The UK HDTV broadcast was 1080 PAL
The blu ray release is 1080 NTSC
The concert was filmed in PAL.
Any thoughts?
Barry Durex
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Nitroboy
Their recent YouTube uploads with PAL content have also been uploaded in 25fps.
I still don't get why they keep only releasing stuff in NTSC format, especially for Blu-ray, which is perfectly capable of playing PAL all around the world (or just do PAL/NTSC for different regions)
I still don't get why they keep only releasing stuff in NTSC format, especially for Blu-ray, which is perfectly capable of playing PAL all around the world (or just do PAL/NTSC for different regions)
pittrek
Interesting, did anybody record the concert broadcast too ?
Nitroboy - I don't understand it too. They're masters are PAL, and all their releases post-2011 are made in Europe. So it couldn't be a question of costs.
Nitroboy - I don't understand it too. They're masters are PAL, and all their releases post-2011 are made in Europe. So it couldn't be a question of costs.
brians wig
Quite simply it IS all about cost.
Many companies now only produce NTSC DVDs.
It's all because the bloody American manufacturers are so far up their own egotistical arses that they have NEVER believed their equipment needs to be capable of playing back any format other than their shit quality "Never Twice Same Colour" (NTSC) video system, where-as the rest of the world have quite happily had NTSC compatible equipmemnt since the late 1980's.
As a result, too many Americans now have incompatible equipment and so it's cheaper for companies to produce a single worldwide master that EVERYONE can play, than do two encodes and two sets of authoring.
At least these days, most of us Europeans have flat screen TV's and BD players which are capable of outputting a 60hz signal so we can all watch this stuff without the usual jerking associated with NTSC pulldown and I've had no issues with either the Rainbow or Hammy 75 Blurays.
I would, however, still prefer they kept their releases as PAL since that's the format they were shot it and NTSC/60i conversions obviously mean "making up" an additional 5 frames of video per second.
The only time I'll ever be truly happy with an NTSC DVD/BD from QPL is when/if they ever release any of the Japanese/American concerts that were filmed in that format.
One other thing to consider is that Universal/Island Records are an American company....
Many companies now only produce NTSC DVDs.
It's all because the bloody American manufacturers are so far up their own egotistical arses that they have NEVER believed their equipment needs to be capable of playing back any format other than their shit quality "Never Twice Same Colour" (NTSC) video system, where-as the rest of the world have quite happily had NTSC compatible equipmemnt since the late 1980's.
As a result, too many Americans now have incompatible equipment and so it's cheaper for companies to produce a single worldwide master that EVERYONE can play, than do two encodes and two sets of authoring.
At least these days, most of us Europeans have flat screen TV's and BD players which are capable of outputting a 60hz signal so we can all watch this stuff without the usual jerking associated with NTSC pulldown and I've had no issues with either the Rainbow or Hammy 75 Blurays.
I would, however, still prefer they kept their releases as PAL since that's the format they were shot it and NTSC/60i conversions obviously mean "making up" an additional 5 frames of video per second.
The only time I'll ever be truly happy with an NTSC DVD/BD from QPL is when/if they ever release any of the Japanese/American concerts that were filmed in that format.
One other thing to consider is that Universal/Island Records are an American company....
pittrek
Unfortunately all the new releases look like shit on my TV. At least they look tolerable on my PC
Barry Durex
I'm getting sent a 1080 PAL clip to check out.
mooghead
"Any thoughts?"
Is this what occupies your brain?
Is this what occupies your brain?
Barry Durex
[QUOTE] [b]mooghead wrote:[/b]
"Any thoughts?"
Is this what occupies your brain? [/QUOTE]
No, sometimes I think about punching your face.
"Any thoughts?"
Is this what occupies your brain? [/QUOTE]
No, sometimes I think about punching your face.
kevin79
First, there are various versions of 1080 HD. First, there is 1080p. The p stands for progressive. What that means is that all 1080 lines of your picture are refreshing at the same time. This format tends to run at 24fps (frames per second), the amount of frames of traditional film that run per second. This format is a universal standard throughout the world. So, if you buy a Blu Ray title encoded at 1080p, as long as the disc isn't region locked, you should be able to watch it in any country.
