| brians wig 08.09.2011 14:44 |
Some of you will no doubt have read of my disgust at what they've done with the Wembley DVD, but there's MORE!!! While this won't affect a certain percentage of the world, for those countries like mine (England), it's an absolute disgrace. For some ungodly reason (though I have my suspicions), the new DVDs are presented in NTSC format. For the North America, some of the Southern American countries and Japan this isn't a problem, but the vast majority of the rest of the world whose TV systems are PAL, it's a MAJOR issue! Let me explain. These concerts were shot on PAL videotape at 25fps and the picture is interlaced, as is still the case with most of todays chat shows, game shows etc (generally only dramas shot with a single camera are de-interlaced). The effect is that the picture looks "real" and gives the impression that you are "there". De-interlaced pictures actually look like "film" and give a "watching a movie at the cinema" feel, taking you 'away' from the action. By converting the PAL recording to NTSC, they have firstly increased the frame count by 4.97 frames per second and these have had to be created! The result is generally a lowering of quality and sharpness and can introduce dragging - a ghost like trail on moving objects. This no doubt is the reason that the de-interlacing has occured in an attempt to prevent it. The other downside is that NTSC is a lower quality format than PAL, so the picture has been reduced from 625 lines to 525 lines straight away so the 'screen size' is now 720x480 instead of 720x576. I can only imagine that this has all been done for one of two reasons: either as a cost-cutting excercise and therefore meaning only a single master has to be made for the entire world instead of a PAL master (which makes QPL appear to be a bunch of cheapskates), or it's as simple as the fact that Universal/Island Records are an American country and therefore that's the standard they produce. What pisses me off though is that 3/4 of the world use PAL (a quarter of the world uses SECAM, but their DVDs are PAL!), while only a quarter uses NTSC, yet it is this lower quality NTSC format that we are being forced to endure. What makes this worse for me, is that my TV set cannot accept an NTSC signal, which means I get to watch it all in Black and White! So, QPL. Do I have to go out and buy a NEW Television set just so I can watch an ENGLISH concert, recorded on PAL videotape, in colour! NO. I bloody well shouldn't have to, and neither should anyone else whose equipment cannot cope with a FOREIGN TV signal!!!!!!! One final, parting shot. Has anyone else noticed that they've even used the wrong menu for the Friday Night disc? It clearly says "Saturday..."!!!! They can't even get that right. I would ask that everyone here who isn't happy about this state of affairs, contacts QPL (or even Brian himself through his email address brians.soapbox@clara.co.uk ) and says they are not happy and this needs to be sorted out before we get any more Queen videos released in the NTSC in countries whose native TV system is PAL. Thank you for your support. |
| rhyeking 08.09.2011 15:22 |
Honestly, I prefer the texture of film over the texture of video. It doesn't take me away from the experience at all, quite the opposite. When I see old '80s video, with it's super-clean resolution, I keep thinking I'm looking at someone's home movies. It's the difference between an oil painting and an acrylic painting. The depth and richness is enhanced for me with film. Look at the difference between "Play The Game" (shot on video) and "Don't Stop Me Now" (shot on film). DSMN doesn't look like amatuer student film night, compared to PTG. Now, when I buy the new Wembley disc and if it looks like crap, I'll agree that something is amiss here. My DVD of the previous release is fine, though, so I guess I'll wait and see. |
| tero! 48531 08.09.2011 15:37 |
You're right, it all comes down to making just one version of the product that can be sold all over the world, and with niche products like music videos it's understandable. The only reason why it's in NTSC instead of PAL is because most dvd players and television outside the USA can handle either format... But if you happen to have an older (and cheaper) television and a name-brand dvd player, the chances are you'll end up with black & white image. I had the same exact problem until I exchanged my CRT television with a new LCD screen. |
| Bad Seed 08.09.2011 16:04 |
@ brians wig, I didn't have a clue what you were talking about until today when I played the DVD on the TV in my bedroom. When playing on a 42" LED through a Blu-Ray player, the deinterlacing was not at all noticeable. However, when I played it on an old 32" through an old DVD player I could see it instantly. But I don't think this has been done to make it look like it was shot on film. Apparently modern TV's have problems displaying interlaced images and deinterlacing improves the picture quality? I must say that I'm only repeating what I've read, I've not got the foggiest about TV's and picture quality etc... |
| tcc 08.09.2011 18:44 |
Off-topic but I want to say that the new HD flat screen tvs are much better at adjusting picture quality. I had to change from a CRT tv to a HD tv because I needed to play something with a HDMI socket. I then discovered that HD tvs have this Picture mode called "Original mode" in LG tvs and "Dynamic mode" in Samsung tvs which will adjust the screen automatically to a 4:3 or 16:9 format according to the format which the video, movie or tv footage was originally filmed. The pictures look great on my tv now whatever it is playing. |
| queenUSA 08.09.2011 19:22 |
