I wish they'd just leave the 4:3 stuff IN actual 4:3.
I don't mind the black bars on the side and I'd rather see it all as originally filmed/presented.
malicedoom
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Wiley
Budapest in 3D would be awesome but they should make it right. No crappy cardboard red-blue glasses but an actual "3D Bluray".
Many movies are even sold with 3 discs editions: 3D Bluray, Standard Bluray and DVD or Digital Copy.
To the posters dissing and complaining about the 3D bit.... it's not 1980!
3D is much better now and it is more accessible.
If you don't want to see it in 3D simply disable it (not sure if it's possible) or buy the regular Bluray (2D) or DVD version (I'm sure there will be one).
I don't see how they would release Budapest in HD but only in 3D. They will surely have a 2D version availabie in a second disc, like many other movies are sold today.
Many movies are even sold with 3 discs editions: 3D Bluray, Standard Bluray and DVD or Digital Copy.
To the posters dissing and complaining about the 3D bit.... it's not 1980!
3D is much better now and it is more accessible.
If you don't want to see it in 3D simply disable it (not sure if it's possible) or buy the regular Bluray (2D) or DVD version (I'm sure there will be one).
I don't see how they would release Budapest in HD but only in 3D. They will surely have a 2D version availabie in a second disc, like many other movies are sold today.
brians wig
dysan wrote: I hope they stick in more shots of the audience in the Rainbow film - It looks too much like a soundcheck to me.
====================================
Really?
I don't want to watch the audience...
====================================
Really?
I don't want to watch the audience...
brians wig
Negative Creep wrote: KevoM wrote:
Anything shot on SD video tape (broadcast or domestic) would NOT benefit from a high def conversion (especially 2" video from the early 70s!).
Standard definition analogue is still higher definition than standard digital - which is what most DVDs offer (and sometimes less than standard) due to the amount of data people try and cram on to them. Almost all DVDs show signs of digital artifacts - which are obviously not present on analogue material. The current digital masters of most DVD releases are far higher quality that was is commerically released as the files are compressed to fit the format.
I'd rather see the material in it's original transfer quality (albeit remastered, but not compressed and downscaled for a format which isn't big enough to accurately store visual and audio content in any quantity) with lossless audio, than an image littered with digital artifacts and mp3 quality audio.
===================================
I have to agree.
Also, DVD is only 540 lines of Horizontal resolution yet UK PAL videotape is 625. I also think PAL 2" tape from the 1970's used on the BBC's equipment is FAR better picture quality and far nicer to look at that anything the 1980's and most of the 1990's had to offer.
As for quality itself, Anything shot on videotape would benefit hugely from the space available on a Bluray disc.
Bluray isn't an encoding format, it's a storage medium, and there's no reason why it can't be used to show the full screen resolution of videotape material AND at a high bitrate to reduce the risk of digital artefacting.
Anything shot on SD video tape (broadcast or domestic) would NOT benefit from a high def conversion (especially 2" video from the early 70s!).
Standard definition analogue is still higher definition than standard digital - which is what most DVDs offer (and sometimes less than standard) due to the amount of data people try and cram on to them. Almost all DVDs show signs of digital artifacts - which are obviously not present on analogue material. The current digital masters of most DVD releases are far higher quality that was is commerically released as the files are compressed to fit the format.
I'd rather see the material in it's original transfer quality (albeit remastered, but not compressed and downscaled for a format which isn't big enough to accurately store visual and audio content in any quantity) with lossless audio, than an image littered with digital artifacts and mp3 quality audio.
===================================
I have to agree.
Also, DVD is only 540 lines of Horizontal resolution yet UK PAL videotape is 625. I also think PAL 2" tape from the 1970's used on the BBC's equipment is FAR better picture quality and far nicer to look at that anything the 1980's and most of the 1990's had to offer.
As for quality itself, Anything shot on videotape would benefit hugely from the space available on a Bluray disc.
Bluray isn't an encoding format, it's a storage medium, and there's no reason why it can't be used to show the full screen resolution of videotape material AND at a high bitrate to reduce the risk of digital artefacting.
brians wig
bago.vidovic wrote: but how are they going to stretch the picture ? dont forget that everything was filmed in 4:3 ....