The latest Queen Blu Ray releases have been in 1080i, the i standing for interlaced. Interlaced video means that only half of your 1080 lines are refreshing at once. And there are two variants to 1080i broadcasts, 60Hz (which tends to be used for NTSC broadcasts) and 50Hz (used most often in PAL broadcasts).
While your electronic companies in Europe seem to have adapted the idea of making your DVD and Blu Ray Players compatible with the various formats, the same can't be said for their North American counterparts. Ours tend to stick to 1080p and NTSC standards, meaning we can't easily watch a PAL disc.
So, for Queen Productions and Universal, they'll need to do a conversion to the NTSC format for the North American audience. So, as was mentioned earlier, to cut costs, they've only made the NTSC version. Why spend the extra money to make a PAL version when they can just as easily watch the NTSC version too.
So, the real issue isn't Queen or Universal. It's the electronics companies in the states still living in the stone age and making it possible for us to see a concert or TV show in the format it was filmed.
As for why they don't convert to 1080p, the issue there is that there's about a 4% slow down in doing that conversion. This was actually done when they converted the first few seasons of the reboot of Doctor Who from PAL to 1080p. And while they did use pitch correction to make it less noticeable, that wouldn't' cover up the issue on a music-based release.
The latest Queen Blu Ray releases have been in 1080i, the i standing for interlaced. Interlaced video means that only half of your 1080 lines are refreshing at once. And there are two variants to 1080i broadcasts, 60Hz (which tends to be used for NTSC broadcasts) and 50Hz (used most often in PAL broadcasts).
While your electronic companies in Europe seem to have adapted the idea of making your DVD and Blu Ray Players compatible with the various formats, the same can't be said for their North American counterparts. Ours tend to stick to 1080p and NTSC standards, meaning we can't easily watch a PAL disc.
So, for Queen Productions and Universal, they'll need to do a conversion to the NTSC format for the North American audience. So, as was mentioned earlier, to cut costs, they've only made the NTSC version. Why spend the extra money to make a PAL version when they can just as easily watch the NTSC version too.
So, the real issue isn't Queen or Universal. It's the electronics companies in the states still living in the stone age and making it possible for us to see a concert or TV show in the format it was filmed.
As for why they don't convert to 1080p, the issue there is that there's about a 4% slow down in doing that conversion. This was actually done when they converted the first few seasons of the reboot of Doctor Who from PAL to 1080p. And while they did use pitch correction to make it less noticeable, that wouldn't' cover up the issue on a music-based release.
Barry Durex
My thoughts are, has the TV broadcast been converted to PAL, or is it the real deal?
que.123
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Interesting, did anybody record the concert broadcast too ?
[/QUOTE]
Pittrek, I recorded the concert in standard definition PAL 720x576 interlaced (I have not migrated to HD/Blu-ray yet).
I recorded it from a Sky digital broadcast to a Panasonic DVD recorder set to XP (best quality).
I recorded the first watermark free broadcast, as I mentioned in another thread "BBC4 have just repeated the concert and this time it has the BBC FOUR logo in the top left corner, the first showing was logo free?"
As Barry is discussing in the post above I'm not sure if my recording is "the real deal" or a PAL > NTSC > PAL conversion?
Interesting, did anybody record the concert broadcast too ?
[/QUOTE]
Pittrek, I recorded the concert in standard definition PAL 720x576 interlaced (I have not migrated to HD/Blu-ray yet).
I recorded it from a Sky digital broadcast to a Panasonic DVD recorder set to XP (best quality).
I recorded the first watermark free broadcast, as I mentioned in another thread "BBC4 have just repeated the concert and this time it has the BBC FOUR logo in the top left corner, the first showing was logo free?"
As Barry is discussing in the post above I'm not sure if my recording is "the real deal" or a PAL > NTSC > PAL conversion?
pittrek
[QUOTE] [b]que.123 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Interesting, did anybody record the concert broadcast too ?
[/QUOTE]
Pittrek, I recorded the concert in standard definition PAL 720x576 interlaced (I have not migrated to HD/Blu-ray yet).
I recorded it from a Sky digital broadcast to a Panasonic DVD recorder set to XP (best quality).
