Just to make this clear, when up on stage with a bunch of strong lights, the 2007 version is actually pretty accurate. Restrained at times, even! Still, as I said before, I can see both sides.
Nitroboy · Member since
The 2007 version is not accurate, in any way.
Chief Mouse · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/b] Just to make this clear, when up on stage with a bunch of strong lights, the 2007 version is actually pretty accurate.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I disagree. While the 2001 version may not be 100% accurate I bet it's still more accurate than Rock Montreal which almost looks like as if someone added an Instagram filter to it. Obviously, they tried to make it more "Interesting" and different but most of the time I cringe while watching it as it doesn't look natural at all.
AlexRocks · Member since
100% amazing. What's messed up is I like BOTH! Lol! Do I hear the need for a re-release?! Fuck, yeah! And with a much better cover art work! Not for at least a few more years though, eh?!
Doga · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]AlexRocks wrote:[/b]
100% amazing. What's messed up is I like BOTH! Lol! Do I hear the need for a re-release?! Fuck, yeah! And with a much better cover art work! Not for at least a few more years though, eh?! [/QUOTE]
Re-release Montreal? Beware what you wish... with the 4K remaster is possible, but the sound of Rock Montreal is absolute fabulous, so i don't see the need for a re-release.
A lot of people here will kill me for saying this but the product more need a re-release is Wembley, is their iconic show but the sound mix is really sloppy and bad. I read they found the multitracks so maybe QP could do their magic and turn into something like Budapest.
Of course i will prefer Earl's Court (even only the audio)... this talk is nonsense anyway, looks like next year we will get Hammersmith 75, and that is not bad.
lemonysnick123 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Doga wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]AlexRocks wrote:[/b]
100% amazing. What's messed up is I like BOTH! Lol! Do I hear the need for a re-release?! Fuck, yeah! And with a much better cover art work! Not for at least a few more years though, eh?! [/QUOTE]
Re-release Montreal? Beware what you wish... with the 4K remaster is possible, but the sound of Rock Montreal is absolute fabulous, so i don't see the need for a re-release.
A lot of people here will kill me for saying this but the product more need a re-release is Wembley, is their iconic show but the sound mix is really sloppy and bad. I read they found the multitracks so maybe QP could do their magic and turn into something like Budapest.
Of course i will prefer Earl's Court (even only the audio)... this talk is nonsense anyway, looks like next year we will get Hammersmith 75, and that is not bad. [/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure they've always had the Wembley multitracks. They just made a muddy mix. Still enjoyable though.
Oscar J · Member since
I kinda like Rock Montreal's cover art. Minimalistic and nice.
100% amazing. What's messed up is I like BOTH! Lol! Do I hear the need for a re-release?! Fuck, yeah! And with a much better cover art work! Not for at least a few more years though, eh?! [/QUOTE]
Re-release Montreal? Beware what you wish... with the 4K remaster is possible, but the sound of Rock Montreal is absolute fabulous, so i don't see the need for a re-release.
A lot of people here will kill me for saying this but the product more need a re-release is Wembley, is their iconic show but the sound mix is really sloppy and bad. I read they found the multitracks so maybe QP could do their magic and turn into something like Budapest.
Of course i will prefer Earl's Court (even only the audio)... this talk is nonsense anyway, looks like next year we will get Hammersmith 75, and that is not bad. [/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure they've always had the Wembley multitracks. They just made a muddy mix. Still enjoyable though.
[/QUOTE]
They don't.
They didn't have the Wembley multitracks in 2011 for the 25th anniversary edition DVD, just the "1991 analogue half-inch stereo mix tapes". Doga, where did you see that they have found the multitracks? Go to [url=http://brianmay.com/experts/experts.html]http://brianmay.com/experts/experts.html[/url] and use "select month" menu in the left to change the date to January 2011 and read the post to the question "WEMBLEY DVD - NEW MIX OR REMASTERED?"
Regarding this post, Nitroboy, do you plan to share the work you've done when it's finished?