brians wig wrote: "I can only imagine that this has all been done for one of two reasons: either as a cost-cutting excercise and therefore meaning only a single master has to be made for the entire world instead of a PAL master (which makes QPL appear to be a bunch of cheapskates), or it's as simple as the fact that Universal/Island Records are an American country and therefore that's the standard they produce." ============== The Universal/Island Records point is a bit complicated. All is not what it seems. The Universal Music Group is "headquartered" out of California in the USA. However since 2004, it is 100% owned by a French media company named Vivendi. "Island Def Jam Motown" is the USA part of the label. There is a stand-alone Island Records label for the UK and is under the umbrella of "Universal Music Group International". Each of the Island labels has it's own bevy of artists. In the USA, Queen is still represented by Hollywood Records. This is why the Queen Exhibition created by Island Records (UK branch) will never be coming to the USA (Hollywood/Queen territory). The Island records label (international group) may hold some of the South American territories and Japan? Not too sure. I have not checked it yet, but I have a feeling that if I want to purchase the Wembley DVD in the USA, I will likely have to buy it as an "import" from Amazon or wait to see if it gets treated like the 2011 remasters and Hollywood gets to re-distribute - this takes forever. |
| Queenman!! 09.09.2011 02:55 |
I think this topic could be a clear message to the chaps of QP. I really hope GB (who we haven't seen here for ages) and GT take a notebook a write all essential points down and present them to their management. Without being negative I think there a many points on this release which are quite unprofessional and could have been prevent. |
| people on streets 09.09.2011 04:54 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't understand why you make such a point about the de-interlacing. Modern TVs de-interlace interlaced footage automatically anyway... So if the release woud have been interlaced and you would have played it on your TV, you would be watching a de-interlaced image as well. I have a calibrated dell u2311 monitor on wich I do all my video editing. Unlike a TV screen, computer screens don't automatically deinterlace. Before I switched to shooting in 1080p I used standard def. pal mini dv and camcorders that recorded interlaced footage. For playback those masters on PC, I always deinterlace first using virtualdub (I also keep the original interlaced footage for my archive). This way the footage looks much better on a PC. VLC, and other media players, also have a de-interlace function wich can be used while playing, but de-interlacing the master before playback gives way better results on a PC monitor IMHO. For playback on TV deinterlacing the master is not really necessary because the TV will do that for you. Unlike computer monitors modern TVs DO deinterlace. So one could say there's really no point in deinterlacing the source when it needs to be played on a TV screen. Having said that, I can imagine that the recent Wembley release has been de-interlaced with the notice in mind that a lot of people these days watch their footage on full hd pc monitors as well. By de-interlacing the footage QPL delivers a DVD that looks good on a TV and a PC monitor as well (no striped image). And think about it, QPL has done the de-interlacing using state of the art software. I can imagine the software de-interlace they have done will be better, than the hardware de-interlacing that some, especially early ones, cheap full HD tv's do... So for cheap full HD TV owners this is good news :-) PAL to NTSC conversion is stupid. I agree on that one. They should have released a PAL version as well. |
| people on streets 09.09.2011 04:56 |
tcc wrote: Off-topic but I want to say that the new HD flat screen tvs are much better at adjusting picture quality. I had to change from a CRT tv to a HD tv because I needed to play something with a HDMI socket. I then discovered that HD tvs have this Picture mode called "Original mode" in LG tvs and "Dynamic mode" in Samsung tvs which will adjust the screen automatically to a 4:3 or 16:9 format according to the format which the video, movie or tv footage was originally filmed. The pictures look great on my tv now whatever it is playing. ================================================= They look better because the TV de-interlaces interlaced footage. |
| Dane 09.09.2011 07:04 |
This is VERY amateuristic and not thougt through! As a Multimedia specialist let me clear a few things up; Interlaced video means the video stuffs 2 frames of video into just one frame. Cutting the data-size to be transmitted in half! It does not nessecarily mean it looks that different from a non-interlaced (progressive) video. Most, if not all digital HD channels currently transmit interlaced video simply because transmission speed is not high enough everywhere to handle DOUBLE the size of data. Anyway... I will not be buying the DVD I guess.. I would have made them the PAL version for free if it meant a proper release. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.09.2011 10:00 |
Dane wrote: I would have made them the PAL version for free if it meant a proper release. ============ The thing is, they could've made a PAL version for a pittance. It would have cost them very, very little more than the NTSC alone. But they decided not to, which I can't regard as anything else than a middle finger in the face of most of the world. They're saying "f*ck you, we don't care about you, or about the quality of our product. Give us your godd*mn money and shut up." |
| tero! 48531 09.09.2011 10:24 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Dane wrote: I would have made them the PAL version for free if it meant a proper release. ============ The thing is, they could've made a PAL version for a pittance. It would have cost them very, very little more than the NTSC alone. But they decided not to, which I can't regard as anything else than a middle finger in the face of most of the world. They're saying "f*ck you, we don't care about you, or about the quality of our product. Give us your godd*mn money and shut up." --------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't stand up for QP very often, but in this case I have to... They're probably selling about 10,000 copies of this title, out of which 3,000 are outside the Europe. They can choose to make an NTSC version (which can be sold everywhere), or they can make a PAL version (which can be sold to 70% of the market), but they won't make a profit from the second version. |
| pittrek 09.09.2011 10:35 |