I recorded the first watermark free broadcast, as I mentioned in another thread "BBC4 have just repeated the concert and this time it has the BBC FOUR logo in the top left corner, the first showing was logo free?"
As Barry is discussing in the post above I'm not sure if my recording is "the real deal" or a PAL > NTSC > PAL conversion?
[/QUOTE]
That's what I'd like to know and that's why I asked :-)
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Interesting, did anybody record the concert broadcast too ?
[/QUOTE]
Pittrek, I recorded the concert in standard definition PAL 720x576 interlaced (I have not migrated to HD/Blu-ray yet).
I recorded it from a Sky digital broadcast to a Panasonic DVD recorder set to XP (best quality).
I recorded the first watermark free broadcast, as I mentioned in another thread "BBC4 have just repeated the concert and this time it has the BBC FOUR logo in the top left corner, the first showing was logo free?"
As Barry is discussing in the post above I'm not sure if my recording is "the real deal" or a PAL > NTSC > PAL conversion?
[/QUOTE]
That's what I'd like to know and that's why I asked :-)
pittrek
[QUOTE] [b]kevin79 wrote:[/b]
First, there are various versions of 1080 HD. First, there is 1080p. The p stands for progressive. What that means is that all 1080 lines of your picture are refreshing at the same time. This format tends to run at 24fps (frames per second), the amount of frames of traditional film that run per second. This format is a universal standard throughout the world. So, if you buy a Blu Ray title encoded at 1080p, as long as the disc isn't region locked, you should be able to watch it in any country.
The latest Queen Blu Ray releases have been in 1080i, the i standing for interlaced. Interlaced video means that only half of your 1080 lines are refreshing at once. And there are two variants to 1080i broadcasts, 60Hz (which tends to be used for NTSC broadcasts) and 50Hz (used most often in PAL broadcasts).
While your electronic companies in Europe seem to have adapted the idea of making your DVD and Blu Ray Players compatible with the various formats, the same can't be said for their North American counterparts. Ours tend to stick to 1080p and NTSC standards, meaning we can't easily watch a PAL disc.
So, for Queen Productions and Universal, they'll need to do a conversion to the NTSC format for the North American audience. So, as was mentioned earlier, to cut costs, they've only made the NTSC version. Why spend the extra money to make a PAL version when they can just as easily watch the NTSC version too.
So, the real issue isn't Queen or Universal. It's the electronics companies in the states still living in the stone age and making it possible for us to see a concert or TV show in the format it was filmed.
As for why they don't convert to 1080p, the issue there is that there's about a 4% slow down in doing that conversion. This was actually done when they converted the first few seasons of the reboot of Doctor Who from PAL to 1080p. And while they did use pitch correction to make it less noticeable, that wouldn't' cover up the issue on a music-based release.[/QUOTE]
I can't agree, the financial reason makes no sense to me. They start with a PAL source. They convert the PAL source to NTSC. Meaning that both PAL and NTSC versions do exist, They don't really have to do another NTSC->PAL conversion.
They are probably doing the post-production ("remastering") work on the NTSC conversion, and that's the problem. A problem which could be easily solved by changing the workflow (with exactly the same costs - unless they're working with some non-standard proprietary software which works only with NTSC). And of course the factories manufacturing the discs would of course want more money but that's a different thing...
Why spend the extra money to make a PAL version when they can just as easily watch the NTSC version too ? Well, because the NTSC version looks like shit (I am talking about the movement, especially on the Rainbow March footage and the Tokyo footage).
First, there are various versions of 1080 HD. First, there is 1080p. The p stands for progressive. What that means is that all 1080 lines of your picture are refreshing at the same time. This format tends to run at 24fps (frames per second), the amount of frames of traditional film that run per second. This format is a universal standard throughout the world. So, if you buy a Blu Ray title encoded at 1080p, as long as the disc isn't region locked, you should be able to watch it in any country.
The latest Queen Blu Ray releases have been in 1080i, the i standing for interlaced. Interlaced video means that only half of your 1080 lines are refreshing at once. And there are two variants to 1080i broadcasts, 60Hz (which tends to be used for NTSC broadcasts) and 50Hz (used most often in PAL broadcasts).
