Mkls
as for ALL the unused footage mow that is a sad story
Thread
Posts in chronological order
pittrek
[QUOTE]
[b]Miklos wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Lostman wrote: [/b] I hope they release it in Blu-ray some day.[/QUOTE] No. They don't have the original negative anymore (at least a few years ago a certain Queenzone member claimed he didn't find it - he was supposed to find it for QP[/QUOTE]
You quoting me wrong here :). To make everyone again commpletely updated and clear on Budapest (and i have to repeat this every 3 years as people dont remember and make up stories: In 2004 I was asked by QPL to make enquiries about the location and existence of both the final and the not used negatives (had written authorization by QPL.. signed by the big guy in Montreux). Went back to a certain archivist in 2005, with news about the existing negative of the FINAL version - > I was told "yes thank you great". Asked GB many times, he never could tell me how far the negotioations went. The final negative film is in the possession of the Hungarian State Film Archives (they were also offering state of the art HD transfer (4K / DaVinci etc), but I was never informed about the negotioations which either happened or not until today. THe Hungarian State owns the film negative, but QPL owns the rights to release it so neither of them can do anything without agreeing with each other. (my huess is that by 2012 they have already agreed and QPL might have now a HD transfer , ready for blu ray release).[/QUOTE]
Well I know my memory isn't what is used to be - thanks for the clarification :-)
[b]Miklos wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Lostman wrote: [/b] I hope they release it in Blu-ray some day.[/QUOTE] No. They don't have the original negative anymore (at least a few years ago a certain Queenzone member claimed he didn't find it - he was supposed to find it for QP[/QUOTE]
You quoting me wrong here :). To make everyone again commpletely updated and clear on Budapest (and i have to repeat this every 3 years as people dont remember and make up stories: In 2004 I was asked by QPL to make enquiries about the location and existence of both the final and the not used negatives (had written authorization by QPL.. signed by the big guy in Montreux). Went back to a certain archivist in 2005, with news about the existing negative of the FINAL version - > I was told "yes thank you great". Asked GB many times, he never could tell me how far the negotioations went. The final negative film is in the possession of the Hungarian State Film Archives (they were also offering state of the art HD transfer (4K / DaVinci etc), but I was never informed about the negotioations which either happened or not until today. THe Hungarian State owns the film negative, but QPL owns the rights to release it so neither of them can do anything without agreeing with each other. (my huess is that by 2012 they have already agreed and QPL might have now a HD transfer , ready for blu ray release).[/QUOTE]
Well I know my memory isn't what is used to be - thanks for the clarification :-)
Mkls
.
Unknown
Was this filmed in widescreen then?
Mkls
[QUOTE] [b]kurgan100 wrote:[/b]
Was this filmed in widescreen then?[/QUOTE]
its a good question, the director said it was filmed with the 4:3 video format in mind when composing the pictures, but i am sure someone will tell us more with some technical background. You can see the original film ratio in the 16cam version. Remember the whole reason for this movie was - Queen is willing to come and play in Hungary and get lower revenue from relatively cheap tickets and at the same time the Hungarian state film company pays everything (crew/equipment/raw film/post production) for the film and delivers them in 90 min releasable video format for western europe/ROW, while film revenues from and for "communist block countries" going to Hungary.
This was a deal struck by QPL and the promoter, at that time it was reported to be the most expensive film ever made in Hungary till 1986, with costs around 1 million usd . The 90min long version, the butchering and the 4:3 format was all by the request of QPL to fit in the "long format 90 mins" concert film on vhs ...
Judging by the lead-in of the film reels (as seen on the 16cam version) it was 1.85:1 aspect ratio, with left and right matted in the camera viewfinder to make it 4:3 when composing the pictures, with the video version it became effectively 4:3 with left and right side cut off)
Was this filmed in widescreen then?[/QUOTE]
its a good question, the director said it was filmed with the 4:3 video format in mind when composing the pictures, but i am sure someone will tell us more with some technical background. You can see the original film ratio in the 16cam version. Remember the whole reason for this movie was - Queen is willing to come and play in Hungary and get lower revenue from relatively cheap tickets and at the same time the Hungarian state film company pays everything (crew/equipment/raw film/post production) for the film and delivers them in 90 min releasable video format for western europe/ROW, while film revenues from and for "communist block countries" going to Hungary.
