| Another Roger (re) 19.01.2007 06:46 |
Thats what I think. I disagree with the puritists on the forum that wants everything to be released in the original format. I recently bought Flåklypa Grand Prix from 1975 on dvd. They decided to release it in the format of the future, widescreen. They used some excellent techniques to show the whole picture. They kinda rolled the pic from top to bottom which worked great. You dont have to cut off anyones had or anything. Noone will care about these 4:3 releases in the future, except hardcore Queenfans, and puritists, which are few in numbers. |
| Negative Creep 19.01.2007 07:09 |
It's far from a big mistake. I can't personally think of many bands that have released old footage on DVD, and butchered it for widescreen. About 99% of DVD releases of old footage are in their original aspect ratio, but QP fucked it up. If it wasn't filmed in widescreen, it shouldn't be released in widescreen. The whole concept of widescreen being used for new DVD's and TV, is to force the consumer to purchase a new TV set anyway. |
| Another Roger (re) 19.01.2007 07:32 |
The "We Will Rock You" concert are released in Widescreen. And I assume that the original picture was 4:3? I havent checked this, so correct me if I am wrong. |
| Johan 19.01.2007 08:22 |
I believe the We Will Rock You 81 concert was shot on film as it was originally filmed to be shown at theatres. Furthermore it is not a Queen Productions DVD. |
| john bodega 19.01.2007 08:35 |
Okay, just going off the two Queen releases that are on my desk at the moment... What an idiotic thing to say. 4:3 a big mistake? THINK, MCFLY. If something is shot in 4:3, it must be released as 4:3. Live at Wembley? Shot with TV cameras - to put that in 16:9 or whatever would crop part of the image, or make Freddie look like a fucking porker. I wanted to SHOOT someone when I got GVHII and half the videos were squished. And the cover proudly boasted it was all in 16:9... Hairy balls to THAT I say. What a fucking jip. 4:3 a mistake??? link |
| Dane 19.01.2007 09:21 |
When you have to cut things off, you're not giving all you got. so indeed.. what is filmed in 4:3 must stay this way. Besides, most widescreen televisions have a button on their remote to fake 16:9 from 4:3 (without stretching). So in any case there is no reason to start butchering archive material which fans have been waiting for. |
| bigV 19.01.2007 10:01 |
Cropping the videos from their original 4:3 to 16:9 widescreen version is not a big mistake. Far from it... IT'S A BIG, HUGE FUCK UP!!! V. |
| PieterMC 19.01.2007 10:09 |
Some of the results looking amazingly bad. A Kind of Magic and Radio Ga Ga spring to mind. |
| john bodega 19.01.2007 11:47 |
What really fucking pissed me off, was that it's basically irreversible for most TVs. It's easy enough to press 16:9 mode, or 4:3 mode, but there's no option for what the GHII DVD has... which is, I dunno... 'correct the retarded reformatting' mode. |
| Wilki Amieva 19.01.2007 11:50 |
Dane wrote: When you have to cut things off, you're not giving all you got. so indeed.. what is filmed in 4:3 must stay this way. Besides, most widescreen televisions have a button on their remote to fake 16:9 from 4:3 (without stretching). So in any case there is no reason to start butchering archive material which fans have been waiting for.Couldn't say it better. Brilliant. |
| Wilki Amieva 19.01.2007 11:51 |
Furthermore, what about the video directors? If they originally framed without mattes, then the planned 4:3 aspect ratio should be mantained. I rather have wasted space in my widescreen TV/monitor to suffer the losing of 25% of the frame as intended by the director. |
| Wilki Amieva 19.01.2007 11:51 |
Not to mention annoying things like Freddie's hand crossing while playing Bohemian Rhapsody getting chopped in the GVH DVD clip. One of the trademarks of the video is no more just because some idiot though it would be nice to automatically see things a little bigger on widescreen devices. I hated that one - it sucks bigtime. |
| John S Stuart 19.01.2007 11:56 |
I have a great idea. Most new picture frames are 16.9 landscape. Why don't we cut the portrait of the Mona Lisa canvas to fit one of these too? |
| Wilki Amieva 19.01.2007 12:00 |
Yeah, art at the service of technology... While 'Humans' think like that, the 'Machines' have won already. |
| kdj2hot 19.01.2007 12:18 |
Who cares it's all about the audio on the dvd's not the vids. Dont you get that. I could careless about how the videos look, they're good enough. I wasnt to bothered by the 16:9 on GVH II either, in fact I didnt even notice lol |
| PieterMC 19.01.2007 12:43 |
Why buy it then if you don't care about the videos? Just listen to the CD. |
| _Bijou_ 19.01.2007 13:32 |
I hate widescreen. I love the 4:3 screen. :) |
| kdj2hot 19.01.2007 13:47 |
PieterMC wrote: Why buy it then if you don't care about the videos? Just listen to the CD.Genius, because the dvds are in 5.1, jeez!!!!!!!!! some people lol. |
| PieterMC 19.01.2007 13:48 |
kdj2hot wrote:Yes - really shitty 5.1 with no center channel.PieterMC wrote: Why buy it then if you don't care about the videos? Just listen to the CD.Genius, because the dvds are in 5.1, jeez!!!!!!!!! some people lol. |
| Deacon Fan 19.01.2007 14:46 |
