| Jake12 08.08.2019 03:32 |
Came across these photos from Queens Facebook page and they posted screenshots of Budapest fully remastered and it in 4:3 ratio and was just curious if they originally considered to release it in this format? |
| Jake12 08.08.2019 03:33 |
|
| QueenAllTheWay 08.08.2019 04:39 |
I think it's just the 2012 officially released version cropped down to 4:3? |
| QueenAllTheWay 08.08.2019 04:39 |
|
| pittrek 08.08.2019 07:24 |
They're actually not 4:3, but 1.37. Very interesting, the show was filmed in 1.85, originally released in 1.33, on Blu-ray in 1.77, and the shared pics are in 1.37. Really interesting |
| . 08.08.2019 10:28 |
">link |
| pittrek 08.08.2019 15:15 |
The visible part is approx. 642x364 (if I cropped it correctly), which is 1.77. So was it shot in 1.85 and cropped to 1.77 for theatrical prints and not only for the Blu-ray? At least I assume the picture is a scan of a theatrical print, right? |
| . 08.08.2019 21:23 |
Correct. |
| mooghead 08.08.2019 21:35 |
The most boring thread title in the history of the world ever. |
| Biggest Band On The Planet 09.08.2019 00:28 |
I remember watching it on VHS and thinking the picture had been cropped in places because of the way the picture cuts off Freddie. It looks even worse on DVD/Blu ray with the butchered aspect ratio. Hopefully some day we will get to see the concert in its original aspect ratio. |
| . 09.08.2019 06:59 |
The native aspect ratio of 35mm film is 4:3. For a comparison, here is the same frame taken from the PAL 4:3 laserdisc release: link The sides (mainly right) are cropped when compared to the blu-ray and theatrical release. The blu-ray and theatrical release is mainly cropped at the bottom on this particular frame. |
| flash00. 09.08.2019 10:03 |
I think the bluray version was terrible picture quality grainy as hell. |
| . 09.08.2019 13:40 |
Does your TV have adjustment control? |
| Toozeup 09.08.2019 17:15 |
The grain isn't the issue for me, i'd rather see grain than have it DNR'd to the nines. That won't be improved upon unless they find the original camera rushes. The sound mix though was really poor. It's so flat and sounds like it was mastered to sound good on flatscreen tv speakers. |
| . 09.08.2019 17:21 |
Does your 5.1 decoder have adjustment control? |
| pittrek 09.08.2019 21:07 |
The Kurgan wrote: The native aspect ratio of 35mm film is 4:3. For a comparison, here is the same frame taken from the PAL 4:3 laserdisc release: link The sides (mainly right) are cropped when compared to the blu-ray and theatrical release. The blu-ray and theatrical release is mainly cropped at the bottom on this particular frame.Well the 16 camera bootleg starts with lots of information, one of them is 1.85:1, and the screens are definitely wide. Of course the frame size is not 1.85, so what exactly does the aspect ratio seen in the 16 camera version mean? And apologies if I'm the only person who is fascinated by this stuff |
| flash00. 09.08.2019 21:23 |
Toozeup wrote: The grain isn't the issue for me, i'd rather see grain than have it DNR'd to the nines. That won't be improved upon unless they find the original camera rushes. The sound mix though was really poor. It's so flat and sounds like it was mastered to sound good on flatscreen tv speakers.Wasn't there many complaints over poor sound quality when it was shown at cinemas? it was a great concert but just my own personal opinion the show was not bluray standard by far for such an iconic concert. |
| Jake12 09.08.2019 21:37 |
Budapest has shitload of potential to be as good as Montreal both picture wise and audio but was really missed. I can somewhat deal with the audio even tho I really does sound like shit but the video... something about the video really makes my eye twitch |
| guild93 09.08.2019 23:47 |
link If you look at the above comparison video, the blu-ray seems to be just a cropped version of a 4:3 film copy |
| . 10.08.2019 06:59 |
The 4:3 image is croppedat the sides, mostly on the right. Pittrek, you might want to research the open matte filming technique: link |
| Chief Mouse 10.08.2019 09:37 |
Jake12 wrote: Budapest has shitload of potential to be as good as Montreal both picture wise and audio but was really missed. I can somewhat deal with the audio even tho I really does sound like shit but the video... something about the video really makes my eye twitchThe video was taken from an interpositive copy. It looks very good, but not as good as if it was taken from camera negatives. Also, a lot of the concert was quite dark and when you shoot in the dark and then brighten it up in post, it uncovers more grain. But all in all, it doesn't look too bad for what it is, other than a little bit bias towards blue & cold tint. |
| Chief Mouse 10.08.2019 09:41 |
|
| Nitroboy 10.08.2019 10:53 |