This was a deal struck by QPL and the promoter, at that time it was reported to be the most expensive film ever made in Hungary till 1986, with costs around 1 million usd . The 90min long version, the butchering and the 4:3 format was all by the request of QPL to fit in the "long format 90 mins" concert film on vhs ...
Judging by the lead-in of the film reels (as seen on the 16cam version) it was 1.85:1 aspect ratio, with left and right matted in the camera viewfinder to make it 4:3 when composing the pictures, with the video version it became effectively 4:3 with left and right side cut off)
OwenSmith
[QUOTE] [b]Miklos wrote:[/b]The 90min long version, the butchering and the 4:3 format was all by the request of QPL to fit in the "long format 90 mins" concert film on vhs ...
Judging by the film reels it was 1.185:1 [/QUOTE]
This was dumb even in the late 1980s. There is no reason on VHS (PAL or NTSC) or laserdisc (PAL or NTSC) to restrict the running length to 90 mins. The first restriction you run into is CLV laserdisc is 60 minutes per side so that would make 2 hours. But 2 disc laserdisc sets were often issued, it wasn't a particularly price conscious market given how expensive laserdiscs were to start with.
This stupidity continues to this day. The Q+PR Ukraine concert is 2 hours on the official DVD, but we all know it was a 2.5 hour concert and big tracks like Radio Ga-Ga were cut. There is no reason a DVD-9 can't hold a 2.5 hour concert, and the two CD version can also hold 78 * 2 = 156mins = 2 hours 36 mins. There was no need to cut Kharkov at all. Dumb, just dumb.
This all makes me fear for anything new that Queen Productions bring out. The only thing I will say in their credit is they seem to like the DVDs having LPCM and DTS 5.1 sound, rather than crappy DD 5.1.
Judging by the film reels it was 1.185:1 [/QUOTE]
This was dumb even in the late 1980s. There is no reason on VHS (PAL or NTSC) or laserdisc (PAL or NTSC) to restrict the running length to 90 mins. The first restriction you run into is CLV laserdisc is 60 minutes per side so that would make 2 hours. But 2 disc laserdisc sets were often issued, it wasn't a particularly price conscious market given how expensive laserdiscs were to start with.
This stupidity continues to this day. The Q+PR Ukraine concert is 2 hours on the official DVD, but we all know it was a 2.5 hour concert and big tracks like Radio Ga-Ga were cut. There is no reason a DVD-9 can't hold a 2.5 hour concert, and the two CD version can also hold 78 * 2 = 156mins = 2 hours 36 mins. There was no need to cut Kharkov at all. Dumb, just dumb.
This all makes me fear for anything new that Queen Productions bring out. The only thing I will say in their credit is they seem to like the DVDs having LPCM and DTS 5.1 sound, rather than crappy DD 5.1.
Mkls
90 mins was the standard long format music vhs release at that time, maybe a tape of 120 mins would have costs 0.25 pence more, making the profit shrink by 25K , if they sell 100.000 tapes in Europe alone... The laserdisc market was a niche market always, I dont think they considered a longer version for LD, it was all about making a quick VHS release for a film they didnt effectively pay for, and sell as many copies as possible for the european concert goers who had seen Queen the previous year...
OwenSmith
[QUOTE] [b]Miklos wrote:[/b]
90 mins was the standard long format music vhs release at that time, maybe a tape of 120 mins would have costs 0.25 pence more, making the profit shrink by 25K , if they sell 100.000 tapes in Europe alone... The laserdisc market was a niche market always, I dont think they considered a longer version for LD, it was all about making a quick VHS release for a film they didnt effectively pay for, and sell as many copies as possible for the european concert goers who had seen Queen the previous year...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and it sucks. It shows that the priority was purely profit, not on getting a proper representation of the concert.