PieterMC wrote: Some of the results looking amazingly bad. A Kind of Magic and Radio Ga Ga spring to mind.They screwed up AKOM by squeezing down the already letterboxed video instead of cropping it. As for Ga Ga, I think it actually works best the way they did it. A uniform height whilst getting wider in some sections. This reflects the director's desire to have the image become wider at times. Hard as I've tried and as much as I hate the idea of losing some of the original image to make something artificial widescreen, I can't point to any of the videos which really seem to lose anything important.. the only one I notice being cropped is "Body Language" because some of the arrows are incomplete. I think the biggest problem is the actual quality of the material itself. The older videos have this 'fuzzy' colored graininess in them from some sort of processing. YMBF is a good example. It looks really bad and yet I know better versions of this stuff must exist somewhere. The karaoke hits videos have much better picture quality, but they have that damn lyric text burnt into them. It's a good thing the extras make up for the screwed-up videos though. I just hope someday a better version of everything emerges. I always think of 'Best Of Bowie' when considering the quality of old music videos. ALL of his videos dating back to early BBC stuff from 1969 or so look fantastic on that set. As for the 4.1 mixes, it looks like Justin Shirley Smith is to blame for this. His explanation of this centers around lead vocal being in the center channel, as if that's the only thing they could put there. He wants the center to be forced to the front right & left, rather than giving consumers the choice of doing that in their receivers if they don't have or don't want a center speaker. Apparently we're stuck with his own twisted listening preference. The DVD-A releases have plenty of center action because another company was involved (DTS Entertainment) and they wouldn't dare pull the shit that Queen did with the video hits, not making full use of the 5.1. |
| PieterMC 19.01.2007 15:17 |
I agree with you that the picture quality is crap. I was amazed at how bad it looks. |
| _Bijou_ 19.01.2007 18:13 |
I think 'Radio Ga Ga' looks terrible in that little box screen. What's the point in leaving all that black space? |
| Deacon Fan 19.01.2007 18:51 |
Bijou In Queens Crown wrote: I think 'Radio Ga Ga' looks terrible in that little box screen. What's the point in leaving all that black space?That's the only way they could present it without changing the height. The 4:3 portions have to be 'windowboxed' like this in order for the wide parts to fill to the sides. It could go either way, but the screen getting taller/shorter in parts just doesn't seem right to me. The wide parts are supposed to be wider, not shorter :-P There's a film called 'Brainstorm' which does a similar thing on DVD. The movie was shot in two (some info says 3) ratios/formats, so that these special 'playback' sequences are big widescreen while the normal narrative parts of the film are a more standard 1.85:1 widescreen. To maintain the same picture height, they had to windowbox the 1.85:1 parts so the width expands for the wider parts. Same thing in Radio Ga Ga really. |
| kenny8 20.01.2007 00:24 |
You're spot on through all this Bubbles. I used to have Brainstorm on Laserdisc. It was letterboxed, then would go fullscreen for those sequences. Was quite effective "back in the day" |
| Deacon Fan 20.01.2007 00:41 |
Yeah the laserdisc did it the other way though.. I had it too, hehe. Maybe I'm confused about the DVD, but it's done differently and one of them seems right to me. LOL I'll pop the DVD in later and make a few caps. |
| Deacon Fan 20.01.2007 02:31 |
Oops, the DVD of Brainstorm actually does it wrongly (in my opinion) by filling the sides continuously and having the height change. It was the laserdisc which presented the film properly :-P |
| popy 20.01.2007 04:34 |
Bijou In Queens Crown wrote: I think 'Radio Ga Ga' looks terrible in that little box screen. What's the point in leaving all that black space?it's for 16:9 wide screen tv... if you had one, you'de see that the only black bars are on the side and not in a black box like they are in 4:3 tv's |
| _Bijou_ 20.01.2007 06:58 |
So you've got to compromise either way. I don't know how anyone could watch widescreen tv with the 16:9 screen. Eveything is squashed down and it's hard to look at. 4:3 I prefer, it fills the whole screen which it should do and it doesn't have those daft black rectangles on the top and bottom of the screen. |
| popy 20.01.2007 08:28 |
Bijou In Queens Crown wrote: So you've got to compromise either way. I don't know how anyone could watch widescreen tv with the 16:9 screen. Eveything is squashed down and it's hard to look at. 4:3 I prefer, it fills the whole screen which it should do and it doesn't have those daft black rectangles on the top and bottom of the screen.i think you are mistaken. maybe what you ment to say is "I don't know how anyone could watch widescreen tv with the 4:3 screen." if you watch a 16:9 tv program (let's say..the world cup in germany WAS originaly filmed in 16:9) in a 16:9 tv screen, it fills the screen.the image is not squashed down,it's the original aspect ratio,you get a wider image,a gain in i think AT LEAST 25%. here in Portugal the world cup was broadcasted in 4:3, and you now what? i've watched the world cup games in german tv,they broadcasted the games is 16:9, not a 4:3 squashed down with the 16:9 button in a 4:3 tv set. want a example of a game originally filmed in 16:9,but trasmited in Portugal (and various other country's i think) in 4:3? i give 2 screen caps of the game Portugal - Angola. i defend 16:9 if it's transmited in it's original aspect ratio, not in chopped like the screen cap version of the portuguese tv SIC. don't look at the image quality,one is hdtv, the other is analog tv. the original broadcast in 16:9 (it's HDTV from espn2) link the sh*t transmited in Portugal (and other countries) link so...you still prefer the 4:3 version instead of 16:9? i don't. in Queen videos i also stand for in the same way, if it's 16:9 (like WWRY Montreal, I Want It All video...) it should stay that way. if it's 4:3, it should stay that way also (like the Tribute Concert,the GVH DVD videos...) |
| KevoM 22.01.2007 12:11 |
What numptie made the decision to GVH1 & 2 in 16:9? Was it David Richards? It's bizaarre and embarrasingly amateurish. I never watch em anymore, I prefer the Greatest Flic promo DVD instead, ok sound is 2 channel PCM but at least it's OAR and PQ is on a par, if not better. I've got loadsa commercial DVD promo compilations from artist from the 70s and 80s and NOT one of them is in 16:9. (other than Queen!) |
