| pittrek 21.06.2012 11:57 |
I'm watching the (in)famous 16 camera bootleg of the Budapest show and the 16 little camera "spaces" are not squares, but they're rectangles. Does it mean that the concert was shot in widescreen and later cropped to 4:3 for the home video releases ? Is here somebody who remembers in which aspect ratio was the concert shown in movie theatres ? Could it be 1.185 ? |
| . 21.06.2012 13:10 |
Lets hope so |
| Marknow 21.06.2012 14:14 |
Yes, 35mm film has a native aspect ratio of 1.85:1. But because of it's overall quality, you can do what you like with the aspect ratio. Because it was shot in 35mm it can be released in any aspect ratio up to Blu_Ray. The native aspect ratio of what we have so far is 4:3 or 1.33:1, which suited home technology of the time. The theatrical release was probably 16:9 |
| pittrek 21.06.2012 15:06 |
Today was my personal "Budapest day". I was absolutely impressed how much resolution is kept even on the VHS. A widescreen Bluray would look absolutely brilliant :-) Thanks for the info about the native aspect ratio. One of the cameras on the multi-camera bootleg showed the numbers "1 185" so I wasn't sure what these numbers mean :-) |
| tero! 48531 21.06.2012 15:12 |
Marknow wrote: Yes, 35mm film has a native aspect ratio of 1.85:1. But because of it's overall quality, you can do what you like with the aspect ratio. Because it was shot in 35mm it can be released in any aspect ratio up to Blu_Ray.I think you'll find that blu-ray is not an aspect ratio, and you can use any aspect ratio on a blu-ray, regardless of the quality of the original material. But you're absolutely right that 35mm is technically good enough to provide a full HD picture. |
| pittrek 21.06.2012 15:23 |
Any ? I thought you can use ONLY 16:9 aspect ratio on BluRay. At least I have never seen any other aspect ratio on official BDs. Old 4:3 TV shows are encoded with black bars on both sides, and the result is encoded as a 16:9 video |
| Marknow 21.06.2012 17:14 |
tero! 48531 wrote:HD Bly-Ray at 16:9 comes in at 1.66:1 to 1.85:1, the same maximum aspect ratio as 35mm Film, should have made that clearer.Marknow wrote: Yes, 35mm film has a native aspect ratio of 1.85:1. But because of it's overall quality, you can do what you like with the aspect ratio. Because it was shot in 35mm it can be released in any aspect ratio up to Blu_Ray.I think you'll find that blu-ray is not an aspect ratio, and you can use any aspect ratio on a blu-ray, regardless of the quality of the original material. But you're absolutely right that 35mm is technically good enough to provide a full HD picture. Blu_ray at 16:9 will contain around 2,000 or 2k horizontal pixels per digital frame. 35mm film although analogue can in some cases contain up to 12,000 or 12k horizontal pixels per frame. So what Queen prods will do is organise a Telecine of the 35mm footage. Telecine is a high resolution scan of the 35mm footage most commonly done at 4,000 or 4k horizontal pixels. That will then be down converted to 2k in order to fit on the Blu-Ray disc. IF the theatrical cut from the 80's was 16:9 then Queen already have a Telecine at 4k, or 2k which could be used for the BD with a little restoration. |
| tero! 48531 22.06.2012 04:13 |
pittrek wrote: Any ? I thought you can use ONLY 16:9 aspect ratio on BluRay. At least I have never seen any other aspect ratio on official BDs. Old 4:3 TV shows are encoded with black bars on both sides, and the result is encoded as a 16:9 video...Which means the material can be of any aspect ratio, or otherwise we wouldn't be getting any wider movies either! That makes the aspect ratio of the original film a moot point, and the only thing that matters is whether the resolution is large enough to warrant a HD transfer. |
| tero! 48531 22.06.2012 04:18 |
Marknow wrote: IF the theatrical cut from the 80's was 16:9 then Queen already have a Telecine at 4k, or 2k which could be used for the BD with a little restoration.Now THAT's a point that QP would be interested in (because as we all know, they are looking for ways the cut the costs), but now we aren't talking about "aspect ratio up to BD" anymore, are we? |
| Marknow 22.06.2012 06:58 |
tero! 48531 wrote: we aren't talking about "aspect ratio up to BD" anymore, are we? My guess is that the best release we will get is a 2k BD @ 16:9, 1920 X 1080i px. |
| pittrek 22.06.2012 08:55 |
Why interlaced ? |
| Marknow 22.06.2012 14:40 |
pittrek wrote: Why interlaced ? Last BD through Eagle Rock, Days Of Our Lives doc, was Interlaced, just a guess. Has this archived link been discussed previously? link Is it a load of cack? I ask because it has a confirmed catalogue number, release date, etc. |
