Wembley DVD - Complete Cock Up

Concerning the interlacing......All modern LCD TV's deinterlace the picture anyway. Some better than others. By doing it on disc first the TV only has to upscale the image not do both. Looks good on PC too.

PAL to NTSC? Well Older TV's can't do it but most modern DVD players have a setting to do NTSC or PAL output so usually even old CRT TV's can be made to play NTSC.

Jerky video playing NTSC ? Not on mine it doesn't. Smooth as usual. I know some oldercheaper LCD's have this issue but again modern DVD players have the NTSC PAL option.

Only thing is NTSC has a lower resolution but again upscaling the image to fit LCD 1080P TV's reduces this somewhat.

So besides the film look i'm quite okay with it.

Jerky video playing NTSC ? Not on mine it doesn't. Smooth as usual. I
know some oldercheaper LCD's have this issue but again modern DVD
players have the NTSC PAL option.
==========================================

It's almost always jerky, Americans and other places with NTSC have just got used to it, NTSC is 29 FPS, BUT only 23.something of those frames are different, 6 frames get repeated every second. With 24FPS film it eliminates “pal speed up” at the cost of smooth panning, (in the UK movies get sped up slightly to run at 25 frames per seconds, hardly noticeable) but with pal to NTSC conversion its worse because the 25th frame gets discarded THEN there’s the repeat.

Yes I know NTSC is 23.97fps with a 3:2 pulldown to create 29.97fps interlaced picture but sometimes it's actually 29.97fps interlaced on the disc and no pulldown is required which gives smooth motion as no repeating frames are required to be created on the fly by the player. Not always successfully.
Downside is it takes more room on the disc to author at 29.97i than 23.97.
Upside is 29.97i is smoother for slow panning shots.
Regardless NTSC content plays perfectly fine on my TV+ BluRay setup although my old LCD from a few years ago did jerk noticably on NTSC content (or was it the player?)
Point is newer TVs etc are now more able to upscale and resync the picture than just a few years back.

if only both gigs+ the extras were placed on a Bluray disc which would of;

1: allowed the original frame rates to remain intact. No PAL to NTSC convertions BS.
2: allowed for a much better audio quality (DTS-MA)
3: less compression on everything

Also those disc can be reigon encoded to suit all countries needs. (ABC)

Yes a BR release would have allowed a higher bitrate but it's unlikely you would have seen the difference given the source video tape.
It wouldn't have solved the frame rate/NTSC/PAL issue.
Lossless PCM is higher than DTS-MA (technically- you'd need very expensive equipment to hear it)

Isle0fRed wrote: if only both gigs+ the extras were placed on a Bluray disc which would of;

1: allowed the original frame rates to remain intact. No PAL to NTSC convertions BS.
2: allowed for a much better audio quality (DTS-MA)
3: less compression on everything

Also those disc can be reigon encoded to suit all countries needs. (ABC)
===================================================================
Would it?
Can American Bluray Players play 25fps PAL ?

I think this is the major problem.
Not intending to cause offence to any Americans here, but 'someone' in America was obviously so far up his own arse with arrogance as to believe that NTSC was the only TV system worth having, that when DVD players first came out none of the US players would play any other system, where-as the ones we got in the UK WOULD play NTSC.
I thought that would be rectified by now, but I'm begining to think it's still the case...

Why should the 3/4 of the world who use PAL DVDs have to suffer because the Americans don't want to change?

Unfortunately though, the Montreal Bluray obviously didn't sell well enough, because I emailed Brian a few years ago asking why QPR in Ukraine hadn't been released on BD despite being shot in HD. His reply was "Not enough interest"!
So. I don't think we'll ever get stuff on BD.
If they can't see the point in releasing any more HD content on BD, then they really aren't going to see the increased advantages of using the format to release SD material at it's highest quality along with additional extras.

brians wig wrote:

"Would it?
Can American Bluray Players play 25fps PAL ?"

BluRays can support the native frame rate of the originals source. You'd noticed that all movies that are released on BD are not sped up for PAL regions and picture isn't screwed around for NTSC regions 

" I think this is the major problem.
Not intending to cause offence to any Americans here, but 'someone' in America was obviously so far up his own arse with arrogance as to believe that NTSC was the only TV system worth having, that when DVD players first came out none of the US players would play any other system, where-as the ones we got in the UK WOULD play NTSC.
I thought that would be rectified by now, but I'm begining to think it's still the case...
Why should the 3/4 of the world who use PAL DVDs have to suffer because the Americans don't want to change?"

