Barry Durex 20.12.2015 01:54 |
The UK HDTV broadcast was 1080 PAL The blu ray release is 1080 NTSC The concert was filmed in PAL. Any thoughts? |
Nitroboy 20.12.2015 04:45 |
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) |
pittrek 20.12.2015 04:48 |
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. |
brians wig 20.12.2015 05:11 |
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.... |
pittrek 20.12.2015 05:39 |
Unfortunately all the new releases look like shit on my TV. At least they look tolerable on my PC |
Barry Durex 20.12.2015 10:42 |
I'm getting sent a 1080 PAL clip to check out. |
mooghead 20.12.2015 14:48 |
"Any thoughts?" Is this what occupies your brain? |
Barry Durex 20.12.2015 14:50 |
mooghead wrote: "Any thoughts?" Is this what occupies your brain?No, sometimes I think about punching your face. |
kevin79 21.12.2015 03:29 |
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. |
Barry Durex 21.12.2015 03:48 |
My thoughts are, has the TV broadcast been converted to PAL, or is it the real deal? |
que.123 21.12.2015 13:32 |
pittrek wrote: Interesting, did anybody record the concert broadcast too ?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 21.12.2015 14:59 |
que.123 wrote:That's what I'd like to know and that's why I asked :-)pittrek wrote: Interesting, did anybody record the concert broadcast too ?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 21.12.2015 15:07 |
kevin79 wrote: 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.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 21.12.2015 15:29 |
pittrek wrote:I don't know how anyone could know for sure apart from studying the motion, I'll upload a sample if you like.que.123 wrote:That's what I'd like to know and that's why I asked :-)pittrek wrote: Interesting, did anybody record the concert broadcast too ?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? (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 22.12.2015 02:21 |
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. |
brians wig 22.12.2015 05:06 |
pittrek wrote: 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).As far as I am aware, QPL do the work in PAL and supply Universal with that. They then do the NTSC conversion and author the disc. One conversion, one disc author, one vision (as it were!). Believe me, until I got my new TV a couple of years ago, I was the biggest opposer of Universal's NTSC transfers - the Wembley DVD looked bloody awful and I had a discussion with Brian about it whose ultimate answer was that he'd pass the info onto Kris. I still am opposed to PAL being converted to NTSC, but these SD Blurays are causing me no problems at all. The DVDs are a different matter. |
cmsdrums 26.12.2015 03:40 |
I recorded one of the BBC4HD showings, and although it was shown on an HD channel, the broadcast was NOT in HD. The audio was also not in multi channel format. I know the gig was shown two or three times in one night but I'm guessing each broadcast was in the same lower quality...? |
Barry Durex 26.12.2015 06:00 |
Are you saying there was no difference between the BBC FOUR HD and SD channel broadcasts? |
Bad Seed 26.12.2015 12:52 |
cmsdrums wrote: I recorded one of the BBC4HD showings, and although it was shown on an HD channel, the broadcast was NOT in HD. The audio was also not in multi channel format. I know the gig was shown two or three times in one night but I'm guessing each broadcast was in the same lower quality...?I only have the DVD so cant compare it to the blu-ray. Although the DVD is easier to watch the BBC4 showing has a sharper picture in comparison. The reason I say easier to watch is because the BBC showing has a strange jagged motion to it which sort of makes it seem blurred? The quality is like an 80's American tv show. So I think it is in HD, just probably been the PAL to NTSC to PAL conversion. |
queenside 12.06.2016 06:21 |
does anybody know if hammersmith '75 box set on amazon.com has a region free blu ray? or maybe it's a1? i'm in a region b2 country so it would be really appreciated if someone can answer me cos i'd like to buy the box set frmo american amazon cos it's the cheapest i've seen so far. link |
Nitroboy 12.06.2016 13:38 |
Region free, to my knowledge |
queenside 13.06.2016 01:10 |
thanks. cos i've seen that only blu ray for us market is region a1. |
Toozeup 15.06.2016 03:27 |
Pal converted to NTSC/60i retains all the PAL information and If done properly there should be no visible difference from the PAL master. The DVD however will lose information. It's best to stick with the Blu-Ray plus you get superior sound too. |
Toozeup 15.06.2016 03:41 |
Also, the rainbow footage was shot on 2" Quad Tape which produces 625 scan lines. This is Greater than PAL SD broadcast & PAL DVD standards. Hence the full master quality can only be reproduced via Blu-Ray or HD Broadcast. |
Nitroboy 15.06.2016 07:15 |
Toozeup wrote: Also, the rainbow footage was shot on 2" Quad Tape which produces 625 scan lines. This is Greater than PAL SD broadcast & PAL DVD standards. Hence the full master quality can only be reproduced via Blu-Ray or HD Broadcast. SD PAL does have 625 lines, but only 576 active lines. SD NTSC has 525 lines, but only 480 active. |
pittrek 15.06.2016 10:01 |
Toozeup wrote: Pal converted to NTSC/60i retains all the PAL information and If done properly there should be no visible difference from the PAL master. The DVD however will lose information. It's best to stick with the Blu-Ray plus you get superior sound too.Sorry, no. The problem doesn't lie in the lost resolution, the problem lies in the framerate conversion. |
pittrek 15.06.2016 10:02 |
queenside wrote: does anybody know if hammersmith '75 box set on amazon.com has a region free blu ray? or maybe it's a1? i'm in a region b2 country so it would be really appreciated if someone can answer me cos i'd like to buy the box set frmo american amazon cos it's the cheapest i've seen so far. linkThanks a lot for the link. It's the best price I have found so far |
queenside 16.06.2016 06:11 |
few days ago there was incredible price on amazon.co.k i think it lasted for a few hours. the price was 12.99 pounds. link |
dysan 24.02.2017 16:10 |
Just watching it on BBC4 now. Looks weird. Also - during Now I'm Here did Roger always stand up during that stop in the drumming? Maybe I missed it for the last 25 years. |
luthorn 25.02.2017 15:17 |
Barry Durex wrote:hahahahahahaa you made my day Durexmooghead wrote: "Any thoughts?" Is this what occupies your brain?No, sometimes I think about punching your face. |
Rick 26.02.2017 12:26 |
dysan wrote: Just watching it on BBC4 now. Looks weird. Also - during Now I'm Here did Roger always stand up during that stop in the drumming? Maybe I missed it for the last 25 years.Yes he did. |
dysan 26.02.2017 14:41 |
Well I'll be damned. |