90 mins was the standard long format music vhs release at that time, maybe a tape of 120 mins would have costs 0.25 pence more, making the profit shrink by 25K , if they sell 100.000 tapes in Europe alone... The laserdisc market was a niche market always, I dont think they considered a longer version for LD, it was all about making a quick VHS release for a film they didnt effectively pay for, and sell as many copies as possible for the european concert goers who had seen Queen the previous year...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and it sucks. It shows that the priority was purely profit, not on getting a proper representation of the concert.
Marknow
[QUOTE]
[b]kurgan100 wrote: [/b] Since the laserdisc of Budapest was a Japanese release I would have thought was NTSC
[url=http://www.queencollector.com/Laserdiscs/index.html]http://www.queencollector.com/Laserdiscs/index.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Is this inaccurate so?
http://laserdisc.wikkii.com/wiki/Queen_Live_in_Budapest_%28080_510-1%29
[b]kurgan100 wrote: [/b] Since the laserdisc of Budapest was a Japanese release I would have thought was NTSC
[url=http://www.queencollector.com/Laserdiscs/index.html]http://www.queencollector.com/Laserdiscs/index.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Is this inaccurate so?
http://laserdisc.wikkii.com/wiki/Queen_Live_in_Budapest_%28080_510-1%29
Unknown
[QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
Is this inaccurate so?
http://laserdisc.wikkii.com/wiki/Queen_Live_in_Budapest_%28080_510-1%29
[/QUOTE]
That appears to be a CDV
Is this inaccurate so?
http://laserdisc.wikkii.com/wiki/Queen_Live_in_Budapest_%28080_510-1%29
[/QUOTE]
That appears to be a CDV
Marknow
[QUOTE]
[b]brians wig wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
A digital video copy should be ripped from LD through Composite or S-Video(depends on which side of the fence you sit on) to JPEG @ 25fps and converted to AVI through avisynth, which would be very big.Record the audio as a 16bit 41000hz stereo .Wav[/QUOTE]
Erm? Captured to jpeg and then converted to avi????
What video capture software do you use????
Everything I've ever used or come across captures straight to DV AVI files at sizes of around 12gb an hour.
Sure. You can change the capture settings to either a more lossy format or an uncompressed AVI (about 100gb per hours footage: but what's the point?), but DV AVI is the standard (default) capture format.
Where on earth do you get "jpeg" capture from???[/QUOTE]
My sincere apology this should have said M-JPEG, not JPEG. This is just the capture codec I would use to copy a analogue signal to digital.
http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/182813-Capturing-Laserdisc
MJPEG captures 4 Red to 2 Green to 2 Blue Pixels(4:2:2). DV only handles 4 Red to 1 Green to 1 Blue Pixels.(4:1:1). Therefore MJPEG preserves more of the color saturation than DV. DV was only created to get info on smaller, slower media. All the professionals were pissing and moaning about it in the beginning but have begun to accept it.
Laserdiscs are uncompressed analog video. That is why they are so big.They also are in 4:2:2 colorspace, which would benefit from MJPEG compression, not DV (or MPEG which is worse than DV). I miss MJPEG. Ifyou truly want to archive your Laserdiscs, then capture in MJPEG.
Later you can screw it all up by compressing it to MPEG2 for DVD viewing.
[b]brians wig wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
A digital video copy should be ripped from LD through Composite or S-Video(depends on which side of the fence you sit on) to JPEG @ 25fps and converted to AVI through avisynth, which would be very big.Record the audio as a 16bit 41000hz stereo .Wav[/QUOTE]
Erm? Captured to jpeg and then converted to avi????
What video capture software do you use????
Everything I've ever used or come across captures straight to DV AVI files at sizes of around 12gb an hour.
Sure. You can change the capture settings to either a more lossy format or an uncompressed AVI (about 100gb per hours footage: but what's the point?), but DV AVI is the standard (default) capture format.
Where on earth do you get "jpeg" capture from???[/QUOTE]
My sincere apology this should have said M-JPEG, not JPEG. This is just the capture codec I would use to copy a analogue signal to digital.
http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/182813-Capturing-Laserdisc
MJPEG captures 4 Red to 2 Green to 2 Blue Pixels(4:2:2). DV only handles 4 Red to 1 Green to 1 Blue Pixels.(4:1:1). Therefore MJPEG preserves more of the color saturation than DV. DV was only created to get info on smaller, slower media. All the professionals were pissing and moaning about it in the beginning but have begun to accept it.
