Was the Live in Budapest release originally set to be released in 4:3?

[QUOTE] [b]The Kurgan wrote:[/b] The native aspect ratio of 35mm film is 4:3. For a comparison, here is the same frame taken from the PAL 4:3 laserdisc release: The sides (mainly right) are cropped when compared to the blu-ray and theatrical release. The blu-ray and theatrical release is mainly cropped at the bottom on this particular frame. [/QUOTE] Well the 16 camera bootleg starts with lots of information, one of them is 1.85:1, and the screens are definitely wide. Of course the frame size is not 1.85, so what exactly does the aspect ratio seen in the 16 camera version mean? And apologies if I'm the only person who is fascinated by this stuff

[QUOTE] [b]Toozeup wrote:[/b]

The grain isn't the issue for me, i'd rather see grain than have it DNR'd to the nines. That won't be improved upon unless they find the original camera rushes. The sound mix though was really poor. It's so flat and sounds like it was mastered to sound good on flatscreen tv speakers.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't there many complaints over poor sound quality when it was shown at cinemas? it was a great concert but just my own personal opinion the show was not bluray standard by far for such an iconic concert.

Budapest has shitload of potential to be as good as Montreal both picture wise and audio but was really missed. I can somewhat deal with the audio even tho I really does sound like shit but the video... something about the video really makes my eye twitch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8_lPABIQDI

If you look at the above comparison video, the blu-ray seems to be just a cropped version of a 4:3 film copy

The 4:3 image is croppedat the sides, mostly on the right.
Pittrek, you might want to research the open matte filming technique:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte

[QUOTE] [b]Jake12 wrote:[/b]

Budapest has shitload of potential to be as good as Montreal both picture wise and audio but was really missed. I can somewhat deal with the audio even tho I really does sound like shit but the video... something about the video really makes my eye twitch [/QUOTE]

The video was taken from an interpositive copy. It looks very good, but not as good as if it was taken from camera negatives. Also, a lot of the concert was quite dark and when you shoot in the dark and then brighten it up in post, it uncovers more grain. But all in all, it doesn't look too bad for what it is, other than a little bit bias towards blue & cold tint.

.

[QUOTE] [b]QueenAllTheWay wrote:[/b]

I think it's just the 2012 officially released version cropped down to 4:3?[/QUOTE]

Wrong

[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]

The visible part is approx. 642x364 (if I cropped it correctly), which is 1.77. So was it shot in 1.85 and cropped to 1.77 for theatrical prints and not only for the Blu-ray? At least I assume the picture is a scan of a theatrical print, right?[/QUOTE]

It was shot on regular 35mm film, and would have been cropped for a theatrical release.

[QUOTE] [b]Biggest Band On The Planet wrote:[/b]

I remember watching it on VHS and thinking the picture had been cropped in places because of the way the picture cuts off Freddie.

It looks even worse on DVD/Blu ray with the butchered aspect ratio.

Hopefully some day we will get to see the concert in its original aspect ratio.[/QUOTE]

The 2012 release is not a butchered aspect ratio.

[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Well the 16 camera bootleg starts with lots of information, one of them is 1.85:1, and the screens are definitely wide. Of course the frame size is not 1.85, so what exactly does the aspect ratio seen in the 16 camera version mean? And apologies if I'm the only person who is fascinated by this stuff[/QUOTE]

The 16 camera version is showing the monitor feeds from the cameras. They are independant of the image being captured on the 35mm film.

So are we saying the vhs and laserdisc versions are the uncropped versions?

No, they are still cropped at the sides, mostly on the right (see frame comparison I posted on previous page).
In turn this means they would also be cropped to some degree at the top and bottom (see open matte link I posted on previous page).
It was probably filmed with both a 4:3 home video and a 1.85:1 theatrical release in mind.
The Blu-ray release is 1.78:1.
To view maximum frame on all releases you will need to have your TV set to "Full" rather than 4:3, 16:9 or Auto, otherwise the TV will crop the image further.
Not all TV's have the "Full" option.

Kurgan + Chief Mouse - I know what open matte is, thanks, but that's not what I was asking - right now I am trying to find out what EXACTLY do we see in the 16camera bootleg. 2 of the screens show 1.85 on them, what does it mean, [i]INTENDED[/i] aspect ratio? I tried to check the aspect ratio of the screens themselves, it's very hard, but all of my attempts have shown something more than 1.8. Is there an image upload server where you don't have to register so that I can show what the hell I'm talking about?

^ I know you do :) It was just a contribution to the thread. As for the rest of what you ask, I can't answer. Other than the image upload server - use imgur.com .

Is this screen shot from the 16 cam footage in the correct aspect ratio anyway?
http://i.ibb.co/dDcD6xz/vlcsnap-2019-08-12-11h23m40s796.jpg
It makes no difference though, as the concert itself was filmed in 4:3.

[QUOTE] [b]guild93 wrote:[/b]

So are we saying the vhs and laserdisc versions are the uncropped versions?[/QUOTE]

Not really, no.

Any updates from the Hungarian Filmarchive that found a lot of reels in a underground shed/bunker?