| All my life 27.07.2011 05:39 |
I was wondering why the videos from argentina 81 and brazil 81 are so dark compare with Montreal of the same year. Ok , we all know that Montreal is been under treatment and I think it s the best Queen gig in terms of quality of image, Montreal looks to me very bright, great colors...what is not for Argentina and Brazil...quite poor video quality. It s for the dimension of the concert?..stadium is not as easy as indoor place? Tell me what do u think.. |
| KevoM 27.07.2011 06:52 |
Err...maybe perhaps because Montreal was comissioned as a FILM which like any other FILM would require extra lighting and it was indoors (easier to control the lighting). The S American concerts by contrast were shot using video cameras on low res video tape (by FILM standards) in a large outdoor arena with not as much budget. Talk about OBVIOUS! |
| The Real Wizard 27.07.2011 18:44 |
That, and the footage was broadcast on South American networks in the early 80s when the quality of TV there was terrible. All of the footage from these concerts in documentaries to this day is from the TV broadcasts, not the masters. The quality has never been quite good, even in the documentaries. |
| All my life 28.07.2011 03:09 |
Great, thanks Sir GH ! |
| MERQRY 28.07.2011 03:57 |
I think the Argentina footage has a little better quality than Brazil footage since the cameras has been udupated to "fit" with the 1978 world cup standards... anyway the argentina one was filmed in 16 mm with a good tranferency (at least a "high definition" motion picture scan) they could obtain a very good result plus some of "remasteritation" of course. The sound is another thing, i don't know if this has been recorded using a multitrack system or if is a soundboard tape mixed with an audience tape (taken from the Aud mics) and with the --awful-- inclusion of the "relator" comments... amyway i think tha for an 1981argentinian recording, the mix from the cameras are good and the mix sound too. Here i have a little tranfer for my tapes (it's crazy little thing called love): link isn't a GREAT quality but if i have this, i think the 16 mm copy in the archives should be a millon times better... cheers! |
| All my life 28.07.2011 05:21 |
Thanks guys, also in the 2 batch of remaster I think there were as bonus, or something like that,some video of Morumbi 81. The quality is very poor...I mean very dark and it s not comparable with Montreal 81. Once again..the difference at the era was that Canada was 20 years in advance for technology compare with South America? |
| KevoM 28.07.2011 07:07 |
All my life wrote: "Once again..the difference at the era was that Canada was 20 years in advance for technology compare with South America?" Nothing to do with Canada being '20 years advanced'. As has been already explained Montreal was FILMED by an EXPERT FILM CREW (Not Canadian, American I think?) by a company that specialised in filming outside/on the move ('Mobilevision'). You cannot compare this with S. American TV crews who only got colour just in time for the 78 world cup (Argentina). I'm sure if a S American film crew were commissioned then they would have done an equally or even better job than Montreal, as has been proven with the Hungarian film company who did Budapest 86 which is the BEST record of a Queen concert recorded to celluloid. (not that there have been many!) |
| bluesbreakersLORD 28.07.2011 11:05 |
MERQRY wrote: I think the Argentina footage has a little better quality than Brazil footage since the cameras has been udupated to "fit" with the 1978 world cup standards... anyway the argentina one was filmed in 16 mm with a good tranferency (at least a "high definition" motion picture scan) they could obtain a very good result plus some of "remasteritation" of course. The sound is another thing, i don't know if this has been recorded using a multitrack system or if is a soundboard tape mixed with an audience tape (taken from the Aud mics) and with the --awful-- inclusion of the "relator" comments... amyway i think tha for an 1981argentinian recording, the mix from the cameras are good and the mix sound too. Here i have a little tranfer for my tapes (it's crazy little thing called love): link isn't a GREAT quality but if i have this, i think the 16 mm copy in the archives should be a millon times better... cheers! ========================================================================================== I watched your transfer quality in my opinion better quality of snow produccioness |
| Wilki Amieva 28.07.2011 11:48 |
Argentina was shot on video, not film, and edited onto a couple of PAL U-MATICs. By nowaday standards, that is pretty low-res. Also the gain on the cameras was convenientely set at a high value, so detail in the darker parts wasn't compromised. Unfortunately, that meant noise - and saturation (and ghosting) on the brighter parts. You couldn't have it both ways. The audio was a live mix - there are no multitracks. The audience was fed in this mix from special mics. The relator (Mr. Badia) was mixed in at the TV station. |
| MERQRY 28.07.2011 15:33 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: Argentina was shot on video, not film, and edited onto a couple of PAL U-MATICs. By nowaday standards, that is pretty low-res. Also the gain on the cameras was convenientely set at a high value, so detail in the darker parts wasn't compromised. Unfortunately, that meant noise - and saturation (and ghosting) on the brighter parts. You couldn't have it both ways. The audio was a live mix - there are no multitracks. The audience was fed in this mix from special mics. The relator (Mr. Badia) was mixed in at the TV station. ------------------- You're probably right, but i know people who works in the channel in these days and said me that the gig was shot in 16 mm maybe they were confused, the U-MATIC has only 250 or 260 horizontal lines... the 16 mm film till 1800 so it's a great difference... Wiki: there's any chance that the gig was first recorded in 16 mm and later they have transfered it onto U-MATIC?? * I just relaise that i share the wrong file of Crazy little thing... anyway the "correct" file either has much more quality... |
| MERQRY 28.07.2011 22:47 |