100% amazing. What's messed up is I like BOTH! Lol! Do I hear the need for a re-release?! Fuck, yeah! And with a much better cover art work! Not for at least a few more years though, eh?! [/QUOTE]
Re-release Montreal? Beware what you wish... with the 4K remaster is possible, but the sound of Rock Montreal is absolute fabulous, so i don't see the need for a re-release.
A lot of people here will kill me for saying this but the product more need a re-release is Wembley, is their iconic show but the sound mix is really sloppy and bad. I read they found the multitracks so maybe QP could do their magic and turn into something like Budapest.
Of course i will prefer Earl's Court (even only the audio)... this talk is nonsense anyway, looks like next year we will get Hammersmith 75, and that is not bad. [/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure they've always had the Wembley multitracks. They just made a muddy mix. Still enjoyable though.
[/QUOTE]
They don't.
They didn't have the Wembley multitracks in 2011 for the 25th anniversary edition DVD, just the "1991 analogue half-inch stereo mix tapes". Doga, where did you see that they have found the multitracks? Go to [url=http://brianmay.com/experts/experts.html]http://brianmay.com/experts/experts.html[/url] and use "select month" menu in the left to change the date to January 2011 and read the post to the question "WEMBLEY DVD - NEW MIX OR REMASTERED?"
Regarding this post, Nitroboy, do you plan to share the work you've done when it's finished?[/QUOTE]
Well if you read the entire post, you see that they created a new "mix", not a remaster, for the friday show. Why would the more heavily advertised and broadcasted show be missing multitracks but not the first warm-up show? That sounds a bit backwards.
And also notice he never says the multitracks are missing. He says that they only had access to the 1991 stereo mix. Now, that 1991 mix is a mix from the original multitracks. It seems maybe they only wanted to pay for work on the stereo, rather than totally remix the performance, which would have cost a hell of a lot more money.
Adam Baboolal · Member since
Note: I thought I posted this yesterday, but then remembered that my internet dropped. Anyway, here it is :P
[QUOTE] [b]Nitroboy wrote:[/b]
The 2007 version is not accurate, in any way.[/QUOTE]
In your opinion. Just as I base my opinion on my video work and having a business that deals with filming/editing shows. I strive to keep both sides (skin tone / lighting) intact as much as is possible.
Let me put it this way - if you point a large lantern at a stage, it will affect your skin tone, set, prop, etc. In fact, it happens anywhere you go where lights are involved, i.e. lightbulbs at home, bar lighting, clubs, street lights, etc. etc.
This is why I see both sides to this discussion. Someone like you prefers a warm skin tone on screen and that's why you're tinkering with the video. The team that worked on the film in 2007 wanted to retain more of the concert feel.
And finally, sometimes cameras can't capture the lighting very well, which can be another reason to try adding it back in.
Hopefully, this will make things clearer.
Nitroboy · Member since
I think you're missing the point. If you take a look at the 'Save Me' snapshot on page 2, you will see that in the 2007 version, there is yellow light shining on Freddie from one angle, which in turn makes his skin and white clothing appear yellow-ish, that is correct. What isn't correct is that the rest of Freddie also appears yellow/green -ish.
Even in scenes where there is pure white light, the light is turned yellow/green because of the terrible colour grading on the 2007 release.
Adam Baboolal · Member since
Unfortunately, you haven't understood my post. I'll try once more. Just to explain things a little further, the "lights" you highlight were brought in to restore the lighting they felt was missing in the shots. When filming stuff, sometimes lighting doesn't translate to the camera. I don't know what this phenomenon is called, but I have experienced this when filming some shows. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.
Anyway, as I mentioned in my previous post, lighting changes skin tones. If you've ever stood on stage when lights are going during a concert, or otherwise, you'd notice that your skin looks wayyy different. So, depending on the light temperature/colour, you will get a very unnatural look to your skin tone. Just like when a white light is pointed at someone on stage, they look pale without some kind of makeup, i.e. basic foundation makeup.