While your electronic companies in Europe seem to have adapted the idea of making your DVD and Blu Ray Players compatible with the various formats, the same can't be said for their North American counterparts. Ours tend to stick to 1080p and NTSC standards, meaning we can't easily watch a PAL disc.
So, for Queen Productions and Universal, they'll need to do a conversion to the NTSC format for the North American audience. So, as was mentioned earlier, to cut costs, they've only made the NTSC version. Why spend the extra money to make a PAL version when they can just as easily watch the NTSC version too.
So, the real issue isn't Queen or Universal. It's the electronics companies in the states still living in the stone age and making it possible for us to see a concert or TV show in the format it was filmed.
As for why they don't convert to 1080p, the issue there is that there's about a 4% slow down in doing that conversion. This was actually done when they converted the first few seasons of the reboot of Doctor Who from PAL to 1080p. And while they did use pitch correction to make it less noticeable, that wouldn't' cover up the issue on a music-based release.[/QUOTE]
I can't agree, the financial reason makes no sense to me. They start with a PAL source. They convert the PAL source to NTSC. Meaning that both PAL and NTSC versions do exist, They don't really have to do another NTSC->PAL conversion.
They are probably doing the post-production ("remastering") work on the NTSC conversion, and that's the problem. A problem which could be easily solved by changing the workflow (with exactly the same costs - unless they're working with some non-standard proprietary software which works only with NTSC). And of course the factories manufacturing the discs would of course want more money but that's a different thing...
Why spend the extra money to make a PAL version when they can just as easily watch the NTSC version too ? Well, because the NTSC version looks like shit (I am talking about the movement, especially on the Rainbow March footage and the Tokyo footage).
que.123
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]que.123 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Interesting, did anybody record the concert broadcast too ?
[/QUOTE]
Pittrek, I recorded the concert in standard definition PAL 720x576 interlaced (I have not migrated to HD/Blu-ray yet).
I recorded it from a Sky digital broadcast to a Panasonic DVD recorder set to XP (best quality).
I recorded the first watermark free broadcast, as I mentioned in another thread "BBC4 have just repeated the concert and this time it has the BBC FOUR logo in the top left corner, the first showing was logo free?"
As Barry is discussing in the post above I'm not sure if my recording is "the real deal" or a PAL > NTSC > PAL conversion?
[/QUOTE]
That's what I'd like to know and that's why I asked :-)[/QUOTE]
I don't know how anyone could know for sure apart from studying the motion, I'll upload a sample if you like.
(Before anyone complains I know that this is an official release but I would have thought that a small sample of a TV broadcast would be OK for sharing).
[QUOTE] [b]que.123 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Interesting, did anybody record the concert broadcast too ?
[/QUOTE]
Pittrek, I recorded the concert in standard definition PAL 720x576 interlaced (I have not migrated to HD/Blu-ray yet).
I recorded it from a Sky digital broadcast to a Panasonic DVD recorder set to XP (best quality).
I recorded the first watermark free broadcast, as I mentioned in another thread "BBC4 have just repeated the concert and this time it has the BBC FOUR logo in the top left corner, the first showing was logo free?"
As Barry is discussing in the post above I'm not sure if my recording is "the real deal" or a PAL > NTSC > PAL conversion?
[/QUOTE]
That's what I'd like to know and that's why I asked :-)[/QUOTE]
I don't know how anyone could know for sure apart from studying the motion, I'll upload a sample if you like.
(Before anyone complains I know that this is an official release but I would have thought that a small sample of a TV broadcast would be OK for sharing).
Barry Durex
It's worth mentioning that certain versions of some software like VLC and ffmpeg can report incorrect media information.
For example interlaced is sometimes reported as progressive and 25fps reported as 50fps.
It's sometimes more accurate to use the eye to verify interlaced video, and usually easier to tell on an LCD computer monitor.
As far as I am aware, the UK HD transmission would be 1080i and 25fps, so that would be the optimum file spec.
For example interlaced is sometimes reported as progressive and 25fps reported as 50fps.
It's sometimes more accurate to use the eye to verify interlaced video, and usually easier to tell on an LCD computer monitor.
As far as I am aware, the UK HD transmission would be 1080i and 25fps, so that would be the optimum file spec.