KevoM wrote: All my life wrote: "Once again..the difference at the era was that Canada was 20 years in advance for technology compare with South America?" Nothing to do with Canada being '20 years advanced'. As has been already explained Montreal was FILMED by an EXPERT FILM CREW (Not Canadian, American I think?) by a company that specialised in filming outside/on the move ('Mobilevision'). You cannot compare this with S. American TV crews who only got colour just in time for the 78 world cup (Argentina). I'm sure if a S American film crew were commissioned then they would have done an equally or even better job than Montreal, as has been proven with the Hungarian film company who did Budapest 86 which is the BEST record of a Queen concert recorded to celluloid. (not that there have been many!) --------- Yes, you're right KevoM, the gig was only recorded for a conmon tv station for a normal tv broadcast, so why they will recorded that in 35 mm?? even in these ages, in the country (arg) there were many 35 mm (or at least Cinema cameras) and good film crews, but of course in 1981 the cinema tapes were many expensive here... They wanted to do a cinema "movie" or a kind of documentary with his shows in South America... that's why i still belive the show was originaly shot in 16 mm... but only a person like Gary Taylor or Greg Brooks could help us, so Gary if you are reading this: Please help us! Cheers! |
| bluesbreakersLORD 29.07.2011 04:07 |
MERQRY wrote: KevoM wrote: All my life wrote: "Once again..the difference at the era was that Canada was 20 years in advance for technology compare with South America?" Nothing to do with Canada being '20 years advanced'. As has been already explained Montreal was FILMED by an EXPERT FILM CREW (Not Canadian, American I think?) by a company that specialised in filming outside/on the move ('Mobilevision'). You cannot compare this with S. American TV crews who only got colour just in time for the 78 world cup (Argentina). I'm sure if a S American film crew were commissioned then they would have done an equally or even better job than Montreal, as has been proven with the Hungarian film company who did Budapest 86 which is the BEST record of a Queen concert recorded to celluloid. (not that there have been many!) --------- Yes, you're right KevoM, the gig was only recorded for a conmon tv station for a normal tv broadcast, so why they will recorded that in 35 mm?? even in these ages, in the country (arg) there were many 35 mm (or at least Cinema cameras) and good film crews, but of course in 1981 the cinema tapes were many expensive here... They wanted to do a cinema "movie" or a kind of documentary with his shows in South America... that's why i still belive the show was originaly shot in 16 mm... but only a person like Gary Taylor or Greg Brooks could help us, so Gary if you are reading this: Please help us! Cheers! ============================================================================================== Do you plan to make your version of the concert in Argentina 1981? |
| Wilki Amieva 29.07.2011 08:19 |
I am not saying there are no pieces probably filmed in 16 mm or whatever... As a matter of fact, there are some aerial views of the February 28th concert that were probably shot on film from a helicopter. But, the full March1st 1981 concert was recorded on video and stored in U-MATIC tapes. The aim was to broadcast it on TV, LIVE, so there was no 'transfer' involved. Also the cameras seen in photos of the day are typical TV video cameras. |
| pittrek 29.07.2011 09:10 |
Argentina on 16mm ??? 3 words : NO F. WAY That's definitely shot on VIDEO |
| MERQRY 29.07.2011 18:21 |
pittrek wrote: Argentina on 16mm ??? 3 words : NO F. WAY That's definitely shot on VIDEO --------------------------- Why not? there were 16 mm cameras in the country... anyway as Wiki said (and he knows about it) maybe there's some "extra-angles" or some songs,bits in 16 mm along to the -1/3/81- gig recorded on Video... Don't forget this info: "Película: Durante cada uno de los conciertos continuó la filmación de la película “Queen On Tourne”, para la cual se utilizaron ocho cámaras. El film se completará con imágenes de los conciertos de San Pablo y Rio, en Brasil. Por supuesto también habrá escenas de la gira estadounidense y la de Japón." Aprox. in English: "Movie: during each one of the gigs the recording of the movie "Queen On Tourne" continued and thus 8 cameras were used. The film will be completed with footage from the San pablo and Rio gigs in Brazil. Of course also there will be scenes from the EE.UU and Japan tours." The source is an interview with Jim Beach made by Pelo magazine... i don't belive that they have recorded everything on video for a film... |
| MERQRY 29.07.2011 19:10 |
I was reading my magazine (Pelo) and i discovered a intresting info on an interview with Brian: P: ¿No te dejó satisfecho “Queen Live Killers”? B: (Frunce el ceño). ¿Satisfecho? Nunca estoy realmente satisfecho de nada de lo que hago. Soy un eterno inconformista. Creo que el álbum en vivo fue únicamente el testimonio de lo que estábamos haciendo en ese momento sobre el escenario. En cierta forma estoy insatisfecho, porque hubo que trabajar mucho en todos los conciertos y hubo serios problemas de sonido que solucionar. Hay veces que el concierto suena muy bien pero, al escuchar la grabación, te querés matar de lo mal que suena todo. De los diez ó quince conciertos que grabamos, sólo pudimos utilizar las cintas de tres o cuatro para editar “Live Killers”. De todos modos, nunca es bueno el sonido en los discos grabados en vivo. La razón primordial de esto es que hay que incluír a la audiencia y el ruido del público afecta a los instrumentos. Como podrán ver, “Live Killers” no es para nada mi álbum favorito… Aprox. in English: Pelo: ¿Does "Live Killers" satisfaced you? Brian: (Frowing) ¿Satisfaced? I'm never really satisfaced with nothing what i do. I'm an eternal inconformist. i belive that the live album was only a testimony of what we were doing in these time on stage. In a certain form i'm insatisfaced, because there were much work in all the gigs and we had serious problems with the sound and we had to slove them. sometimes the gig sound Great but when you hear the recording it sound awful and you want kill yourself. From 10 or 15 gigs wich we recorded, we only can use the recordings from 3 or 4 gigs to make "Live Killers".Anyway, the sound never is good on the live recordings. the mainly reason of this is that we have to include the Audience and the Auidience noise afects to the instruments. as you can see "Live Killers" isn't my favorite album.... |