QueenAllTheWay wrote: I think it's just the 2012 officially released version cropped down to 4:3?Wrong pittrek wrote: The visible part is approx. 642x364 (if I cropped it correctly), which is 1.77. So was it shot in 1.85 and cropped to 1.77 for theatrical prints and not only for the Blu-ray? At least I assume the picture is a scan of a theatrical print, right?It was shot on regular 35mm film, and would have been cropped for a theatrical release. Biggest Band On The Planet wrote: I remember watching it on VHS and thinking the picture had been cropped in places because of the way the picture cuts off Freddie. It looks even worse on DVD/Blu ray with the butchered aspect ratio. Hopefully some day we will get to see the concert in its original aspect ratio.The 2012 release is not a butchered aspect ratio. pittrek wrote: Well the 16 camera bootleg starts with lots of information, one of them is 1.85:1, and the screens are definitely wide. Of course the frame size is not 1.85, so what exactly does the aspect ratio seen in the 16 camera version mean? And apologies if I'm the only person who is fascinated by this stuffThe 16 camera version is showing the monitor feeds from the cameras. They are independant of the image being captured on the 35mm film. |
| guild93 10.08.2019 21:42 |
So are we saying the vhs and laserdisc versions are the uncropped versions? |
| . 10.08.2019 22:27 |
No, they are still cropped at the sides, mostly on the right (see frame comparison I posted on previous page). In turn this means they would also be cropped to some degree at the top and bottom (see open matte link I posted on previous page). It was probably filmed with both a 4:3 home video and a 1.85:1 theatrical release in mind. The Blu-ray release is 1.78:1. To view maximum frame on all releases you will need to have your TV set to "Full" rather than 4:3, 16:9 or Auto, otherwise the TV will crop the image further. Not all TV's have the "Full" option. |
| pittrek 11.08.2019 11:44 |
Kurgan + Chief Mouse - I know what open matte is, thanks, but that's not what I was asking - right now I am trying to find out what EXACTLY do we see in the 16camera bootleg. 2 of the screens show 1.85 on them, what does it mean, INTENDED aspect ratio? I tried to check the aspect ratio of the screens themselves, it's very hard, but all of my attempts have shown something more than 1.8. Is there an image upload server where you don't have to register so that I can show what the hell I'm talking about? |
| Chief Mouse 11.08.2019 12:22 |
^ I know you do :) It was just a contribution to the thread. As for the rest of what you ask, I can't answer. Other than the image upload server - use imgur.com . |
| . 11.08.2019 14:03 |
Is this screen shot from the 16 cam footage in the correct aspect ratio anyway? link It makes no difference though, as the concert itself was filmed in 4:3. |
| Nitroboy 11.08.2019 15:07 |
guild93 wrote: So are we saying the vhs and laserdisc versions are the uncropped versions?Not really, no. |
| Queenman!! 11.08.2019 19:56 |
Any updates from the Hungarian Filmarchive that found a lot of reels in a underground shed/bunker? |
| KevoM 12.08.2019 12:31 |
Incidentally, did anyone see the recent '4K theatrical' release in the cinema? I assume this would have been shown in 1.85:1 ? Had any restoration been done on it? Would love to see a 4K UHD HDR Atmos release of this and Montreal (which also has a 4:3 VHS/DVD version). |
| Nitroboy 13.08.2019 18:08 |
KevoM wrote: Incidentally, did anyone see the recent '4K theatrical' release in the cinema? I assume this would have been shown in 1.85:1 ? Had any restoration been done on it? Would love to see a 4K UHD HDR Atmos release of this and Montreal (which also has a 4:3 VHS/DVD version).There was a recent 4K theatrical run of Hungarian Rhapsody??? |
| Mkls 13.08.2019 19:34 |
Queenman!! wrote: Any updates from the Hungarian Filmarchive that found a lot of reels in a underground shed/bunker?Not yet. |
| Mkls 13.08.2019 19:40 |
Nitroboy wrote:no its not a monitor feed, these old school 35mm cameras had no monitor feed at all, where did you get that from.. it's year 1986 with 10-30 year old cameras used.. What you see in the 16 camera is the first positive copies of the negative film transfered into a video format with very basic technique used.pittrek wrote: Well the 16 camera bootleg starts with lots of information, one of them is 1.85:1, and the screens are definitely wide. Of course the frame size is not 1.85, so what exactly does the aspect ratio seen in the 16 camera version mean? And apologies if I'm the only person who is fascinated by this stuffThe 16 camera version is showing the monitor feeds from the cameras. They are independant of the image being captured on the 35mm film. |
| Queenman!! 14.08.2019 08:08 |
Miklos wrote:-------------------Queenman!! wrote: Any updates from the Hungarian Filmarchive that found a lot of reels in a underground shed/bunker?Not yet. Thanks Miklos for the update. |
| . 14.08.2019 15:52 |
What update? |
| Nitroboy 15.08.2019 16:59 |
Miklos wrote:Ah yes, that makes sense as well!Nitroboy wrote:What you see in the 16 camera is the first positive copies of the negative film transfered into a video format with very basic technique used.pittrek wrote: Well the 16 camera bootleg starts with lots of information, one of them is 1.85:1, and the screens are definitely wide. Of course the frame size is not 1.85, so what exactly does the aspect ratio seen in the 16 camera version mean? And apologies if I'm the only person who is fascinated by this stuffThe 16 camera version is showing the monitor feeds from the cameras. They are independant of the image being captured on the 35mm film. |