This is what I wrote "elsewhere" today
OK I'm watching and listening to the DOWNLOADED DVDs right now on my PC via PowerDVD. DVD 1 - correct pitch, not sure about the speed (still have problems with my right ear). Video bitrate too high on some places (powerDVD showed me even 13MBps at some parts !) - result in powerDVD is that the image "freezes" for a split second, my standard DVD player (an old Toshiba) would probably stop the playback, but modern DVD players will probably experience no problems. But still ... Why is the DVD NTSC ? And why the hell doesn't it START with a menu, but it ENDS with an menu ? In other words, I should FIRST watch the concert, and AFTER the concert I should select the audio ? They STILL didn't learn it ? DVD 2 - again playback starts with the concert and not the menu :-( And again it's NTSC :-( And it has "motion trails" (aka "ghosting") - please help me with the correct English term. AUDIO PLAYS TOO SLOW (probably a result of slowing down from 25fps to 23.976 fps ?). I am usually VERY sensitive to "speed problems" and this one goes so far that it's really painful to listen. Also, has anybody seen the beginning of Under Pressure ? Watch John with his bass. WTF ? Did somebody WATCH the DVD before it was sent to the shops ? I doubt it. The video is also really "grainy" in dark areas, what about some video filters guys ? :-( And the menu says "SATURDAY". I'm actually speechless. My ORIGINAL plan was to buy this DVD and the last remasters batch together with the Star Wars BluRay boxset, and now it looks like I'm gonna buy ONLY the remasters and the only reason is to have them all :-( And the bonus documentary has AGAIN mixed parts of Knebworth and Wembley. Simply LOVELYFirst of all I apologize for downloading them, but I don't buy "normal" DVD releases without knowing exactly WHAT am I buying. I originally thought that I accidentally downloaded an NTSC version, but since it looks like ALL what was released is NTSC, I must agree with the title of this thread |
| emrabt 09.09.2011 10:52 |
Oh god, does this mean there's that repeating frame jump whenever the camera pans? Thank you so much for informing us, the people who have brought it and try to watch it on an old TV will be disappointed. |
| GinjaNinja 09.09.2011 11:03 |
I haven't got the DVD yet, but from what's been said here I might not. I have to say that I prefer the "film look" over the "video look", but making videotaped footage look like film shouldn't be done. Plus, NTSC is an abomination. Why would we want to lose 100 lines of picture? |
| GratefulFan 09.09.2011 11:27 |
Just a note to thank those for supplying technical information, because it's interesting. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.09.2011 11:54 |
Tero! wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: Dane wrote: I would have made them the PAL version for free if it meant a proper release. ============ The thing is, they could've made a PAL version for a pittance. It would have cost them very, very little more than the NTSC alone. But they decided not to, which I can't regard as anything else than a middle finger in the face of most of the world. They're saying "f*ck you, we don't care about you, or about the quality of our product. Give us your godd*mn money and shut up." --------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't stand up for QP very often, but in this case I have to... They're probably selling about 10,000 copies of this title, out of which 3,000 are outside the Europe. They can choose to make an NTSC version (which can be sold everywhere), or they can make a PAL version (which can be sold to 70% of the market), but they won't make a profit from the second version. ======= I do presume you are kidding. They would never have released this if they expected only 10,000 sales. Again, the additional costs for making both a PAL and an NTSC version are negligible. They just decided not to bother, and I find that reprehensible. If you don't, by all means, give these creeps your money. I know I won't. |
| Micrówave 09.09.2011 12:32 |
The concert is 25 years old. Watching it in Black & White with poor resolution should give you a Nostalgic feel. You didn't complain about all those Mick Rock photos. |
| peterkoz1 09.09.2011 13:24 |
|
| mooghead 09.09.2011 13:53 |
Get a proper telly Grandad. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.09.2011 14:15 |
Micrówave wrote: The concert is 25 years old. Watching it in Black & White with poor resolution should give you a Nostalgic feel. You didn't complain about all those Mick Rock photos. ===== You could have a good dvd, then turn down the saturation on your tv all the way. Add some brightness and lower the contrast, and you can watch a poor quality black & white version, while the rest of us can still see the dvd in the best quality it could be. |
| Micrówave 09.09.2011 17:42 |
Or you could just get an HD Black & White TV with 1080i resolution. I believe those read either NTSC or PAL. |
| tero! 48531 10.09.2011 01:24 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: I do presume you are kidding. They would never have released this if they expected only 10,000 sales. Again, the additional costs for making both a PAL and an NTSC version are negligible. They just decided not to bother, and I find that reprehensible. If you don't, by all means, give these creeps your money. I know I won't. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not just about pressing a second batch with different settings. I don't know the conctract of course, but it stands to reason that the European record label has no rights to make a separate release aimed at markets outside the Europe, while they are completely free to make a release that can be exported everywhere around the world. There's no legal contracts to be negotiated, no need for additional marketing, and no need to print new booklets or discs... In other words, the potential customer base is increased without ANY additional costs to the label. If the roles were reversed and Hollywood Records came out with a release of Houston, I would rather have them make it a global DVD instead of a Blu-Ray title that is impossible to watch in Europe. |
| john bodega 10.09.2011 04:22 |
