Wanna know why the video quality isn't any better on the GVH DVDs?

'Tis because, for the MPEG video bitrate, they have it somewhere between 5-6 Mbps, but yet, had Brian NOT insisted on using the very high-bitrate-ish DTS soundtracks, they could've put the video bitrate at the maximum of 9.8 Mbps!

The only reason the videos look good somewhat, even with the low bitrate, is that, instead of sizing it to 720x480 before unsqueezing the video to 16:9 AR widescreen when played, they used a dimension of 520x480 (or 502x480), at least on the GVH2 DVD (NTSC) (haven't checked the Fred tribute or GVH1 DVDs to see if that's the case too yet)

That annoys the hell out of me :-P

i really don't care

me neither

I don't have a problem with the picture quality. Looks better than my VHS tapes, So I won't complain! LOL!

I'm just saying that the quality would've been slightly better if they increased the bitrates for the videos

I guess the DTS thing also explains why they don't include a DD 5.1 mix for us poor unfortunate souls who bought a receiver without DTS.

And uncompressed PCM takes up some extra space too from what I understand.. so it seems Bri is more concerned with audio than video... I can't really complain about that.. first and foremost Queen is about the music :)

Jeffrey

"it seems Bri is more concerned with audio than video..."

Which isn't ENTRELY a bad thing. ;p

Thank god for people like Deacon and Dan. The music comes first.

It is one thing to compromise on the video bit rate as the quality is still better than VHS, but forcing a square peg into a round hole is an entirely different issue. Yes, it is about the music, but there is no rational reason for cutting off the top and bottom of the picture when a widescreen TV could have shown the entire picture (but with bars on the sides).

If you guys don't care, then don't post! :P This has been talked about before. Or is it because it was Dark's topic, and you felt you needed to negate his positivity on the subject?

I think it's great there is a logical explanation about this quality issue, and it seems that Dark was the first person on the board to come up with it. Good stuff.

This IS one of the better "GVH2" topics I must admit. :p

Apt. Nice one.

Funny...I'm not alone on the audio thing! A lot of my friends thought I was mad because I was looking forward to the sound quality FIRST on both volumes! (Some asked me, "But what about the quality of the videos??" I told them, "Sound first, then the pictures!")
Very good engineering, but on the second disc, the One Vision documentary simply does not compare with the Magic Years version...for more info on that, it's on another thread!

I agree with Guitar Hero, good topic, Dark. Defniately better than all that "Will you love me, ah yeah" shite.

Because the masters for GHI were strung together ala GFI, didn't Brian use a poorer quality master to get the vids on GVHI single (on there own)? Maybe this explains the bitrate for this, at a higher bitrate, the video looked poorer.

I'm not to sure what should come first :-) We already have the music in pretty good quality, so shouldn't the video take precedence, since thats the name of the release - Greatest VIDEO Hits, not Greatest Hits DVD-A. Mmmmm, interesting discussion. Personaly I think a well balanced compromise should be made between the two, and so far I think the guys have been quite successful in this....

GVI had a truly shitty picture quality, this one is a bit better but still a substandard. Watch, for example, Bowie's Best of dvd and see the difference