Budapest Vs Montreal Blu-Ray

Is it just me or does Montreal look way better than Budapest??

I guess this Budapest is better than anything we've had before but I'm feeling a bit disappointed by the picture quality by comparison.

The problem is that they only had an interpositive film print to source with for the Budapest release. The negatives are nowhere to be found :(

I'm not 100% sure, but I think Montreal may have been shot on 65/70mm film. I'd hazard a guess that the film stock used for Budapest was considerably cheaper and perhaps therefore lower quality.
They both look pretty good though!

1. Montreal was shot on 70mm, Budapest was shot on 35mm.
2. They were shot on different stocks
3. Both releases have a terrible colour "correction"

Montreal looks awful

[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]

Montreal looks awful[/QUOTE]

o_o

What does look good according to you? Wembley 86? Ewwwww

I should have know better than to buy Hungarian Rhapsody on DVD the picture quality is not much better than the VHS release.Nearley all the same songs as Wembley.See What A Fool I've Been !

Why did you buy the dvd when there is alternative blu-ray? DVD format is a waste ...

[QUOTE] [b]philip storey wrote:[/b]

I should have know better than to buy Hungarian Rhapsody on DVD the picture quality is not much better than the VHS release.Nearley all the same songs as Wembley.See What A Fool I've Been ![/QUOTE]


The setlist on the DVD was no secret beforehand!!

Surely having the concert at the right speed, (even if your eyes are insisting on not much quality improvement) is a good thing?!?

I agree that Montreal looks a bit better than Budapest, but Budapest is great either - it also does look stunning!

Of course i knew the setlist before i bought the dvd ,i have not got a blue ray player,my problem is i am collecter of all things Queen.It is just a bit underwellming in my opinion.On a positive note i went to see Brian and Kerry play Corby in the week and it was fantastic.

John Deacon looks quite depressed playing in budapest.

http://i.imgur.com/v7iSO.jpg

I didn't notice that in the old releases of this concert.

[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]

Montreal looks awful[/QUOTE]

o_o

What does look good according to you? Wembley 86? Ewwwww[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I probably should've been more exact. The picture quality is very nice generally, it's just the colouration that's way off. You can tell by comparing Rock Montreal and earlier releases of the same film that huge amounts of colour 'correction' has been applied. In my opinion, the change is not at all an improvement.

EDIT: I found examples!

Original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8R6dV2EQ96w#!

Recoloured: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJxBU7FGtf4

The difference when you compare those two videos is clear. The Rock Montreal restoration looks like it's had some sort of awful instagram-esque filter applied to it.

tomchristie22 - exactly, you're absolutely right ...

I don't understand the modern trend to re-colour EVERYTHING for Bluray. Because colours on both releases suck. Actually it's hard to find a Bluray which doesn't have f****d up colours