===============================================
Stretch the picture!!!!!
Now you're making me MAD!!!!!
You can't 'stretch' the picture, you have to zoom in on it and therefore you lose top and bottom and also decrease the quality of the image.
The GVH DVDs were a bloody shambles.
If it's shot in 4:3 then it bloody well should be kept in 4:3.
Widescreening a 4:3 image is a practise that should be STOPPED and anyone caught doing it should have their balls removed with a rusty blunt instrument.
Yes, that's swearing, but by God, you've hit on the BIGGEST thing that pisses me off here.
===============================================
Stretch the picture!!!!!
Now you're making me MAD!!!!!
You can't 'stretch' the picture, you have to zoom in on it and therefore you lose top and bottom and also decrease the quality of the image.
The GVH DVDs were a bloody shambles.
If it's shot in 4:3 then it bloody well should be kept in 4:3.
Widescreening a 4:3 image is a practise that should be STOPPED and anyone caught doing it should have their balls removed with a rusty blunt instrument.
Yes, that's swearing, but by God, you've hit on the BIGGEST thing that pisses me off here.
Hangman2011
It is intresting to me what can say about this news Gary Taylor
KevoM
I think you'll find film(35mm) can be cropped (matted) or anamorphically squeezed to whatever aspect ratio suit the Directors.
i,.e 1.85:1, 2.35:1, 4:3 etc. Montreal 81 comes in two flavours, teh original (intende?) AR of 4:3 and the later cropped for DVd of 1.85:1. Not sure which was intended?
Agree about analogue video being of better quality to sd DVD, forgot about that, same goes for audio (obviously) .
i,.e 1.85:1, 2.35:1, 4:3 etc. Montreal 81 comes in two flavours, teh original (intende?) AR of 4:3 and the later cropped for DVd of 1.85:1. Not sure which was intended?
Agree about analogue video being of better quality to sd DVD, forgot about that, same goes for audio (obviously) .
Hangman2011
It is intresting to me what can say about this news Gary Taylor
Hangman_96
Hangman2011 wrote: It is intresting to me what can say about this news Gary Taylor
=================
Unfortunately, it will be hard to get such info.
=================
Unfortunately, it will be hard to get such info.
Hangman2011
Lostman wrote: Hangman2011 wrote: It is intresting to me what can say about this news Gary Taylor
=================
Unfortunately, it will be hard to get such info.
======================================================
GT unreal fucking nasty gentleman anyway we call him Death on Two legs hey hey hey
=================
Unfortunately, it will be hard to get such info.
======================================================
GT unreal fucking nasty gentleman anyway we call him Death on Two legs hey hey hey
Rick
Doc, you lost a patient!
malicedoom
Anyone ever compared the 2 Montreal 81 releases to see just how much was cropped out to achieve the 16x9 ratio?
I've wanted to do that for the videos as well (Greatest Flix VHS/Laser releases vs. the Greatest Video Hits DVDs 16x9 stuff), but haven't yet.
Wondering just how much was 'lost'...
I've wanted to do that for the videos as well (Greatest Flix VHS/Laser releases vs. the Greatest Video Hits DVDs 16x9 stuff), but haven't yet.
Wondering just how much was 'lost'...
neokaden
.....I want Hammy 1979 ......
The Real Wizard
Hangman2011 wrote:
GT unreal fucking nasty gentleman anyway we call him Death on Two legs hey hey hey
=====================
I know you're a troll, but now we know you're also a fucking retard.
GT has contributed many great things to QZ. What exactly have you contributed, other than inane ramblings with a translator?
GT unreal fucking nasty gentleman anyway we call him Death on Two legs hey hey hey
=====================
I know you're a troll, but now we know you're also a fucking retard.
GT has contributed many great things to QZ. What exactly have you contributed, other than inane ramblings with a translator?
Kevinrm15
Hangman you bastard you take that back! I did talk to GT, he said he's surprised Brian mentioned the Rainbow concert getting released cause Brian wanted it to be a surprise. Now you shut your dumb foreign troll mouth or else my fist is going 10 inches down your throat!