thomasquinn 32989 wrote:Just what we need, more Magic Tour shit...
You just don't get it do you? An expertly filmed Queen concert on FILM restored transferred to BLU RAY !
SHIT recorded on film, carefully digitized and transferred to Blu-Ray is still SHIT...only shit in HD. Hammersmith '79 was shot on film - I'd much rather have that than Wembley 2.0.
No it wasn't. It's filmed on video.Queen concerts shot on filmRainbow 74 - March showHyde Park 76 - pre-concert footageBerlin 78Munich 78Brussels 79Rotterdam 79Munich 79Vienna 82Mannheim 86 - DoRo footageWembley 86 - afterpartyBudapest 86Knebworth Park 86 - DoRo footage
You missed the obvious one....Montreal 81
I know from a relative good source that there is or there were footage (i don`t know how much) from one of the gigs in Argentina shot on 16 mm... but the buenos aires gig that we already know (3-1) was shot on U-matic (video)...
Yeahh im undecided wether im excited for this or not, i think i am tbh although i agree with Pittrek about the speed issues hope this is shown in the UK
Material shot on film has completely different "look", it gives you the feeling of detail even in low (DVD or worse) resolutions, and have film grain which gives the footage a sense of "threedimensionality". Also the motion is different. Material shot on video has a much more "cleaner", "washed-out", or "flat" look, it has no grain but it can have other "defects" - not sure how are they called officially, but for example look what happens when the video camera comes too close to Brian at Hammersmith Odeon 75 or Hyde Park 76, check what happens with the image. Or the typical chroma problems.
BTW this is definitely NOT contradicting previous information, because the 78-82 footage was all shot by local TV stations.
And I see that I forgot in my list also the Poitiers 79 TV report and of course the Bob Harris footage from 1977 (with that amazing "audience view" from Houston 77)
Assuming you're right (no doubt you are), let's remember Brian's quote from a few years back... something to the effect of:
"Rainbow, Montreal and Budapest are the only shows we shot on film."
The operative word is "we"..
The rest of the footage you mention was not shot by the band. Like you said, it was mostly shot by TV crews. I wonder how much of that footage Brian even remembers. Either way, technically he's still right :-)
The Real Wizard wrote: Assuming you're right (no doubt you are), let's remember Brian's quote from a few years back... something to the effect of:
"Rainbow, Montreal and Budapest are the only shows we shot on film."
The operative word is "we"..
The rest of the footage you mention was not shot by the band. Like you said, it was mostly shot by TV crews. I wonder how much of that footage Brian even remembers. Either way, technically he's still right :-)
I understand Rainbow wasn`t shot on film (GT said 1" or 2" tape i don`t remember) but STORED on film (probably to release in cinemas).
Bad Seed wrote: The Japan 75 footage shown at the stormtroopers exhibition is also film.
Definitely. However it was transferred to PAL video years ago (in the 70s or 80s) and I am afraid that's all they have. That would explain why they used the PAL video copy even for their NTSC DVD release
I'm pretty sure. Have a look at the 'killer queen' documentary which came out about 8ish years ago, there are a few seconds on that which clearly look like film to me.
The trad 'film look' is mainly due to the 24fps as opposed to 25 or 30 fps that you get on electronic video/TV.
The 24fps has been the film standard since the talkies era of film to maximize the least amount of film used to fit this new sound on and still get fluid(ish) motion.
However 24fps days are coming to an end, thankfully! as it just doesn't cut it (no pun) with today's fast motion, fast edit 3D/4k digital films.
Enter 48fps (and higher) currently being pioneered by the likes of Jackson and Cameron et al...BUT is is said to be undistinguishable from the 'TV look' and the new films have been criticised that they look like they were made for TV.
Never the less it will be the norm and 24fps will once again be used as for economy purposes (as it originally was) for smaller file sizes in streaming video.
pittrek wrote: Eyes :-)
Material shot on film has completely different "look", it gives you the feeling of detail even in low (DVD or worse) resolutions, and have film grain which gives the footage a sense of "threedimensionality". Also the motion is different. Material shot on video has a much more "cleaner", "washed-out", or "flat" look, it has no grain but it can have other "defects" - not sure how are they called officially, but for example look what happens when the video camera comes too close to Brian at Hammersmith Odeon 75 or Hyde Park 76, check what happens with the image. Or the typical chroma problems.
BTW this is definitely NOT contradicting previous information, because the 78-82 footage was all shot by local TV stations.
Peter, just a little update, what film material (= concerts) does Queen own.
"It’s one (Montreal) of only three concerts of Queen captured on FILM rather than crappy non-hi-res digital – they are: Live at the Rainbow in 1974, this concert, and Budapest in 1986 – which will be a future project – and will be sensational."
(Brian's Soapbox, 16th October 2007)