Off to bittorrent I go. |
| philip storey 10.09.2011 05:08 |
Don't think i will bother with the new Wembley DVD after reading all these fuck ups.I have the original anyway ,which i hardly ever play.There was a time that i would buy everthing but all these remasters all coming along with next to nothing new on them for someone on a low income seems to me very greedy.Give us something new for gods sake !! |
| brians wig 10.09.2011 05:26 |
Tero! wrote: If the roles were reversed and Hollywood Records came out with a release of Houston, I would rather have them make it a global DVD... ============================== Well. Houston was originally recorded in NTSC, so I have no problem with that being released in NTSC, but when you take a far superior TV System format and downgrade it because you're a bunch of cheapskates, THEN I have a problem. |
| brians wig 10.09.2011 05:43 |
emrabt wrote: Oh god, does this mean there's that repeating frame jump whenever the camera pans? Thank you so much for informing us, the people who have brought it and try to watch it on an old TV will be disappointed. =================================== Yep, and it looks bloody awful. I went to friends house last night to see what it looks like on a modern HDTV, and he had to piss about changing the settings on his telly just to get rid of the jerkiness and because it's NTSC, the colours look funny! Still. The point is, they've probably 'restored' the picture and created a new PAL master, and then some tosser at the authoring house has converted it to NTSC. For a band who constantly insist on putting out "Quality" and go the extent of over-dubbing any audio that's not right, they've really messed up the quality control with this one! I could have done a better job myself with my 11 year old matrox video capture card. I wonder if it's possible to rip the new DTS track from the Saturday concert and sync it up with the old PAL DVD....? |
| David Jones 10.09.2011 07:05 |
Interesting reading guys, I'm really hesitant about buying the "super" edition now. I seem to remember people weren't happy with the old DVD release (which I have) but I'm guessing this is miles in front in the QPL complete cock up stakes? |
| tero! 48531 10.09.2011 07:07 |
brians wig wrote: Tero! wrote: If the roles were reversed and Hollywood Records came out with a release of Houston, I would rather have them make it a global DVD... ============================== Well. Houston was originally recorded in NTSC, so I have no problem with that being released in NTSC, but when you take a far superior TV System format and downgrade it because you're a bunch of cheapskates, THEN I have a problem. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I can understand your point 100%, but we are talking about two different issues here. There's the issue of technologically superior product, and the issue of having any product to buy. Ideally we would have two separate releases, but that just doesn't happen with music videos. So if the choice is between a product that looks good for the other half of the world (but I can't view at all), and a product that looks like a lousy VHS transfer, I'll take the crappier release anyday... I might not buy it, but at least I have the OPTION of seeing it if I want to see it. |
| panasonic 10.09.2011 08:45 |
and the picture is interlaced, as is still the case with most of todays chat shows, game shows etc (generally only dramas shot with a single camera are de-interlaced). The effect is that the picture looks "real" and gives the impression that you are "there". ========================================================================= Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't interlacing about saving TV signal (and video tape) bandwidth? Ie it only scans every second line, alternating each frame which effectively almost halving the amount of signal required. To me it looks less "real" as if you watch it closely on a big screen with rapid movement, you can see the artefacts. Plus it never looks as "clear" and defined. I certainly don't look at the world through interlaced eyes (or in my case, glasses)! :) |
| TheAmazingEvent 10.09.2011 10:05 |
Concerning the interlacing......All modern LCD TV's deinterlace the picture anyway. Some better than others. By doing it on disc first the TV only has to upscale the image not do both. Looks good on PC too. PAL to NTSC? Well Older TV's can't do it but most modern DVD players have a setting to do NTSC or PAL output so usually even old CRT TV's can be made to play NTSC. Jerky video playing NTSC ? Not on mine it doesn't. Smooth as usual. I know some oldercheaper LCD's have this issue but again modern DVD players have the NTSC PAL option. Only thing is NTSC has a lower resolution but again upscaling the image to fit LCD 1080P TV's reduces this somewhat. So besides the film look i'm quite okay with it. |
| emrabt 10.09.2011 10:48 |
Jerky video playing NTSC ? Not on mine it doesn't. Smooth as usual. I know some oldercheaper LCD's have this issue but again modern DVD players have the NTSC PAL option. ========================================== It's almost always jerky, Americans and other places with NTSC have just got used to it, NTSC is 29 FPS, BUT only 23.something of those frames are different, 6 frames get repeated every second. With 24FPS film it eliminates “pal speed up” at the cost of smooth panning, (in the UK movies get sped up slightly to run at 25 frames per seconds, hardly noticeable) but with pal to NTSC conversion its worse because the 25th frame gets discarded THEN there’s the repeat. |
| TheAmazingEvent 10.09.2011 19:16 |
Yes I know NTSC is 23.97fps with a 3:2 pulldown to create 29.97fps interlaced picture but sometimes it's actually 29.97fps interlaced on the disc and no pulldown is required which gives smooth motion as no repeating frames are required to be created on the fly by the player. Not always successfully. Downside is it takes more room on the disc to author at 29.97i than 23.97. Upside is 29.97i is smoother for slow panning shots. Regardless NTSC content plays perfectly fine on my TV+ BluRay setup although my old LCD from a few years ago did jerk noticably on NTSC content (or was it the player?) Point is newer TVs etc are now more able to upscale and resync the picture than just a few years back. |
