[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]DepeX wrote:[/b]
Pittrek would you be so kind to upload the full qtv broadcast? Thank you [/QUOTE]
I'll ask the "correct people"[/QUOTE]
LOL
Barry Durex
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Oscar J
[QUOTE]
[b]vonkeil wrote: [/b] Has anyone of you noticed the digital glitch in Fred's introduction for BoRhap?
("...with a little segment from a numberRRRRR...") ? [/QUOTE]
Digital glitch? It's a rolled R. Freddie does the same in the introduction to Brrrrrighton Rrrrock.
[b]vonkeil wrote: [/b] Has anyone of you noticed the digital glitch in Fred's introduction for BoRhap?
("...with a little segment from a numberRRRRR...") ? [/QUOTE]
Digital glitch? It's a rolled R. Freddie does the same in the introduction to Brrrrrighton Rrrrock.
brians wig
[QUOTE] [b]Barry Durex wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]DepeX wrote:[/b]
Pittrek would you be so kind to upload the full qtv broadcast? Thank you [/QUOTE]
I'll ask the "correct people"[/QUOTE]
LOL
[/QUOTE]
I think by that he means the mods.
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]DepeX wrote:[/b]
Pittrek would you be so kind to upload the full qtv broadcast? Thank you [/QUOTE]
I'll ask the "correct people"[/QUOTE]
LOL
[/QUOTE]
I think by that he means the mods.
DepeX
[QUOTE] [b]brians wig wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Barry Durex wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]DepeX wrote:[/b]
Pittrek would you be so kind to upload the full qtv broadcast? Thank you [/QUOTE]
I'll ask the "correct people"[/QUOTE]
LOL
[/QUOTE]
I think by that he means the mods.[/QUOTE]
Me too.
[QUOTE] [b]Barry Durex wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]DepeX wrote:[/b]
Pittrek would you be so kind to upload the full qtv broadcast? Thank you [/QUOTE]
I'll ask the "correct people"[/QUOTE]
LOL
[/QUOTE]
I think by that he means the mods.[/QUOTE]
Me too.
Biggus Dickus
[QUOTE]
[b]Nitroboy wrote: [/b] Holly, Freddie still cracks on other releases like Milton Keynes, Wembley, and Budapest as well.
I'm an advocate of leaving the stuff as original as it can be. Cracks and all. If it's something as bad as Japan '79, then use that kind of stuff as bonus material. Obviously stuff like that isn't suited for being the main release.[/QUOTE]
I agree. For some reason with Wembley, Keynes etc. they seemed to leave the vocals alone. Sure they still had the original overdubs but at least they didn't run everything Fred sang through autotune.
[b]Nitroboy wrote: [/b] Holly, Freddie still cracks on other releases like Milton Keynes, Wembley, and Budapest as well.
I'm an advocate of leaving the stuff as original as it can be. Cracks and all. If it's something as bad as Japan '79, then use that kind of stuff as bonus material. Obviously stuff like that isn't suited for being the main release.[/QUOTE]
I agree. For some reason with Wembley, Keynes etc. they seemed to leave the vocals alone. Sure they still had the original overdubs but at least they didn't run everything Fred sang through autotune.
dysan
I agree that this kind of analysis is fascinating. And also that a few tweaks here and there might be necessary for whatever reason - from that video above I'm not seeing anything that is deceptive or bad. But missing out the intro and the outro freezeframe? WTF?
And those end credits are pretty bad. Dear QPL I am quite handy with Final Cut and would've done this a lot better. Best regards, Lord Dysan.
And those end credits are pretty bad. Dear QPL I am quite handy with Final Cut and would've done this a lot better. Best regards, Lord Dysan.
Nitroboy
Not to mention the bad colours....
mooghead
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Bad Seed wrote:[/b]
Again I disagree. The pitch correction on the Rainbow shows is noticeable for someone who knows what they're listening for but not at all for the average listener.
Where on the Odeon show is autotune at all obvious, even for someone with a good ear?[/QUOTE]
You totally fail to get the point. This is a fairly new technology, just like the special effects of 1950s films were new. Nobody noticed the shortcomings because people weren't used to it yet. Twenty years later, after massive exposure to the technologies in question, they become painfully easy to pick out. There is absolutely NO reason to assume it will be ANY different for this technology. In 20 years, it WILL sound cheesy and fake. You can disagree as much as you want to, it won't change a thing.
