| Barry Durex 10.01.2017 08:28 |
It seems there was both a PAL and NTSC DVD release of Montreal / Live aid. My DVD is in PAL but on my blu-ray the Live aid set is NTSC 1080p (60Hz). The (native) PAL DVD (upscaled to 1080p 50Hz) actually looks better on my TV (using the same blu ray player to compare). Was there also a blu-ray release with Live Aid in PAL? |
| Queenman!! 11.01.2017 09:38 |
Barry.,.. this discussion PAL vs NTSC was on Queenzone before. I seem to recall that since the deal with Eagle Vision was made all Queen DVD releases were converted from PAL to NTSC. Very inpopulair decision among the Queen base. Since the UK has PAL and only US and Japan use NTSC this meant that all orginal PAL taped Queen reels were tranferred to NTSC. SO... no PAL live aid DVD I guess |
| popy 11.01.2017 12:56 |
Read again. The DVD is in PAL. Barry is asking about Blu-Ray in PAL. |
| Barry Durex 11.01.2017 14:02 |
Yes, that's right popy. If they made a PAL DVD, why no PAL Blu-ray? |
| brians wig 11.01.2017 17:13 |
Why? Because it's far cheaper to make ONE world-wide master than two. For some ungodly reason, the manufaturers of USA equipment seem to be so far up their own arrogant arses as to believe that NTSC is the only format needed and they rarely create machines capable of playing back anything but NTSC. Apart from the very early DVD players, European machines have always been able to play NTSC (you could have them chipped if they didn't) and I think that's the reasoning behind it all now: the Europeans can play NTSC so we can be cheap bastards and only make one master. It doesn't seem to matter that PAL is a far superior format in every respect to NTSC resulting in 3/4 of the world who use PAL having to suffer shite picture transfers just so the fucking yank manufacturers don't have to bother programming THEIR equipment to play PAL. I must say though, that whatever process QPL are using now to transfer their PAL masters to 60i for BD release, is doing a cracking job. |
| Barry Durex 11.01.2017 17:47 |
If that's really the answer then I don't understand why they released both a PAL and NTSC DVD. |
| ANAGRAMER 12.01.2017 00:59 |
Erm, excuse my ignorance, how do they differ; PAL and NTSC? |
| Barry Durex 12.01.2017 03:55 |
They run at different frame rates and resolution. The live aid set was recorded in PAL, it is native to the UK. PAL is 50Hz, NTSC 60Hz |
| Nitroboy 12.01.2017 11:23 |
Barry Durex wrote: They run at different frame rates and resolution. The live aid set was recorded in PAL, it is native to the UK. PAL is 50Hz, NTSC 60HzPlus PAL is bottom field first, whereas NTSC is top field first (except for the 2003 Wembley '86 PAL DVD - for some reason that's using the wrong field order!) @Brians Wig: Their current PAL -> NTSC conversions are quite good for the SD Blu-ray stuff. Even if it's completely unnecessary. |
| brians wig 13.01.2017 03:30 |
Barry Durex wrote: If that's really the answer then I don't understand why they released both a PAL and NTSC DVD.Maybe they came out at a time when BD wasn't so big in Europe and DVD sales would massively outsell the new format. |
| brians wig 13.01.2017 03:35 |
Nitroboy wrote:I see this too often these days: it must be an issue of no one ever using an old fashioned CRT monitor to check anything!Barry Durex wrote: They run at different frame rates and resolution. The live aid set was recorded in PAL, it is native to the UK. PAL is 50Hz, NTSC 60HzPlus PAL is bottom field first, whereas NTSC is top field first (except for the 2003 Wembley '86 PAL DVD - for some reason that's using the wrong field order!) @Brians Wig: Their current PAL -> NTSC conversions are quite good for the SD Blu-ray stuff. Even if it's completely unnecessary. Half the videos on Rogers "The Lot" are the wrong field order. The most important thing with PAL & NTSC though is the resolution. PAL is FAR superior: that's why it irks me when they take a great picture and downgrade it to a lower res with dodgy smeary colours and picture because they've also had to "make up" 5 frames a second that didn't previously exist. It's all down to the frequency at which the US and European electric systems work at. |
| Barry Durex 13.01.2017 04:43 |
Take a look at some of the extras on the FM tribute blu ray. The fan photos for example look better on the DVD release. |
| Nitroboy 13.01.2017 09:08 |
brians wig wrote:CRTs were still very much a thing back in 2003 around Wembley's DVD release.Nitroboy wrote:I see this too often these days: it must be an issue of no one ever using an old fashioned CRT monitor to check anything! Half the videos on Rogers "The Lot" are the wrong field order. The most important thing with PAL & NTSC though is the resolution. PAL is FAR superior: that's why it irks me when they take a great picture and downgrade it to a lower res with dodgy smeary colours and picture because they've also had to "make up" 5 frames a second that didn't previously exist. It's all down to the frequency at which the US and European electric systems work at.Barry Durex wrote: They run at different frame rates and resolution. The live aid set was recorded in PAL, it is native to the UK. PAL is 50Hz, NTSC 60HzPlus PAL is bottom field first, whereas NTSC is top field first (except for the 2003 Wembley '86 PAL DVD - for some reason that's using the wrong field order!) @Brians Wig: Their current PAL -> NTSC conversions are quite good for the SD Blu-ray stuff. Even if it's completely unnecessary. As for the PAL vs. NTSC resolution: It's not really a problem when SD Blu-ray stuff is 1080p anyway. Same resolution for either of them :) |
