I have a question.
I read on a few pages that the audio on the video for "One Vision" plays at a slightly lower speed (adding about 5 to 10 seconds in the process).
Can anyone tell me why this is?
deleted user 04.08.2005 02:58
well take a look at how you titled this thread
i had no idea there was a song one video, lol
anyway, i dont think it is played slower, but maybe just slightly
this mightve been because the band had trouble shooting the video, and the video mightve ended up being slower than the song (just a random thought, dont know for sure)
Inu-Liger<h6>-a.k.a. Richard Guilbault- wrote: I have a question.
I read on a few pages that the audio on the video for "One Vision" plays at a slightly lower speed (adding about 5 to 10 seconds in the process).
Can anyone tell me why this is?
Maybe someone's just been watching a fucked-up NTSC/PAL conversion? For One Vision that would add just under 10 seconds to the length...
Well, if it was filmed on film at 24fps (frames per second), normally they would speed it up, like they did with the Budapest concert (hence it appears to play faster and sounds a bit higher in pitch as a result), for PAL videos. This would normally speed it up, since PAL videos play at 25fps (which in my opinion is stupid).
I'm not sure if it's technically possible to slow down film so that it would match up to the 25fps standard in PAL format, because if they did that, then it would explain why it plays slower. But I doubt that's what happened.
Inu-Liger<h6>-a.k.a. Richard Guilbault- wrote: I have a question.
I read on a few pages that the audio on the video for "One Vision" plays at a slightly lower speed (adding about 5 to 10 seconds in the process).
Can anyone tell me why this is?
Maybe someone's just been watching a fucked-up NTSC/PAL conversion? For One Vision that would add just under 10 seconds to the length...
That wouldn't be the case. The NTSC DVD's of all the Queen DVD releases worldwide (eg. Greatest Video Hits, Wembley, Freddie Tribute...) are converted from PAL, and they don't change the speed in the video conversion process, as the audio remains the same length in the NTSC DVD's as it does in the PAL DVD's.
Inu-Liger<h6>-a.k.a. Richard Guilbault- wrote: I have a question.
I read on a few pages that the audio on the video for "One Vision" plays at a slightly lower speed (adding about 5 to 10 seconds in the process).
Can anyone tell me why this is?
Maybe someone's just been watching a fucked-up NTSC/PAL conversion? For One Vision that would add just under 10 seconds to the length...
That wouldn't be the case. The NTSC DVD's of all the Queen DVD releases worldwide (eg. Greatest Video Hits, Wembley, Freddie Tribute...) are converted from PAL, and they don't change the speed in the video conversion process, as the audio remains the same length in the NTSC DVD's as it does in the PAL DVD's.
It was just a theory, and I have no idea what video your source(s) have been watching...
What I do know is that I have seen PAL television programmes which have been converted hastily from NTSC format, and they have been increased in length by 1/24.
I came to the conclusion simply by noting the running time on several video versions including the karaoke, and the fact that there was nothing extra musically to account for the extra time.. so it's gotta be a speed thing. I couldn't say how it happened, other than to just figure that for whatever reason, the video ran a little slow during an early transfer and rather than correcting it, they slowed the music slightly to match.
I believe it is corrected on GVH 2 because the music comes to like 4:01/4:02 as it should. (When you cut out the silence)
There is another track I discovered which suffers a similar problem, but this time without any video... "I Want to Break Free (Extended Mix)" on 'The 12" Collection'. Again I simply noticed that it had a longer run time (7:18) and no musical explanation. In this case, I actually compared sections of it with other released versions.. the Hollywood 1991 bonus track (7:11), a couple different single mixes (which are edited from this) and the identical sections ran faster than the 12" Collection version every time, so I concluded that it was at the wrong speed.
You could always ask Justin if you're really curious and want confirmation.. but I'm sure the answer would be boring. Shit happens :)
It does seem odd to me that the 'Break Free' thing would ever happen though, with digital masters by that time. I don't know how they work but it would seem they'd be less susceptible to playing back at the wrong speed.
whirled peas<br><font size=1>Give peas a chance wrote: It does seem odd to me that the 'Break Free' thing would ever happen though, with digital masters by that time. I don't know how they work but it would seem they'd be less susceptible to playing back at the wrong speed.
Digital masters perhaps, but weren't the original recordings still on analogue tapes?
And every single anaogue machine plays at different speed... It might even vary with the same machine from time to time, depending on your local electrical network and the type of machine used!
While the earliest digital tape was an F1 tape, which had rough mixes in stereo from the Works tapes, they didn't use digital multitrack tapes until 1987, which began with Brian transferring some of his own songs to such a tape (which songs, I don't know exactly).
From the Works and onwards, till they used pure digital tapes, they used "time code sequences" on one track of the tape, which usually kept the tape running in time, and also included fader pass mix tracks as well (up to two tracks would be used for these at most, which would help the computer "remember" the mixing levels on the faders)
deleted user 04.08.2005 15:25
Inu-Liger<h6>-a.k.a. Richard Guilbault- wrote:
sweden_man wrote: well take a look at how you titled this thread
i had no idea there was a song one video, lol