I agree. In (many) film festivals in America, films have to be submited via NTSC dvd. Being in a PAL region where my film has been shot on 1080p 25fps. I'd have to convert my film to meet their standard which means a major loss of quality.  

"unfortunately though, the Montreal Bluray obviously didn't sell well enough, because I emailed Brian a few years ago asking why QPR in Ukraine hadn't been released on BD despite being shot in HD. His reply was "Not enough interest"!
So. I don't think we'll ever get stuff on BD.
If they can't see the point in releasing any more HD content on BD, then they really aren't going to see the increased advantages of using the format to release SD material at it's highest quality along with additional extras."

That's a real bugger. Rock Monteral was great on BD (despite it having some colours being crushed and the whites overexposed). That said, "Not enough intrest" is most likey an excuse for that extra savings on the £s that roll in. BD does cost a bit more to mass produce but not much more than the cost for DVD.

The new 'Live At Wembley Stadium' DVD has entered the official UK music video charts at Number 2, behind.....Justin Bieber!

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]GT wrote:[/QUOTENAME] The new 'Live At Wembley Stadium' DVD has entered the official UK music video charts at Number 2, behind.....Justin Bieber! [/QUOTE]

Well congratulations but it would be nice if you could comment on some of the things written in this thread

Well. Reading most of the comments made so far, it seems like most of you are quite happy to accept whatever shit they throw at you!
This is the kind of attitude that allows Record Companies et al to do just that.

For a band who pride themselves on "quality", the quality is sadly lacking in this case.
Sure. It's fine for the Americans, but for the other 3/4 of the world whose DVD system is PAL, it's not.
QPL or even Island Records should not be catering just for those people with modern HD TV sets. Plenty of folks still have CRT's and therefore suffer from the jerky picture whenever there is panning on screen becuase of the difference in frame rate. There are also plenty of people who DO have modern TV sets but don't know how to use them. They just get left on the default settings and again can suffer from jerkiness.
In the UK, our electric supply runs at 50hz. In the USA it's 60hz, and that's we have 25fps and 30fps respectively.
The fact that a 25fps video has been converted to 30fps (or 29.97 for the pedantic amongst you) means that the audio is also running at the wrong speed and this is evidently more noticable on the Friday Night gig than it is on the Saturday gig - I can only assume that less 'care' was taken with this transfer.

It all goes back to the main point, in that QPL or Universal are being "cheap" and producing a substandard product.

this NTSC vs PAL thing is interesting reading

it's pretty obvious that QP took the easy way out and didn't give a shit about going the extra mile (hell, not even half a mile) for those who care about the best possible quality :(

still waiting for my copy, and I'm THRILLED to have an entire new gig on dvd - but with the audio at the wrong speed and the picture quality at 75% of what's possible? that's a bitter pill to swallow...

They should have treated the sound / visual freaks to both gigs on ONE blu ray disc, where they could have given the video its maximum potential, together with HD soundtracks.

as for joe public who either has old equipment, or leaves his/hers new equipment on the default settings - the dvds would have been just fine

Did anybody expect them to go to any extra effort after all the poor releases of the past years?

Back in 2003 when the GVH dvds came out, I would have actually cared about this issue, but not after a decade of QP setting the bar lower and lower with each release... I've given up any hope, and nothing comes as a surprise anymore.

I think plenty of people feel the same way.

To be fair to QPL, I think it's more likely Universal that's caused the issue.
QPL, however, should have been on the ball and disagreed with them.

If nothing else, I hope this topic highlights the issues and they never happen again.
At least we still have a decent PAL DVD of the Saturday concert from 2003 :)

I bought it on the day of it's release. I watched the 1st night show from Wembley cause it's the only reason I bought it for.
And I love it. I mean I looked other pro shots in different levels of quality and was always happy to see them. Okay we are writing about an official release but as some others mentioned before, thís footage is 25 years old and the quality allows a great time in front of your television, interactive white board...whatever. You are able to see a new Queen show in full lenght and that's what counts in my opinion.

kind regards
W.

I wish they'd let US come up with just one release. Then they'll see what a perfect release looks like. The BBC sessions for example - imagine what the talented people of QueenZone can do with those! 

V.