QueenZone discussion #1398641

Nitroboy wrote: I toned down some of the green :) http://i.gyazo.com/16b024d5d83a664d1917930efb5a597f.png

Nitroboy wrote: I meant, which colours did you tweak? :) I tried tweaking it a bit more: http://i.gyazo.com/85930efd02a0997605134d18d6e12bef.png

Kacio wrote: wow great! Now do it with full concert :D

MercurialFreddie wrote: Putting torrent with this gig (colour-fixed version by Nitroboy) could be regarded as sharing officially released material which is against the rules of this forum.

Adam Baboolal wrote: Just to make this clear, when up on stage with a bunch of strong lights, the 2007 version is actually pretty accurate.

AlexRocks wrote: 100% amazing. What's messed up is I like BOTH! Lol! Do I hear the need for a re-release?! Fuck, yeah! And with a much better cover art work! Not for at least a few more years though, eh?!

Doga wrote:

AlexRocks wrote: 100% amazing. What's messed up is I like BOTH! Lol! Do I hear the need for a re-release?! Fuck, yeah! And with a much better cover art work! Not for at least a few more years though, eh?!

Re-release Montreal? Beware what you wish... with the 4K remaster is possible, but the sound of Rock Montreal is absolute fabulous, so i don't see the need for a re-release. A lot of people here will kill me for saying this but the product more need a re-release is Wembley, is their iconic show but the sound mix is really sloppy and bad. I read they found the multitracks so maybe QP could do their magic and turn into something like Budapest. Of course i will prefer Earl's Court (even only the audio)... this talk is nonsense anyway, looks like next year we will get Hammersmith 75, and that is not bad.

lemonysnick123 wrote:

Doga wrote:

AlexRocks wrote: 100% amazing. What's messed up is I like BOTH! Lol! Do I hear the need for a re-release?! Fuck, yeah! And with a much better cover art work! Not for at least a few more years though, eh?!

Re-release Montreal? Beware what you wish... with the 4K remaster is possible, but the sound of Rock Montreal is absolute fabulous, so i don't see the need for a re-release. A lot of people here will kill me for saying this but the product more need a re-release is Wembley, is their iconic show but the sound mix is really sloppy and bad. I read they found the multitracks so maybe QP could do their magic and turn into something like Budapest. Of course i will prefer Earl's Court (even only the audio)... this talk is nonsense anyway, looks like next year we will get Hammersmith 75, and that is not bad.

I'm pretty sure they've always had the Wembley multitracks. They just made a muddy mix. Still enjoyable though.

popy wrote:

lemonysnick123 wrote:

Doga wrote:

AlexRocks wrote: 100% amazing. What's messed up is I like BOTH! Lol! Do I hear the need for a re-release?! Fuck, yeah! And with a much better cover art work! Not for at least a few more years though, eh?!

Re-release Montreal? Beware what you wish... with the 4K remaster is possible, but the sound of Rock Montreal is absolute fabulous, so i don't see the need for a re-release. A lot of people here will kill me for saying this but the product more need a re-release is Wembley, is their iconic show but the sound mix is really sloppy and bad. I read they found the multitracks so maybe QP could do their magic and turn into something like Budapest. Of course i will prefer Earl's Court (even only the audio)... this talk is nonsense anyway, looks like next year we will get Hammersmith 75, and that is not bad.

I'm pretty sure they've always had the Wembley multitracks. They just made a muddy mix. Still enjoyable though.

They don't. They didn't have the Wembley multitracks in 2011 for the 25th anniversary edition DVD, just the "1991 analogue half-inch stereo mix tapes". Doga, where did you see that they have found the multitracks? Go to http://brianmay.com/experts/experts.html and use "select month" menu in the left to change the date to January 2011 and read the post to the question "WEMBLEY DVD - NEW MIX OR REMASTERED?" Regarding this post, Nitroboy, do you plan to share the work you've done when it's finished?

Nitroboy wrote: The 2007 version is not accurate, in any way.

pittrek wrote: Please keep seeding for those who didn't finish yet or put it to piratebay

Adam Baboolal wrote: This is why I see both sides to this discussion. Someone like you prefers a warm skin tone on screen and that's why you're tinkering with the video. The team that worked on the film in 2007 wanted to retain more of the concert feel. And finally, sometimes cameras can't capture the lighting very well, which can be another reason to try adding it back in. Hopefully, this will make things clearer.

Adam Baboolal wrote: Unfortunately, you haven't understood my post. I'll try once more. Just to explain things a little further, the "lights" you highlight were brought in to restore the lighting they felt was missing in the shots. When filming stuff, sometimes lighting doesn't translate to the camera. I don't know what this phenomenon is called, but I have experienced this when filming some shows. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.

Chief Mouse wrote: Are you implying that the imagination of the editor (who probably wasn't even there 26 years ago) and his perception of how it *should* look is more accurate than what was actually caught by cameras? I rather take the original colours, sorry :P

people on streets wrote: Thanks for creating this MKV. What calibration tool do you use for calibrating your video editing monitor? I heard good stories about spyder. I haven't had the time to take a more detailed look, but I noticed that you didn't create tracks splits in the MKV file. Are you aware of the possibility? It's really easy to do. Anyway, Thanks!

Adam Baboolal wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote: Are you implying that the imagination of the editor (who probably wasn't even there 26 years ago) and his perception of how it *should* look is more accurate than what was actually caught by cameras? I rather take the original colours, sorry :P

You assume that Brian and Roger never had any input into how it should look. Sorry :P

Adam Baboolal wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote: Are you implying that the imagination of the editor (who probably wasn't even there 26 years ago) and his perception of how it *should* look is more accurate than what was actually caught by cameras? I rather take the original colours, sorry :P

You assume that Brian and Roger never had any input into how it should look. Sorry :P

Chief Mouse wrote:

Adam Baboolal wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote: Are you implying that the imagination of the editor (who probably wasn't even there 26 years ago) and his perception of how it *should* look is more accurate than what was actually caught by cameras? I rather take the original colours, sorry :P

You assume that Brian and Roger never had any input into how it should look. Sorry :P

Yes, I assume that. I doubt they told the editor what to do and stood next to him in the editing room.

Adam Baboolal wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote:

Adam Baboolal wrote:

Chief Mouse wrote: Are you implying that the imagination of the editor (who probably wasn't even there 26 years ago) and his perception of how it *should* look is more accurate than what was actually caught by cameras? I rather take the original colours, sorry :P

You assume that Brian and Roger never had any input into how it should look. Sorry :P

Yes, I assume that. I doubt they told the editor what to do and stood next to him in the editing room.

I keep forgetting, why would anyone from a band that cares about their staging, light show and sound, want to see how their latest acquisition from eagle rock, looks as well as sounds? Perhaps, dare I say, even put their own artistic stamp on it. It's sad that, even when I say I can see both sides of this recolouring debate, no-one bothers to truly see both sides of the issue. Last year, I made a video ad for my fiancée's wedding business (as a singer). She was just as interested in all the footage (including lighting) to want to sculpt the final videos' look. The point I'm making here is, every artist putting something out for public consumption is involved with every aspect of their performance. So, when I see you dismiss the idea that they (Brian and/or Roger) didn't spend time checking their own concert when it was in the works, I find that to be incredibly narrow-minded. And hell, we're talking about Queen, a group who always want to be involved with their artistic output. Now, I'll end with what I originally said... I think both ideas have merit. So, I applaud your efforts to recreate the colour from the previous release. But, I also see the choices made for the Rock Montréal release as being worthy, too.