Some weird folks in this video. Sadly proof that Freddie overdid it in this department and he paid the price....
Proof of what?
Safe sex would've saved his life. Not staying away from people you describe as weird.
True but these guys dragged him onto the dark side. Not the kinda pple you should hang with. Most of them only wanted to be near him due to his fame and money
Some weird folks in this video. Sadly proof that Freddie overdid it in this department and he paid the price....
Proof of what?
Safe sex would've saved his life. Not staying away from people you describe as weird.
True but these guys dragged him onto the dark side. Not the kinda pple you should hang with. Most of them only wanted to be near him due to his fame and money
lThat is life. This is the price of success. There will always be people who want to be near the famous and rich and try to grab some of his fame any way. Mary Austin, Peter Freestone, Jim Hutton -They are become famous only after the death of Freddie
I did a comparison of the old and new video and there are about 3 or 4 differences, all of them very small and almost unnoticable so that's good. But I'm not the fan of this new mix (at least of this song). Also the piano part has been changed.
The last time I watched this video was over 30 years ago. I still hate this video and think it’s disgusting. It’s not the Freddie I want to see.
From a marketing point of view I don’t think it’s a smart move either. They are throwing away the image of Freddie that was built up with the movie.
Can we conclude they did a new scan ( upscaling) to HD from the edited footage reels or did they compile a new video with the same shots from the old negative reels. Seems the first because there is still a major difference between Dave Clark’s Time 2019 vid and this one
Those who don't know about and haven't used motion picture film (or just film in general really) - this video, I assume, was shot on 16mm high speed stock (much smaller handheld cameras) which is why it's grainier and somewhat softer (also due to the fact that the rooms they shot in were fairly low light environment). It just can't be compared to Time which was shot on stage with professional lights and 35mm film which has a far larger film area (sharper and less grainy). I believe they went for the negatives and recut them recreating the original video frame by frame (Chopin's comment about 3 or 4 very subtle mistakes proves this as well). This is usually the only way to restore these old videos which were originally edited on tape, so only SD masters exist. They have to be located from original camera footage and remade which I'm sure takes a LOT of time. Wish they made some alternate cuts along the way to include on the blu ray bonus, but I digress. Anyway, that being said, it does look pretty damn good! Not my fave video (I'd love the Queen ones to get the same treatment) but I'll take it! :D It has some colour grading inconsistencies when it jumps from the shots filmed outside (a bit red tinted) to the interior shots (more balanced). But that can be fixed and it can be made a bit sharper too. Maybe that's a project to take upon sometime :) Although not sure if that would be shareable here. Either way, I have an FB group so there's that.
Those who don't know about and haven't used motion picture film (or just film in general really) - this video, I assume, was shot on 16mm high speed stock (much smaller handheld cameras) which is why it's grainier and somewhat softer (also due to the fact that the rooms they shot in were fairly low light environment). It just can't be compared to Time which was shot on stage with professional lights and 35mm film which has a far larger film area (sharper and less grainy). I believe they went for the negatives and recut them recreating the original video frame by frame (Chopin's comment about 3 or 4 very subtle mistakes proves this as well). This is usually the only way to restore these old videos which were originally edited on tape, so only SD masters exist. They have to be located from original camera footage and remade which I'm sure takes a LOT of time. Wish they made some alternate cuts along the way to include on the blu ray bonus, but I digress. Anyway, that being said, you it does look pretty damn good! Not my fave video (I'd love the Queen ones to get the same treatment) but I'll take it! :D It has some colour grading inconsistencies when it jumps from the shots filmed outside (a bit red tinted) to the interior shots (more balanced). But that can be fixed and it can be made a bit sharper too. Maybe that's a project to take upon sometime :) Although not sure if that would be shareable here. Either way, I have an FB group so there's that.
================
Thank you for clearing that up and the detailed info Chief!
Can we conclude they did a new scan ( upscaling) to HD from the edited footage reels or did they compile a new video with the same shots from the old negative reels. Seems the first because there is still a major difference between Dave Clark’s Time 2019 vid and this one
Those who don't know about and haven't used motion picture film (or just film in general really) - this video, I assume, was shot on 16mm high speed stock (much smaller handheld cameras) which is why it's grainier and somewhat softer (also due to the fact that the rooms they shot in were fairly low light environment). It just can't be compared to Time which was shot on stage with professional lights and 35mm film which has a far larger film area (sharper and less grainy). I believe they went for the negatives and recut them recreating the original video frame by frame (Chopin's comment about 3 or 4 very subtle mistakes proves this as well). This is usually the only way to restore these old videos which were originally edited on tape, so only SD masters exist. They have to be located from original camera footage and remade which I'm sure takes a LOT of time. Wish they made some alternate cuts along the way to include on the blu ray bonus, but I digress. Anyway, that being said, it does look pretty damn good! Not my fave video (I'd love the Queen ones to get the same treatment) but I'll take it! :D It has some colour grading inconsistencies when it jumps from the shots filmed outside (a bit red tinted) to the interior shots (more balanced). But that can be fixed and it can be made a bit sharper too. Maybe that's a project to take upon sometime :) Although not sure if that would be shareable here. Either way, I have an FB group so there's that.
You are the guy who did Live Aid righr? It is beyond me how you did that. QP should hire you
Can we conclude they did a new scan ( upscaling) to HD from the edited footage reels or did they compile a new video with the same shots from the old negative reels. Seems the first because there is still a major difference between Dave Clark’s Time 2019 vid and this one
We are talking about LOMO not Time
——————————
I know Runner. Just wanted to know why LOMO looks so grainy compared to Time. Luckily Chief explained. Cheers
Can we conclude they did a new scan ( upscaling) to HD from the edited footage reels or did they compile a new video with the same shots from the old negative reels. Seems the first because there is still a major difference between Dave Clark’s Time 2019 vid and this one
We are talking about LOMO not Time
——————————
I know Runner. Just wanted to know why LOMO looks so grainy compared to Time. Luckily Chief explained. Cheers [/QUOTE
It was moi who compared Living On My Own to Time and Barcelona not "runner" :o) there again I'm 49 and old so everything in life looks grainy - cheers for explanation Chief
Gooddrills what part? The entire 3:07 minutes, including the drag, food waste, the sptting out of champagne, the smell of cocaine which is all over the videoclip and lastly the perceived promiscuity.
