[QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote: [/b] Why interlaced ?[/QUOTE] Last BD through Eagle Rock, Days Of Our Lives doc, was Interlaced, just a [b][i]guess[/i][/b]. Has this archived link been discussed previously?http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gJjaQnV7S7AJ:www.evo88.com/en/music%3Fpage%3Dshop.product_details%26flypage%3Dflypage.tpl%26product_id%3D590%26category_id%3D43+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie&client=firefox-aIs it a load of cack? I ask because it has a confirmed catalogue number, release date, etc.[/QUOTE]
I HOPE it's the real thing !
Bad Seed · Member since
It certainly looks like the real thing.
Marknow · Member since
I have posted the link over on QOL to see if I can get more info from those in the loop. I too hope it is accurate.
Since this is film stock, they really ought to be putting it out at 1080p: 24fps.
Bet the buggers make it NTSC 29fps again though..
OwenSmith · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Marknow wrote:[/b]
Yes, 35mm film has a native aspect ratio of 1.85:1. But because of it's overall quality, you can do what you like with the aspect ratio.
Because it was shot in 35mm it can be released in any aspect ratio up to Blu_Ray.
The native aspect ratio of what we have so far is 4:3 or 1.33:1, which suited home technology of the time.
The theatrical release was probably 16:9
[/QUOTE]
35mm film has a native aspect ratio of 4:3, that is the shape of each frame on the film. This comes from Academy Ratio from the early days of film in the 1920s and 1930s.
However, 35mm is often shot Closed Matte which covers up the top and bottom of the negative to make 1.85:1 as the area actually exposed on the negative. Or you can shoot the entire 4:3 negative are with the intention to crop it to 1.85:1 later, this is Open Matte.
And if you want 2.35:1 the 35mm film is usually shot with an anamorphic lens on the front which vertical stretches the picture as exposed onto the entire 4:3 negative area. These are then projected in the cinema with another anamorhphic lens which reverses the effect. You can often tell things shot this way because out of focus items are stretched vertically, this is particularly obvious when the focus shifts in a scene.
This is ignoring Super35, all the Camera 65 and 70mm stuff, VistaVision (1960s) and a load of other ways of doing it. The above are just the most common ways of shotting 35mm.
So if the 16 cameras footage shows 1.85:1 images, it was probably shot either Closed Matte or Open Matte. Either way the correct transfer of that to DVD and Blu Ray would be 1.85:1.
Stelios · Member since
So in terms of quality the differences with this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNoSCiPFcts
would be huge?
Also i hope there would be a color correction, becouse this one has a very vintage look.
However i dont think they would ever be able to create the crisp images of Rock Montreal.
OwenSmith · Member since
The colour correction and fixing any other blemishes eg. marks on the film would depend on how much they clean up the 35mm negative or print before the transfer. Or indeed which negative or print they use, if there is a pristine camera negative or interpositive or a show print which has been carefully stored in a vault it could look a lot better with minimal work.
The first battle with any transfer is finding the best quality existing copy, rather than cleaning up the random crap that comes quickly to hand.
That YouTube copy looks like a LaserDisc transfer to me. A proper DVD or BluRay transfer of a decent negative or print should look a lot better