| Mkls 16.08.2019 10:15 |
The Kurgan wrote: What update?check the other topic about the recent outtakes findings ... |
| . 17.08.2019 07:00 |
It was meant as a quip, because there is no actual update ;-) |
| Mkls 18.08.2019 17:15 |
Kurgan, if and when the CEO of the Hungarian National Film Archive replies to my facebook post , after I enquired about the Queen 86 outtakes, - following the news of the recently found storage, full of thousands of Mafilm outtakes from the last 40 years-, saying "THERE IS HOPE", if it is not an update for you than I apologise. I did more for this original film and the outtakes than Greg, Simon, Jim and the rest of the Queen machine, who were never ever supportive or interested in my findings (apart from saying "if you find it tell us") - too bad they never gave a damn about actually taking steps to find more stuff (ie more than words...) ! but to please you, I found a news bit which I recorded exactly 33 years ago and it was long lost for me (cause i actually recorded it on my father's opera collection haha) link you will all like it. someone will translate it soon. |
| Jake12 18.08.2019 17:56 |
I just saw this! Thanks so much for posting this! Very interesting! Translation would be very nice! |
| Mkls 18.08.2019 18:12 |
nothing too exciting : rough guide: anchor: blabla... the film is in progress interviewer: The film is on the editing desk, it is in the making - how much you shot? zsombolyai: total of 30 - 32 thousand meters of raw film were used i: and how much will be in the final film? zs: i would not like it to be more than 1,5 hours I: are you satisfied? zs: with the editing yes, very much - it could speed up a bit though . We found out a method, transfered everything to video and mixed 16 cameras into one screen, and now trying to decide which one to use - I: when will the viewers see the movie in cinemas? zs: we really hope to finish it before xmas or the new year - back to anchor: "see you around xmas" . |
| Mkls 18.08.2019 18:15 |
watch out for the tower of paper boxes full of ALL THE outtakes from REEL 1 of all 16 cameras , labeled as " QUEEN 1.TEK "KIV" " and the tin cans of all "reel 4" negatives from 16 cameras - - the holy grail :D |
| Mkls 18.08.2019 18:33 |
link there was this long interview in Hungarian, 2 years ago about the film ... use google translate , its too long to do it , and i am not too good in translations -- maybe someone will translate it - |
| Mr Prime Jive 25.08.2019 20:25 |
Holy Grail, indeed. |
| Queenman!! 25.08.2019 21:15 |
Miklos wrote: watch out for the tower of paper boxes full of ALL THE outtakes from REEL 1 of all 16 cameras , labeled as " QUEEN 1.TEK "KIV" " and the tin cans of all "reel 4" negatives from 16 cameras - - the holy grail :D----------------------- WOW, thank you very much Miklos for this footage. Still hard to believe and it made me so angy these stupid QP goons left all these tapes rotten in the Hungarian State archive till 1996. What a bunch of tossers. 16 camera's and endless reels... and now probably lost forever….ARGHHHHHH |
| BETA215 26.08.2019 17:41 |
It's absolutely amazing to see something like that, and all thanks to you Miklos!!!! Now lots of things make sense!!! Big big thanks for being so generous with your time and for showing us that footage. For me, this is so exciting... |
| BETA215 26.08.2019 17:52 |
Now there are questions: how could that 16 cameras footage survived all this years? Who could have sold this originally? Or was the film found in a trash can, then maybe sold by bootleggers? (lots of times things like that happened). Some of the guys we see in that video, could be the main characters in this situation? Was it stolen, then? New questions arise, that makes this story quite interesting. If there's a VHS low quality version being sold, somebody must have the original film where all 16 cams were shown (I assume it was film given the quality the 16 cam shows in that video, far superior than our copies). |
| Toozeup 29.08.2019 05:04 |
He says the 16 camera edit was compiled straight to videotape, presumably the editor has the master (probably a betamax) and copies were made for the director and assistants etc. |
| . 29.08.2019 10:19 |
Are you confusing betamax with betacam? |
| pittrek 29.08.2019 15:02 |
Betamax in Hungary? Was that even a thing? It certainly wasn't "up here". |
| Killer_queenIII 03.09.2019 14:43 |
Just saw the youtube clip and GODDAMN! So this is how the 16 cameras version came to be.
BETA215 wrote: New questions arise, that makes this story quite interesting. If there's a VHS low quality version being sold, somebody must have the original film where all 16 cams were shown (I assume it was film given the quality the 16 cam shows in that video, far superior than our copies).Now that's a good question. The thing is: Do they still have it? Is the tape still intact after all these years? |