Laserdiscs are uncompressed analog video. That is why they are so big.They also are in 4:2:2 colorspace, which would benefit from MJPEG compression, not DV (or MPEG which is worse than DV). I miss MJPEG. Ifyou truly want to archive your Laserdiscs, then capture in MJPEG.
Later you can screw it all up by compressing it to MPEG2 for DVD viewing.
Marknow
[QUOTE]
[b]kurgan100 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
Is this inaccurate so?
http://laserdisc.wikkii.com/wiki/Queen_Live_in_Budapest_%28080_510-1%29
[/QUOTE]
That appears to be a CDV[/QUOTE]
So the DVD is ntsc to pal anyway?
Sorry for the confusion, that explains a lot.
[b]kurgan100 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
Is this inaccurate so?
http://laserdisc.wikkii.com/wiki/Queen_Live_in_Budapest_%28080_510-1%29
[/QUOTE]
That appears to be a CDV[/QUOTE]
So the DVD is ntsc to pal anyway?
Sorry for the confusion, that explains a lot.
Unknown
[QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]kurgan100 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]Is this inaccurate so?http://laserdisc.wikkii.com/wiki/Queen_Live_in_Budapest_%28080_510-1%29[/QUOTE] That appears to be a CDV[/QUOTE] So the DVD is ntsc to pal anyway? Sorry for the confusion, that explains a lot.[/QUOTE]
The Catalogue No. reveals it to be a German CDV (PAL) that I was not aware of, so perhaps the rip was taken from such a disc.
Here's another link to it:
http://991.com/Buy/ProductInformation.aspx?StockNumber=204978&PrinterFriendly=1
[QUOTE] [b]kurgan100 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]Is this inaccurate so?http://laserdisc.wikkii.com/wiki/Queen_Live_in_Budapest_%28080_510-1%29[/QUOTE] That appears to be a CDV[/QUOTE] So the DVD is ntsc to pal anyway? Sorry for the confusion, that explains a lot.[/QUOTE]
The Catalogue No. reveals it to be a German CDV (PAL) that I was not aware of, so perhaps the rip was taken from such a disc.
Here's another link to it:
http://991.com/Buy/ProductInformation.aspx?StockNumber=204978&PrinterFriendly=1
Mkls
Since GT is frequently reading Queenzone and he is definitely one of the good guys - if you reading this, and GB or QPL or Simon Lupton or whoever is in charge now of finding old footage, is interested then contact me and i will supply the clues who to contact or where to search more.
Marknow
[QUOTE]
[b]kurgan100 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]kurgan100 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]Is this inaccurate so?http://laserdisc.wikkii.com/wiki/Queen_Live_in_Budapest_%28080_510-1%29[/QUOTE] That appears to be a CDV[/QUOTE] So the DVD is ntsc to pal anyway? Sorry for the confusion, that explains a lot.[/QUOTE]
The Catalogue No. reveals it to be a German CDV (PAL) that I was not aware of, so perhaps the rip was taken from such a disc.
Here's another link to it:
http://991.com/Buy/ProductInformation.aspx?StockNumber=204978&PrinterFriendly=1[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
http://www.discogs.com/Queen-Live-In-Budapest/release/2388125
[b]kurgan100 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]kurgan100 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]Is this inaccurate so?http://laserdisc.wikkii.com/wiki/Queen_Live_in_Budapest_%28080_510-1%29[/QUOTE] That appears to be a CDV[/QUOTE] So the DVD is ntsc to pal anyway? Sorry for the confusion, that explains a lot.[/QUOTE]
The Catalogue No. reveals it to be a German CDV (PAL) that I was not aware of, so perhaps the rip was taken from such a disc.
Here's another link to it:
http://991.com/Buy/ProductInformation.aspx?StockNumber=204978&PrinterFriendly=1[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
http://www.discogs.com/Queen-Live-In-Budapest/release/2388125