| Barry Durex 17.02.2017 06:01 |
It might be the same resolution, but it's the unnecessary frame rate conversion that's a issue for me and some others. Like I said at the start of the thread, the PAL DVD of Live Aid is superior to the blu-ray SD in my eyes. So it is a problem. |
| Nitroboy 17.02.2017 15:37 |
Barry Durex wrote: It might be the same resolution, but it's the unnecessary frame rate conversion that's a issue for me and some others. Like I said at the start of the thread, the PAL DVD of Live Aid is superior to the blu-ray SD in my eyes. So it is a problem. It's not even that. If it was Blu-ray SD, it would be H.264 1080p (upscaled). But it's not, it's just the NTSC DVD file slapped onto the Blu-ray disc. My point: For Live Aid, the PAL DVD is the best :P |
| Barry Durex 17.02.2017 17:26 |
Blu-ray players automatically upscale low res (DVD) video to 1080p anyway. An upscaled unconverted video isn't an issue in this respect, which is the point in my first post. Why no PAL Blu-ray if there was PAL DVD? |
| Nitroboy 18.02.2017 17:44 |
Barry Durex wrote: Blu-ray players automatically upscale low res (DVD) video to 1080p anyway. An upscaled unconverted video isn't an issue in this respect, which is the point in my first post. Why no PAL Blu-ray if there was PAL DVD? 1) Yes, a lot of them do. However, on-the-fly upscaling like that will almost always be inferior. 2) Indeed, it would seem odd. Possibly because Blu-ray was still very new at the time. They used a very obscure codec called VC-1 for the Montreal part. It's really odd altogether. |
| Barry Durex 19.02.2017 03:49 |
At least Montreal has been left in it's native 24p. |
| Costa86 23.02.2017 11:05 |
Small question - not related to this post, but not sure it merits its own thread. Apart from Montreal 1981 and Budapest 1986, is there anything else which could potentially be released in 1080p (i.e. shot on 35mm film)? Also, is there any chance Montreal and Budapest could be released in 4k? The film quality should go above even 4k |
| Chinwonder2 23.02.2017 11:36 |
Costa86 wrote: Small question - not related to this post, but not sure it merits its own thread. Apart from Montreal 1981 and Budapest 1986, is there anything else which could potentially be released in 1080p (i.e. shot on 35mm film)? Also, is there any chance Montreal and Budapest could be released in 4k? The film quality should go above even 4k All of Bob Harris's filming could be released in 1080p, I'm not sure what mm it is though, if I had to guess it would be either 16mm, could be wrong through. Look at some of the interviews on the 'From Rags To Rhapsody' documentary from 2015, they look fantastic! Although over the years something I've never understood is that some of the Bob Harris scrips have been shown in black and white but some are in colour, why would they edit it like that? :/ -Chin |
| Biggus Dickus 23.02.2017 11:46 |
Chinwonder2 wrote:Could it be that they actually shot some of the footage on b&w film?Costa86 wrote: Small question - not related to this post, but not sure it merits its own thread. Apart from Montreal 1981 and Budapest 1986, is there anything else which could potentially be released in 1080p (i.e. shot on 35mm film)? Also, is there any chance Montreal and Budapest could be released in 4k? The film quality should go above even 4kAlthough over the years something I've never understood is that some of the Bob Harris scrips have been shown in black and white but some are in colour, why would they edit it like that? :/ -Chin |
| Chinwonder2 23.02.2017 13:03 |
Biggus Dickus wrote:I don't think so, if you watch the News Of The World documentary that was posted here on QZ a while back. In it was a compilation of all the available footage that they shot, during interviews it will switch between colour and black and white, the footage was taken from various documentaries over the years. :)Chinwonder2 wrote:Could it be that they actually shot some of the footage on b&w film?Costa86 wrote: Small question - not related to this post, but not sure it merits its own thread. Apart from Montreal 1981 and Budapest 1986, is there anything else which could potentially be released in 1080p (i.e. shot on 35mm film)? Also, is there any chance Montreal and Budapest could be released in 4k? The film quality should go above even 4kAlthough over the years something I've never understood is that some of the Bob Harris scrips have been shown in black and white but some are in colour, why would they edit it like that? :/ -Chin -Chin |