| Isle0fRed 10.09.2011 21:47 |
if only both gigs+ the extras were placed on a Bluray disc which would of; 1: allowed the original frame rates to remain intact. No PAL to NTSC convertions BS. 2: allowed for a much better audio quality (DTS-MA) 3: less compression on everything Also those disc can be reigon encoded to suit all countries needs. (ABC) |
| TheAmazingEvent 11.09.2011 02:38 |
Yes a BR release would have allowed a higher bitrate but it's unlikely you would have seen the difference given the source video tape. It wouldn't have solved the frame rate/NTSC/PAL issue. Lossless PCM is higher than DTS-MA (technically- you'd need very expensive equipment to hear it) |
| brians wig 11.09.2011 04:11 |
Isle0fRed wrote: if only both gigs+ the extras were placed on a Bluray disc which would of; 1: allowed the original frame rates to remain intact. No PAL to NTSC convertions BS. 2: allowed for a much better audio quality (DTS-MA) 3: less compression on everything Also those disc can be reigon encoded to suit all countries needs. (ABC) =================================================================== Would it? Can American Bluray Players play 25fps PAL ? I think this is the major problem. Not intending to cause offence to any Americans here, but 'someone' in America was obviously so far up his own arse with arrogance as to believe that NTSC was the only TV system worth having, that when DVD players first came out none of the US players would play any other system, where-as the ones we got in the UK WOULD play NTSC. I thought that would be rectified by now, but I'm begining to think it's still the case... Why should the 3/4 of the world who use PAL DVDs have to suffer because the Americans don't want to change? Unfortunately though, the Montreal Bluray obviously didn't sell well enough, because I emailed Brian a few years ago asking why QPR in Ukraine hadn't been released on BD despite being shot in HD. His reply was "Not enough interest"! So. I don't think we'll ever get stuff on BD. If they can't see the point in releasing any more HD content on BD, then they really aren't going to see the increased advantages of using the format to release SD material at it's highest quality along with additional extras. |
| Isle0fRed 12.09.2011 04:47 |
brians wig wrote: "Would it? Can American Bluray Players play 25fps PAL ?" BluRays can support the native frame rate of the originals source. You'd noticed that all movies that are released on BD are not sped up for PAL regions and picture isn't screwed around for NTSC regions " I think this is the major problem. Not intending to cause offence to any Americans here, but 'someone' in America was obviously so far up his own arse with arrogance as to believe that NTSC was the only TV system worth having, that when DVD players first came out none of the US players would play any other system, where-as the ones we got in the UK WOULD play NTSC. I thought that would be rectified by now, but I'm begining to think it's still the case... Why should the 3/4 of the world who use PAL DVDs have to suffer because the Americans don't want to change?" I agree. In (many) film festivals in America, films have to be submited via NTSC dvd. Being in a PAL region where my film has been shot on 1080p 25fps. I'd have to convert my film to meet their standard which means a major loss of quality. "unfortunately though, the Montreal Bluray obviously didn't sell well enough, because I emailed Brian a few years ago asking why QPR in Ukraine hadn't been released on BD despite being shot in HD. His reply was "Not enough interest"! So. I don't think we'll ever get stuff on BD. If they can't see the point in releasing any more HD content on BD, then they really aren't going to see the increased advantages of using the format to release SD material at it's highest quality along with additional extras." That's a real bugger. Rock Monteral was great on BD (despite it having some colours being crushed and the whites overexposed). That said, "Not enough intrest" is most likey an excuse for that extra savings on the £s that roll in. BD does cost a bit more to mass produce but not much more than the cost for DVD. |
| GT 12.09.2011 06:31 |
The new 'Live At Wembley Stadium' DVD has entered the official UK music video charts at Number 2, behind.....Justin Bieber! |
| pittrek 12.09.2011 06:37 |
GT wrote: The new 'Live At Wembley Stadium' DVD has entered the official UK music video charts at Number 2, behind.....Justin Bieber!Well congratulations but it would be nice if you could comment on some of the things written in this thread |
| brians wig 12.09.2011 10:51 |
Well. Reading most of the comments made so far, it seems like most of you are quite happy to accept whatever shit they throw at you! This is the kind of attitude that allows Record Companies et al to do just that. For a band who pride themselves on "quality", the quality is sadly lacking in this case. Sure. It's fine for the Americans, but for the other 3/4 of the world whose DVD system is PAL, it's not. QPL or even Island Records should not be catering just for those people with modern HD TV sets. Plenty of folks still have CRT's and therefore suffer from the jerky picture whenever there is panning on screen becuase of the difference in frame rate. There are also plenty of people who DO have modern TV sets but don't know how to use them. They just get left on the default settings and again can suffer from jerkiness. In the UK, our electric supply runs at 50hz. In the USA it's 60hz, and that's we have 25fps and 30fps respectively. The fact that a 25fps video has been converted to 30fps (or 29.97 for the pedantic amongst you) means that the audio is also running at the wrong speed and this is evidently more noticable on the Friday Night gig than it is on the Saturday gig - I can only assume that less 'care' was taken with this transfer. It all goes back to the main point, in that QPL or Universal are being "cheap" and producing a substandard product. |
| e-man 12.09.2011 11:52 |
