
Moderator
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 14901
Images: 747
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:41 am
Location: London, England
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby Sir Didymus » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:20 pm

Kes wrote:I was told one of the reasons Live Aid looks a bit crap, was that they ran the video lines down the edge of the stadium, literally plonked right on top of the sound ones, this then caused a certain amount of interference between the two sets of cables. Apparently, that's what all those diagonal lines are all about.


I can believe it. IRRC they very occasionally spring up on the Tribute Concert too, but I haven't seen that for years.

Quite often in older TV shows you can see those interference lines when there's an explosion, as the video struggles to handle the sound and light show.
"Years will come, years will go, and politicians will do f*** all to make the world a better place. But all over the world, young men and young women will always dream dreams and put those dreams into song."
The Count
 
Sir Didymus
Suburban Wonderfox
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2453
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Manchester, mostly.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 106 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby Kes » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:46 pm

These days it's probably all digital, with no surges running down the cables, so it wouldn't be a problem.

Aircraft use a system called ARINC, and that not only allows a vast amount of information to run down a single cable, it also allows different types of signals to travel together without interfering with each other, and to travel both ways up and down the cable at the same time, and that technology is a few years old now.
What is left of your dream?
Just the words on your stone.
A man who learnt how to teach,
But forgot how to learn.
 
Kes
Moderator
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 14901
Images: 747
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:41 am
Location: London, England
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby sbrown » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:29 am

Sir Didymus wrote:From my limited understanding of these things via the Doctor Who dvd range (which is probably the best set of 'tape-remasters' you can get), transferring a videotape to film would actually reduce the picture quality, so if they'd kept the original master tapes, they'd look better.


If you mean the storing of the Hartnell years to 16mm film, the quality drop isn't because of going from 2" video to 16mm film specifically. It's because they made the film by pointing the camera at a 405 line TV monitor to make the recording. IIRC they didn't actually have specialist equipment for transferring video to film at the time.

It's crazy to think in the same era Doctor Who was being filmed in mostly 1 take, with live transitions from camera to camera and being captured from a TV onto 16mm film for storage and resale in B&W, while Star Trek was being shot and edited in 32mm colour. The BBC did a lot right, but I'm not sure the dedication to video was one of those things.
 
sbrown
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 437
Images: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:40 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby Kes » Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:57 am

There's a scene in the Beatles film A Hard Day's Night, where they're doing a supposedly live show for the TV, and on the commentary they said they had a nightmare syncing up the movie cameras filming the TV monitors, and not getting flashing on the film from them.
What is left of your dream?
Just the words on your stone.
A man who learnt how to teach,
But forgot how to learn.
 
Kes
Moderator
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 14901
Images: 747
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:41 am
Location: London, England
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby sbrown » Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:33 pm

Kes wrote:There's a scene in the Beatles film A Hard Day's Night, where they're doing a supposedly live show for the TV, and on the commentary they said they had a nightmare syncing up the movie cameras filming the TV monitors, and not getting flashing on the film from them.


That sounds about right.
Directed by Richard Lester, the Joss Whedon of his day.....
 
sbrown
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 437
Images: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:40 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby Kes » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:21 pm

Trivia question of the day.

Someone who later became a big star in their own right, was a member of that audience, for the imaginary TV broadcast, but unfortunately for them, every camera angle that they were in, wound up on the cutting room floor. Any ideas who I'm on about?

A clue: This person has played as a featured musician on a number of Queen songs with Brian and Roger on at least one occasion that I know of.
What is left of your dream?
Just the words on your stone.
A man who learnt how to teach,
But forgot how to learn.
 
Kes
Moderator
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 14901
Images: 747
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:41 am
Location: London, England
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby eiricd » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:37 pm

Kes wrote:Trivia question of the day.

Someone who later became a big star in their own right, was a member of that audience, for the imaginary TV broadcast, but unfortunately for them, every camera angle that they were in, wound up on the cutting room floor. Any ideas who I'm on about?

A clue: This person has played as a featured musician on a number of Queen songs with Brian and Roger on at least one occasion that I know of.


Phil Collins
 
eiricd
The Show Must Go On
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:18 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby sbrown » Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:57 am

Interesting! I didn't know that, but he sure did get about in the early days.
 
sbrown
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 437
Images: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:40 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby Kes » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:56 am

Absolutely correct.
What is left of your dream?
Just the words on your stone.
A man who learnt how to teach,
But forgot how to learn.
 
Kes
Moderator
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 14901
Images: 747
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:41 am
Location: London, England
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: Blu-ray vs DVD

Postby imthewalrus79 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:22 am

Kes wrote:There's a scene in the Beatles film A Hard Day's Night, where they're doing a supposedly live show for the TV, and on the commentary they said they had a nightmare syncing up the movie cameras filming the TV monitors, and not getting flashing on the film from them.


Actually, so as not to get the flashing on the monitors during the studio scenes, Richard Lester shot the studio scenes at 25fps (frames per second) to match up with the monitors. However, the film itself is shown at 24fps. So, that's why, if you compare those songs that are "sung" in the studio (like "And I Love Her" and "If I Fell") are slower in the movie than on the "A Hard Day's Night" album.

TheHero wrote:Yes, the Live In Budapest VHS with the Live Magic
artwork sorely needed an upgrade. But the Montreal gig had already (2001) been upgraded with a THX certified DTS 5.1 Dolby Surround DVD by Pioneer artists.



I don't know. While I would probably give the edge to the video presentation on that release of "We Will Rock You," I tend to find the audio mix on "Rock Montreal" the better option of the two. DVD-wise, you can't really go wrong with that release of WWRY or "Rock Montreal."
 
imthewalrus79
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:13 am
Location: Reading, PA, USA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 3 times

PreviousNext

Return to Killer Queen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests