GratefulFan
Just a note to thank those for supplying technical information, because it's interesting.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
thomasquinn 32989
Tero! wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: Dane wrote: I would have made them the PAL version for free if it meant a proper release.
============
The thing is, they could've made a PAL version for a pittance. It would have cost them very, very little more than the NTSC alone. But they decided not to, which I can't regard as anything else than a middle finger in the face of most of the world. They're saying "f*ck you, we don't care about you, or about the quality of our product. Give us your godd*mn money and shut up."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't stand up for QP very often, but in this case I have to...
They're probably selling about 10,000 copies of this title, out of which 3,000 are outside the Europe. They can choose to make an NTSC version (which can be sold everywhere), or they can make a PAL version (which can be sold to 70% of the market), but they won't make a profit from the second version.
=======
I do presume you are kidding. They would never have released this if they expected only 10,000 sales. Again, the additional costs for making both a PAL and an NTSC version are negligible. They just decided not to bother, and I find that reprehensible. If you don't, by all means, give these creeps your money. I know I won't.
============
The thing is, they could've made a PAL version for a pittance. It would have cost them very, very little more than the NTSC alone. But they decided not to, which I can't regard as anything else than a middle finger in the face of most of the world. They're saying "f*ck you, we don't care about you, or about the quality of our product. Give us your godd*mn money and shut up."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't stand up for QP very often, but in this case I have to...
They're probably selling about 10,000 copies of this title, out of which 3,000 are outside the Europe. They can choose to make an NTSC version (which can be sold everywhere), or they can make a PAL version (which can be sold to 70% of the market), but they won't make a profit from the second version.
=======
I do presume you are kidding. They would never have released this if they expected only 10,000 sales. Again, the additional costs for making both a PAL and an NTSC version are negligible. They just decided not to bother, and I find that reprehensible. If you don't, by all means, give these creeps your money. I know I won't.
Micrówave
The concert is 25 years old.
Watching it in Black & White with poor resolution should give you a Nostalgic feel. You didn't complain about all those Mick Rock photos.
Watching it in Black & White with poor resolution should give you a Nostalgic feel. You didn't complain about all those Mick Rock photos.
peterkoz1
mooghead
Get a proper telly Grandad.
thomasquinn 32989
Micrówave wrote: The concert is 25 years old.
Watching it in Black & White with poor resolution should give you a Nostalgic feel. You didn't complain about all those Mick Rock photos.
=====
You could have a good dvd, then turn down the saturation on your tv all the way. Add some brightness and lower the contrast, and you can watch a poor quality black & white version, while the rest of us can still see the dvd in the best quality it could be.
Watching it in Black & White with poor resolution should give you a Nostalgic feel. You didn't complain about all those Mick Rock photos.
=====
You could have a good dvd, then turn down the saturation on your tv all the way. Add some brightness and lower the contrast, and you can watch a poor quality black & white version, while the rest of us can still see the dvd in the best quality it could be.
Micrówave
Or you could just get an HD Black & White TV with 1080i resolution. I believe those read either NTSC or PAL.
tero! 48531
ThomasQuinn wrote: I do presume you are kidding. They would never have released this if they expected only 10,000 sales. Again, the additional costs for making both a PAL and an NTSC version are negligible. They just decided not to bother, and I find that reprehensible. If you don't, by all means, give these creeps your money. I know I won't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not just about pressing a second batch with different settings.
I don't know the conctract of course, but it stands to reason that the European record label has no rights to make a separate release aimed at markets outside the Europe, while they are completely free to make a release that can be exported everywhere around the world. There's no legal contracts to be negotiated, no need for additional marketing, and no need to print new booklets or discs... In other words, the potential customer base is increased without ANY additional costs to the label.
If the roles were reversed and Hollywood Records came out with a release of Houston, I would rather have them make it a global DVD instead of a Blu-Ray title that is impossible to watch in Europe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not just about pressing a second batch with different settings.
I don't know the conctract of course, but it stands to reason that the European record label has no rights to make a separate release aimed at markets outside the Europe, while they are completely free to make a release that can be exported everywhere around the world. There's no legal contracts to be negotiated, no need for additional marketing, and no need to print new booklets or discs... In other words, the potential customer base is increased without ANY additional costs to the label.
If the roles were reversed and Hollywood Records came out with a release of Houston, I would rather have them make it a global DVD instead of a Blu-Ray title that is impossible to watch in Europe.
john bodega
Off to bittorrent I go.
philip storey
Don't think i will bother with the new Wembley DVD after reading all these fuck ups.I have the original anyway ,which i hardly ever play.There was a time that i would buy everthing but all these remasters all coming along with next to nothing new on them for someone on a low income seems to me very greedy.Give us something new for gods sake !!
brians wig
Tero! wrote:
If the roles were reversed and Hollywood Records came out with a release of Houston, I would rather have them make it a global DVD...
==============================
Well. Houston was originally recorded in NTSC, so I have no problem with that being released in NTSC, but when you take a far superior TV System format and downgrade it because you're a bunch of cheapskates, THEN I have a problem.
If the roles were reversed and Hollywood Records came out with a release of Houston, I would rather have them make it a global DVD...
==============================
Well. Houston was originally recorded in NTSC, so I have no problem with that being released in NTSC, but when you take a far superior TV System format and downgrade it because you're a bunch of cheapskates, THEN I have a problem.
brians wig
emrabt wrote: Oh god, does this mean there's that repeating frame jump whenever the camera pans?
Thank you so much for informing us, the people who have brought it and try to watch it on an old TV will be disappointed.
===================================
Yep, and it looks bloody awful.
I went to friends house last night to see what it looks like on a modern HDTV, and he had to piss about changing the settings on his telly just to get rid of the jerkiness and because it's NTSC, the colours look funny!
Still. The point is, they've probably 'restored' the picture and created a new PAL master, and then some tosser at the authoring house has converted it to NTSC.
For a band who constantly insist on putting out "Quality" and go the extent of over-dubbing any audio that's not right, they've really messed up the quality control with this one!
I could have done a better job myself with my 11 year old matrox video capture card.
I wonder if it's possible to rip the new DTS track from the Saturday concert and sync it up with the old PAL DVD....?
Thank you so much for informing us, the people who have brought it and try to watch it on an old TV will be disappointed.
===================================
Yep, and it looks bloody awful.
I went to friends house last night to see what it looks like on a modern HDTV, and he had to piss about changing the settings on his telly just to get rid of the jerkiness and because it's NTSC, the colours look funny!
Still. The point is, they've probably 'restored' the picture and created a new PAL master, and then some tosser at the authoring house has converted it to NTSC.
For a band who constantly insist on putting out "Quality" and go the extent of over-dubbing any audio that's not right, they've really messed up the quality control with this one!
I could have done a better job myself with my 11 year old matrox video capture card.
I wonder if it's possible to rip the new DTS track from the Saturday concert and sync it up with the old PAL DVD....?
David Jones
Interesting reading guys, I'm really hesitant about buying the "super" edition now.
I seem to remember people weren't happy with the old DVD release (which I have) but I'm guessing this is miles in front in the QPL complete cock up stakes?
I seem to remember people weren't happy with the old DVD release (which I have) but I'm guessing this is miles in front in the QPL complete cock up stakes?
tero! 48531
brians wig wrote: Tero! wrote:
If the roles were reversed and Hollywood Records came out with a release of Houston, I would rather have them make it a global DVD...
==============================
Well. Houston was originally recorded in NTSC, so I have no problem with that being released in NTSC, but when you take a far superior TV System format and downgrade it because you're a bunch of cheapskates, THEN I have a problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand your point 100%, but we are talking about two different issues here. There's the issue of technologically superior product, and the issue of having any product to buy.
Ideally we would have two separate releases, but that just doesn't happen with music videos.
So if the choice is between a product that looks good for the other half of the world (but I can't view at all), and a product that looks like a lousy VHS transfer, I'll take the crappier release anyday... I might not buy it, but at least I have the OPTION of seeing it if I want to see it.
If the roles were reversed and Hollywood Records came out with a release of Houston, I would rather have them make it a global DVD...
==============================
Well. Houston was originally recorded in NTSC, so I have no problem with that being released in NTSC, but when you take a far superior TV System format and downgrade it because you're a bunch of cheapskates, THEN I have a problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand your point 100%, but we are talking about two different issues here. There's the issue of technologically superior product, and the issue of having any product to buy.
Ideally we would have two separate releases, but that just doesn't happen with music videos.
So if the choice is between a product that looks good for the other half of the world (but I can't view at all), and a product that looks like a lousy VHS transfer, I'll take the crappier release anyday... I might not buy it, but at least I have the OPTION of seeing it if I want to see it.
panasonic
and the picture is interlaced, as is still the case with most of todays
chat shows, game shows etc (generally only dramas shot with a single
camera are de-interlaced).
The effect is that the picture looks "real" and gives the impression that you are "there".
=========================================================================
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't interlacing about saving TV signal (and
video tape) bandwidth? Ie it only scans every second line, alternating each
frame which effectively almost halving the amount of signal required. To me it
looks less "real" as if you watch it closely on a big screen with
rapid movement, you can see the artefacts. Plus it never looks as
"clear" and defined.
I certainly don't look at the world through interlaced eyes (or in my case, glasses)! :)
chat shows, game shows etc (generally only dramas shot with a single
camera are de-interlaced).
The effect is that the picture looks "real" and gives the impression that you are "there".
=========================================================================
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't interlacing about saving TV signal (and
video tape) bandwidth? Ie it only scans every second line, alternating each
frame which effectively almost halving the amount of signal required. To me it
looks less "real" as if you watch it closely on a big screen with
rapid movement, you can see the artefacts. Plus it never looks as
"clear" and defined.
I certainly don't look at the world through interlaced eyes (or in my case, glasses)! :)