Do yourself a favor. Look up some of the North Korean doctored photographs of American POWs from the 1950s. At the time, even photographics experts thought they were real. Now, a 10-year-old can see how they were edited together from different pieces. Exactly the same concept.[/QUOTE]
Good point but you are comparing visuals with audio, unless you actually know what the 'real' recording sounds like it will be easy to assume that what you hear is the way it was. I may be proven wrong in time. I have never heard the 'real' gig but due to the whole issue of autotune on this site (and others) I am looking much more forward to seeing the thing rather than listening to it, I might play the radio in the background who knows? (Expecting delivery tomorrow :-)
[QUOTE] [b]Bad Seed wrote:[/b]
Again I disagree. The pitch correction on the Rainbow shows is noticeable for someone who knows what they're listening for but not at all for the average listener.
Where on the Odeon show is autotune at all obvious, even for someone with a good ear?[/QUOTE]
You totally fail to get the point. This is a fairly new technology, just like the special effects of 1950s films were new. Nobody noticed the shortcomings because people weren't used to it yet. Twenty years later, after massive exposure to the technologies in question, they become painfully easy to pick out. There is absolutely NO reason to assume it will be ANY different for this technology. In 20 years, it WILL sound cheesy and fake. You can disagree as much as you want to, it won't change a thing.
Do yourself a favor. Look up some of the North Korean doctored photographs of American POWs from the 1950s. At the time, even photographics experts thought they were real. Now, a 10-year-old can see how they were edited together from different pieces. Exactly the same concept.[/QUOTE]
Good point but you are comparing visuals with audio, unless you actually know what the 'real' recording sounds like it will be easy to assume that what you hear is the way it was. I may be proven wrong in time. I have never heard the 'real' gig but due to the whole issue of autotune on this site (and others) I am looking much more forward to seeing the thing rather than listening to it, I might play the radio in the background who knows? (Expecting delivery tomorrow :-)
Oscar J
It is NOT that badly autotuned. There are no glaringly obvious examples anywhere - it has been done much more carefully than, say, Rainbows "Fairy Fellers".
matte9898
I don't know why they didn't correct the speed of the japan's live... The tape runs 1 semitone faster than normal...
pittrek
[QUOTE] [b]matte9898 wrote:[/b]
I don't know why they didn't correct the speed of the japan's live... The tape runs 1 semitone faster than normal...[/QUOTE]
Yes, for some reason they still use the PAL tape source, which is weird. Maybe they don't have the film source already?
Anyway I agree it would be better if they slowed it down from 25fps to 23.976fps.
I don't know why they didn't correct the speed of the japan's live... The tape runs 1 semitone faster than normal...[/QUOTE]
Yes, for some reason they still use the PAL tape source, which is weird. Maybe they don't have the film source already?
Anyway I agree it would be better if they slowed it down from 25fps to 23.976fps.
vonkeil
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]vonkeil wrote: [/b] Has anyone of you noticed the digital glitch in Fred's introduction for BoRhap?
("...with a little segment from a numberRRRRR...") ? [/QUOTE]
Digital glitch? It's a rolled R. Freddie does the same in the introduction to Brrrrrighton Rrrrock.[/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right.
I was pretty sure it sounds different on my old bootleg. I just checked and it didn't.
My bad, sorry.
[QUOTE]
[b]vonkeil wrote: [/b] Has anyone of you noticed the digital glitch in Fred's introduction for BoRhap?
("...with a little segment from a numberRRRRR...") ? [/QUOTE]
Digital glitch? It's a rolled R. Freddie does the same in the introduction to Brrrrrighton Rrrrock.[/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right.
I was pretty sure it sounds different on my old bootleg. I just checked and it didn't.
My bad, sorry.
Nitroboy
[QUOTE]
[b]pittrek wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]matte9898 wrote:[/b]
I don't know why they didn't correct the speed of the japan's live... The tape runs 1 semitone faster than normal...[/QUOTE]
Yes, for some reason they still use the PAL tape source, which is weird. Maybe they don't have the film source already?
Anyway I agree it would be better if they slowed it down from 25fps to 23.976fps.[/QUOTE]
That wouldn't be the correct speed either :P
The correct speed would be a precise 24fps. 23.976 is NTSC film, which is running slower than standard film speed (24fps).
[b]pittrek wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]matte9898 wrote:[/b]
I don't know why they didn't correct the speed of the japan's live... The tape runs 1 semitone faster than normal...[/QUOTE]
Yes, for some reason they still use the PAL tape source, which is weird. Maybe they don't have the film source already?
Anyway I agree it would be better if they slowed it down from 25fps to 23.976fps.[/QUOTE]
That wouldn't be the correct speed either :P
The correct speed would be a precise 24fps. 23.976 is NTSC film, which is running slower than standard film speed (24fps).
matte9898
Yes, but 24 fps is film speed, like budapest and montreal. The japan's movie doesn't seem to be "slow" like budapest or montreal, maybe because it is 25 fps interlaced (50i) ? Sorry for my bad english
pittrek
Yes, but is 24fps supported by either DVD or BD ? I know both formats support 23.976 fps and that's how Montreal is encoded on the BD if I remember correctly.