this NTSC vs PAL thing is interesting reading it's pretty obvious that QP took the easy way out and didn't give a shit about going the extra mile (hell, not even half a mile) for those who care about the best possible quality :( still waiting for my copy, and I'm THRILLED to have an entire new gig on dvd - but with the audio at the wrong speed and the picture quality at 75% of what's possible? that's a bitter pill to swallow... They should have treated the sound / visual freaks to both gigs on ONE blu ray disc, where they could have given the video its maximum potential, together with HD soundtracks. as for joe public who either has old equipment, or leaves his/hers new equipment on the default settings - the dvds would have been just fine |
| tero! 48531 12.09.2011 12:36 |
Did anybody expect them to go to any extra effort after all the poor releases of the past years? Back in 2003 when the GVH dvds came out, I would have actually cared about this issue, but not after a decade of QP setting the bar lower and lower with each release... I've given up any hope, and nothing comes as a surprise anymore. I think plenty of people feel the same way. |
| brians wig 12.09.2011 14:08 |
To be fair to QPL, I think it's more likely Universal that's caused the issue. QPL, however, should have been on the ball and disagreed with them. If nothing else, I hope this topic highlights the issues and they never happen again. At least we still have a decent PAL DVD of the Saturday concert from 2003 :) |
| Double-U 12.09.2011 14:26 |
I bought it on the day of it's release. I watched the 1st night show from Wembley cause it's the only reason I bought it for. And I love it. I mean I looked other pro shots in different levels of quality and was always happy to see them. Okay we are writing about an official release but as some others mentioned before, thís footage is 25 years old and the quality allows a great time in front of your television, interactive white board...whatever. You are able to see a new Queen show in full lenght and that's what counts in my opinion. kind regards W. |
| bigV 12.09.2011 14:38 |
I wish they'd let US come up with just one release. Then they'll see what a perfect release looks like. The BBC sessions for example - imagine what the talented people of QueenZone can do with those! V. |
| Hang On In There 13.09.2011 04:06 |
well it's been interesting to read everyone's comments - but I've watched the DVDs and I think they're great - I'm really pleased I bought the deluxe version. |
| geebeetee 13.09.2011 06:29 |
Its pretty easy to make a dvd player multi region, all you need to do for starters is make sure you steer clear of the top brands, Sony, Panasonic to name 2 these cannot be changed, mine is an AKAI i payed £25 for it second hand and when i got it home NTSC playback was blocked, all i did was go online to find a remote hack for it, with this all you do is say press a few buttons in order on the remote and you access a menu where you change the playback settings to region free or 0, after that the player will take nything you throw at it regardless of what TV you have. the akai player is my second the first was a Mustek which died on me earlier this year so the best thing i recommend before you buy the player search online if it can be changed that way you will get a multi region player link hope that helps |
| pat10 13.09.2011 09:10 |
It should be out on blu-ray ! |
| tero! 48531 13.09.2011 10:10 |
brians wig wrote: To be fair to QPL, I think it's more likely Universal that's caused the issue. QPL, however, should have been on the ball and disagreed with them. If nothing else, I hope this topic highlights the issues and they never happen again. At least we still have a decent PAL DVD of the Saturday concert from 2003 :) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To be fair, QPL has a history of messing their releases before they switched over to Universal... It wouldn't be fair to blame it on Universal without any further knowledge. I don't think I'm going to be missing much by skipping this release. |
| Big Fat Fanny 14.09.2011 09:16 |
Fucking typical. I ain't gonna buy it. Already got the CD and DVD. |
| joesilvey 14.09.2011 13:42 |
i'd have to agree on the Saturday menu error and not sure why they would downgrade it from PAL to NTSC... that being said, I just watched the Friday night show on my large standard-def TV (in America) and i loved it. Obviously Friday night is test footage. some places they apparently didn't have a good shot available, so you see a darkened image (like Deacy at the beginning of Under Pressure) just so you're looking at something other than some cameraman's shoes i suppose... but this was never meant to be released, so to me, it's amazing that it looks so good. Just as we have weird lines in the Live Aid footage, yes you'll notice some 25-year old video tape anomalies and imperfections throughout. Not sure how much of it is the footage itself vs. artifacts of the reformatting to PAL. Don't really care. I was too busy watching Freddie's every move. The sound is great, and the performance incredible. Haven't A/B'ed the Saturday concert with the 2003 dvd, but already i'm very happy to have it. |
| joesilvey 14.09.2011 18:23 |
Just watched One Vision from Saturday night and the footage looks and sounds great... no noticeable ghosting or any other quality degradation from the transfer. veering ever so slightly off topic, is it just me or is there an extra Freddie singing on the line "a visions of one sweet union"? I know Roger is singing as well, but the loudest Freddie I hear doesn't quite match up to the footage. Freddie moves his mic away from his mouth but can still be heard in full voice for a second. are there other (any?) known places where they patched in Friday audio for a note or a word on the Saturday concert? |
| popy 15.09.2011 07:08 |
link Wembley without overdubs |
| Indo77 16.09.2011 18:56 |
pat10 wrote: It should be out on blu-ray ! It won't be out on blu-ray because it was originally shot on PAL Videotape not film. I was sad to read that the recent Wembely release was deinterlaced and in the horrid NTSC format. Sadly this will become the norm as it is saves Universal releasing multi format releases on both PAL and NTSC. Concerts should be released in the original format they appeared - PAL/NTSC Videotape or film. I dread to see a DVD Earl's Court NTSC master or a DVD PAL Houston. |
| Battler 16.09.2011 21:14 |
I wonder why everyone complains about this DVD being released in converted NTSC rather than the original PAL, yet no-one seems to complain about the Live In Rio VHS being released in converted PAL instead of the original not even NTSC, but PAL-M, which is Brazilian PAL with NTSC characteristics (525 lines, 60 Hz). Apparently, a release converted from 525/60 to 625/50 is OK, but one converted the other way around is instead the worst abomination of the world. This even when what we got now, is both Wembley shows in their entirety, with great sound even, while the Live In Rio VHS had a combination of both shows with a load of tracks even completely removed. Yet the Wembley DVD is a "Complete Cock Up", while Live In Rio seems to be regarded as a great release. Just where's the logic here? ;) |
| MERQRY 16.09.2011 23:05 |
Battler wrote: I wonder why everyone complains about this DVD being released in converted NTSC rather than the original PAL, yet no-one seems to complain about the Live In Rio VHS being released in converted PAL instead of the original not even NTSC, but PAL-M, which is Brazilian PAL with NTSC characteristics (525 lines, 60 Hz). Apparently, a release converted from 525/60 to 625/50 is OK, but one converted the other way around is instead the worst abomination of the world. This even when what we got now, is both Wembley shows in their entirety, with great sound even, while the Live In Rio VHS had a combination of both shows with a load of tracks even completely removed. Yet the Wembley DVD is a "Complete Cock Up", while Live In Rio seems to be regarded as a great release. Just where's the logic here? ;) --------- You're right but... who said you we don't complain about RIO??... almost everybody here -and there- complain about the rio footage released on vhs! |
| Queenman!! 22.09.2011 07:55 |
Hey Guys, Just found this on brianmay.com! Are we wrong? **Mon 19 Sep 11** WEMBLEY DVD David Backhouse wrote: Dear Brian, I've taken delivery today of the new Wembley DVD and I'm sorry, but I have to express my utter disgust at whoever took the decision to de-interlace the picture and make it look like it was shot on film Please. For goodness sake, if something was shot on beautiful 2" (or even 1") PAL Videotape, which is interlaced, it NEEDS to be kept as an interlaced picture. I realise it's far too late now to ever see the Friday night concert in the format it was recorded in, but maybe if you know people's feelings about this stuff, it may stop you (QPL) from treating your other recordings in this way. You're passionate about 3D photos etc, I'm passionate about interlaced TV pictures, so I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Please forgive me, but I had to email you as I have no other means of communicating my feelings to QPL. Kind Regards, David Backhouse --- Brian replied: Well, I don't understand what you're saying right now, David. We've had great reactions to the new product so far. But I will pass on your comments to those who will be able to respond ! Cheers Bri Further response from the engineer who graded the pictures: "Please reassure Mr Backhouse that the remastered concerts were not de-interlaced during the remastering process, and are as interlaced as the day they were shot. Every care was taken to make small improvements to picture quality, whist being mindful of the origins of the material. A couple of things could be confusing this viewer. 1. The opening pre gig sequences are shot mostly on film, and he may have switched off at this point. 2. He could be watching on a flat panel screen that even though it is fed an interlaced picture, it reproduces it in in a de-interlaced way (computer screens do this). Rather like watching a colour film on a black and white TV, you can't tell if its colour or not. The PAL-NTSC frame conversion that happened after the remastering, would not have any appreciable effect on the motion rendition. A de-interlaced picture is noticeably different. I've put an explanation of de-interacing at the end of the mail to shed a bit more light on the subject. So, hope that mostly makes sense, please bounce it back if it doesn't. Technical Explanation of Interlace & De-Interlace -------------------------------------------------------------------- Video in the UK runs at 25 frames per second. Each frame is composed of two fields, field 1 and field 2. Most TV and video cameras are interlaced, and each field they produce is slightly different, producing smooth-looking motion when watched. This is how the concerts were shot. Film runs at 25 frames a second for the purposes of UK TV. Each frame still has two fields, but as they are sourced from a single frame of film, they are pretty much identical. When watched, this produces a more 'jerky' looking picture. It's possible to take interlaced pictures, and de-interlace them. This process doubles up the odd fields, to produce a more filmic look. So, instead of the video playing back as; Field 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc. It becomes Field, 1, 1, 3, 3, 5, 5, etc. which has the motion characteristics of film - which some people view as more aesthetically pleasing. |
| dragon67 22.09.2011 12:47 |
That's bullshit!!! What did I tell you guys in my previous posts? "I will e-mail Brian through his website,but I doubt he will ever understand what we are talking about..." They completely ruined the whole friday night footage and they don't even have the balls to admit it in a straightforward way... Sorry for my language here, but I am furious that I had to buy the original dvd and see with my own eyes what they did with it. Thank god we still have the 2003 release and the older VHS editions... |
| Queenman!! 22.09.2011 13:45 |
dragon67 wrote: That's bullshit!!! What did I tell you guys in my previous posts? "I will e-mail Brian through his website,but I doubt he will ever understand what we are talking about..." They completely ruined the whole friday night footage and they don't even have the balls to admit it in a straightforward way... Sorry for my language here, but I am furious that I had to buy the original dvd and see with my own eyes what they did with it. Thank god we still have the 2003 release and the older VHS editions... ======== What is exactly bullshit???? Where do QP go wrong in their explanation |
| Bad Seed 22.09.2011 14:21 |
Well I must say that I think the picture is certainly superior to the 2003 release. |
| brians wig 22.09.2011 14:26 |
Well that reply on Brian's forum is interesting! I know David and I know exactly what he emailed to Brian because he's kept me in the loop and the website has completely MISSED OUT a more technical email from David explaining exactly what he thinks the issue is, and this was DAYS before the reply frm the Technical Guy came back! I've asked David for the "missing email", and here it is: Dear Brian, Thank you very much for replying. Further investigation has actually revealed what the (main) issue is. It's an NTSC DVD :( I can't believe (and it's not just me) that 'someone' (is it Universal who have messed it up?) has taken a wonderful interlaced PAL video recording at 25 frames per second, done restoration work on it, and then converted it to NTSC for release (at 29.97 frames per second)! It's this NTSC conversion that is the issue and not only do the colours not quite look right, it's lost the wonderful 'fluid' look that PAL recordings have and when the camera pans, the picture jerks - and this latter problem is typical of NTSC playback on non-NTSC televisions because of frame alterations (you've had to interpolate an extra 5 frames per second to make 30 fps from a 25fps signal) and also due to the 'pulldown' in conversion! Sure, modern TV's can handle NTSC better than old Cathode Ray Tubes, because many of the decent ones have menu options to change from 50hz to 60hz (our electric supply is 50hz, hence 25fps for video, and USA is 60hz, hence 30fps for video), but how many people who own a digital TV set actually knows about these options, never mind what they are for and what to do with them! There are also plenty of people, like myself, who simply cannot afford to buy a new digital TV set until such time as our CRT's break down and we are forced to! I'm sorry for being so technical Brian, but it just seems bonkers to me that you (and I mean you, Roger and the rest of the team at QPL), spend so much time getting everything right, even down to overdubbing the odd note/vocal that's not quite right, and someone somewhere ruins it by converting it to a substandard, and yes, I do mean substandard, video format! Seriously, 3/4 of the world use the PAL DVD format (even countries like France whose native TV system is SECAM) while only 1/4 use NTSC. I can only assume that because you are now signed to Universal, an American company, that they are being "tight" and only releasing product in THEIR native TV System for worldwide use, rather than producing a PAL copy and an NTSC copy. Effectively, Universal are providing a product that isn't fully compatible with a large proportion of the worlds current domestic TV equipment! We shouldn't have to pay for something that, for many people, jerks on movement and may also be in black and white (for those with older TV sets from the 1990's), when it's such an easy job to provide the concerts in their original format for the majority proportion of the world who do actually use it! I hope you understand my concerns and at least pass them on to your technical department and also Universal themselves. As for the content of the product: Yes, superb. I've wanted to see the Friday night concert since a few songs appeared on the 2003 DVD release (which WAS PAL, by the way!), and I'm absolutely overjoyed at seeing it full. You (the band) were certainly more relaxed that night and it's a joy to watch :) Best Wishes, David |
| dragon67 22.09.2011 16:53 |
Queenman!! wrote: What is exactly bullshit???? Where do QP go wrong in their explanation brians wig wrote: but it just seems bonkers to me that you (and I mean you, Roger and the rest of the team at QPL), spend so much time getting everything right, even down to overdubbing the odd note/vocal that's not quite right, and someone somewhere ruins it by converting it to a substandard, and yes, I do mean substandard, video format! You couldn't have said it better my friend... That's exactly what I would like to say to them! I cannot believe that none of them didn't notice these changes in the picture quality of the video when they saw it and didn't bother to ask the "specialists" in Universal some basic details for this release and to respect the rest viewers of the world that use PAL system format... And ok, you are human and you didn't notice it.. I believe you must take the time to check if this information is accurate and try your best to correct the mistake... You don't just say "I don't understand what you are saying and I 'll pass you over to someone else..." For me, this means that you don't have respect for someone that gives his money to buy your product in which you place QUALITY in top of everything else. |
| Battler 29.09.2011 19:59 |
brians wig wrote: >> Sure, modern TV's can handle NTSC better than old Cathode Ray Tubes, because many of the decent ones have menu options to change from 50hz to 60hz (our electric supply is 50hz, hence 25fps for video, and USA is 60hz, hence 30fps for video), but how many people who own a digital TV set actually knows about these options, never mind what they are for and what to do with them! There are also plenty of people, like myself, who simply cannot afford to buy a new digital TV set until such time as our CRT's break down and we are forced to! << Please, I have a PAL-B/G/H CRT TV which is like 20 years old and it can handle 60 Hz fine without any kind of jerkiness. Not to mention, my DVD player can, if I so wish, convert the video to 50 Hz PAL on the fly, or keep it 60 Hz but convert the color encoding to PAL so I can enjoy it in full color but at the same time with the characteristics it's supposed to have. So this thing that you need a modern TV to watch a NTSC video, is just plain wrong. Sure if you have some TV that can't really display a 60 Hz picture, but I don't think I've seen many, except for TV's even older than mine. But mine is like 20 years old, and it can handle 60 Hz just fine. ;) |