| emrabt 22.06.2012 16:16 |
Days Of Our Lives doc, was Interlaced ................ I'm not 100% sure but i tihnk that's to bring the 25 frames of UK TV up to the BR standard Refresh rate. |
| Toozeup 22.06.2012 16:52 |
It's highly unlikely they will use any existing master. They will most likely have the original camera rushes teleclined and create a brand new mix. This will allow them to present the concert complete in the highest possible quality! |
| Marknow 22.06.2012 18:16 |
Toozeup wrote: It's highly unlikely they will use any existing master. They will most likely have the original camera rushes teleclined and create a brand new mix. This will allow them to present the concert complete in the highest possible quality! That would be my hope too, and also the opinion of Brian May in a response to a fan letter on BrianMay.com, 17 Sep 11. link "The short answer is - yes, I think a blu-ray release of this concert will eventually be possible. Our people have been putting a lot of work into procuring the original footage .. these things are complicated, and can get political ... people don't realise that these kinds of problems exist. And there are technical problems to overcome too. But I believe we will do it. " |
| pittrek 23.06.2012 04:00 |
Marknow wrote:I HOPE it's the real thing !pittrek wrote: Why interlaced ?Last BD through Eagle Rock, Days Of Our Lives doc, was Interlaced, just a guess. Has this archived link been discussed previously?link it a load of cack? I ask because it has a confirmed catalogue number, release date, etc. |
| Bad Seed 23.06.2012 06:04 |
It certainly looks like the real thing. |
| Marknow 23.06.2012 09:55 |
I have posted the link over on QOL to see if I can get more info from those in the loop. I too hope it is accurate. link |
| brians wig 23.06.2012 13:46 |
Since this is film stock, they really ought to be putting it out at 1080p: 24fps. Bet the buggers make it NTSC 29fps again though.. |
| OwenSmith 28.06.2012 06:43 |
Marknow wrote: Yes, 35mm film has a native aspect ratio of 1.85:1. But because of it's overall quality, you can do what you like with the aspect ratio. Because it was shot in 35mm it can be released in any aspect ratio up to Blu_Ray. The native aspect ratio of what we have so far is 4:3 or 1.33:1, which suited home technology of the time. The theatrical release was probably 16:935mm film has a native aspect ratio of 4:3, that is the shape of each frame on the film. This comes from Academy Ratio from the early days of film in the 1920s and 1930s. However, 35mm is often shot Closed Matte which covers up the top and bottom of the negative to make 1.85:1 as the area actually exposed on the negative. Or you can shoot the entire 4:3 negative are with the intention to crop it to 1.85:1 later, this is Open Matte. And if you want 2.35:1 the 35mm film is usually shot with an anamorphic lens on the front which vertical stretches the picture as exposed onto the entire 4:3 negative area. These are then projected in the cinema with another anamorhphic lens which reverses the effect. You can often tell things shot this way because out of focus items are stretched vertically, this is particularly obvious when the focus shifts in a scene. This is ignoring Super35, all the Camera 65 and 70mm stuff, VistaVision (1960s) and a load of other ways of doing it. The above are just the most common ways of shotting 35mm. So if the 16 cameras footage shows 1.85:1 images, it was probably shot either Closed Matte or Open Matte. Either way the correct transfer of that to DVD and Blu Ray would be 1.85:1. |
| Stelios 28.06.2012 11:13 |
So in terms of quality the differences with this link would be huge? Also i hope there would be a color correction, becouse this one has a very vintage look. However i dont think they would ever be able to create the crisp images of Rock Montreal. |
| OwenSmith 28.06.2012 11:22 |
The colour correction and fixing any other blemishes eg. marks on the film would depend on how much they clean up the 35mm negative or print before the transfer. Or indeed which negative or print they use, if there is a pristine camera negative or interpositive or a show print which has been carefully stored in a vault it could look a lot better with minimal work. The first battle with any transfer is finding the best quality existing copy, rather than cleaning up the random crap that comes quickly to hand. That YouTube copy looks like a LaserDisc transfer to me. A proper DVD or BluRay transfer of a decent negative or print should look a lot better |