HIStory World Tour Blu-Ray & DVD Requirements

[Zakk]

I wouldn't call the vocals spotty tbh, maybe a little out of tune but they can't be that bad.

 

[AtlasAir]

But you're assuming they are perfect for no real reason. If the audience isn't hearing it, there's no reason he'd waste his voice. I believe at most he would belt out lines, words, shouts here and there, but not actually put much effort if no one was hearing it.

I mean, if there is a recording that sounds good enough to use, great. But I just don't think he would bother.

 

[Zakk]

But you're assuming they are perfect for no real reason. If the audience isn't hearing it, there's no reason he'd waste his voice. I believe at most he would belt out lines, words, shouts here and there, but not actually put much effort if no one was hearing it.

I mean, if there is a recording that sounds good enough to use, great. But I just don't think he would bother.

I never said they were perfect, read my words.

 

[MichaelD]

IF they do a widescreen release (though I'd prefer an untouched 4:3 aspect ratio) they should carefully crop the image, meaning keeping the important parts into the 16:9 frame. They have to go through cut by cut and decide what part of the image (top, bottom or middle) is more important to keep.
I did some editing on Munich '97 while ago to watch it on a widescreen TV without stretching the image too much. The following samples show an image stretched by just a few percent, keeping the natural overall image without zooming in. The image is sometimes actually moving to keep on track with MJ's motions.
On a side note: I'm all for a straight to Blu-ray/DVD release. And of course, please no Munich, a first leg show should be fine...

"Scream" sample (low quality due to vimeo's compression) - https://vimeo.com/98522209


Sample screens (they enlarge by clicking on them)

 

[Galactus123]

They shouldn't crop the image at all. The original is better because that is the full image.

 

[Dudex]

im almost sure it's bucharest 96

edit yup

Seoul also

 

[HIStoric]

They shouldn't crop the image at all. The original is better because that is the full image.

Those who shot the concert intended for it to be viewed in a 4:3 aspect ratio. There should absolutely be no stretching or cropping of any kind (and yes, I recognise MichaelD's post was only hypothetical).

 

[lougrizli]

Problem is that Estate don't communicate a lot. We're still waiting for news but nothing happened, the Online Team is useless.. "rumors are just rumors" is not an answer.
I think we care more for Michael than they do.

 

[Zakk]

They shouldn't crop the image at all. The original is better because that is the full image.

It may have been shot in 5:4 aspect ratio, which holds a little more resolution than some of the early digital cameras..

 

[HIStoric]

Problem is that Estate don't communicate a lot. We're still waiting for news but nothing happened, the Online Team is useless.. "rumors are just rumors" is not an answer.
I think we care more for Michael than they do.

Well of course they're not going to discuss unannounced products. At the end of the day, the Estate is a business and businesses almost never do that.

 

[Zakk]

Well of course they're not going to discuss unannounced products. At the end of the day, the Estate is a business and businesses almost never do that.

They should never listen to fans again, i know there was a possibility of a BAD Tour montage Blu-Ray.. just let them go ahead with high def complete experiences.. you know? i don't care if it's a mix

 

[HIStoric]

It may have been shot in 5:4 aspect ratio, which holds a little more resolution than some of the early digital cameras..

Perhaps, but it should be in the aspect ratio the cinematographers intended (which is more than likely 4:3). An example that comes to mind is the classic film Psycho, which was shot in 4:3 but Hitchcock intended the film to be viewed in 16:9 as seen here.

 

[Zakk]

If you take Brunei 1996 as an example, that was shot in 5:3 aspect ratio. Prague being from the same year, it's likely to have been filmed with the same kinda camera's if there is fact of it being shot in high def of course! i think 5:3 is the ratio of 16mm film. Cropping material to 16:9 from the 5:3 source wouldn't make much difference, although it would be preferred to be untouched.

 

[HIStoric]

If you take Brunei 1996 as an example, that was shot in 5:3 aspect ratio. Prague being from the same year, it's likely to have been filmed with the same kinda camera's if there is fact of it being shot in high def of course! i think 5:3 is the ratio of 16mm film. Cropping material to 16:9 from the 5:3 source wouldn't make much difference, although it would be preferred to be untouched.

Looking into it, Standard 16mm is 1.33:1 (aka 4:3), whereas Super 16mm, introduced in 1969, is 1.6667:1 (aka 5:3). Assuming it was shot in Super 16mm, you could crop it to widescreen with little difference as seen below.

I'd prefer whatever the cinematographers intended

 

[Zakk]

Looking into it, Standard 16mm is 1.33:1 (aka 4:3), whereas Super 16mm, introduced in 1969, is 1.6667:1 (aka 5:3). Assuming it was shot in Super 16mm, you could crop it to widescreen with little difference as seen below.

Yeah, but even if it was shot in analog high def.. it would be existing on 5:3 aspect ratio also! there is some footage in APOM from BAD 25 that was shot on 16mm and cropped to 16:9.. you could see the difference, but it still looks great. I guess it's the estate's decision though, i just want HD all the way!

 

[Hess]

Looking into it, Standard 16mm is 1.33:1 (aka 4:3), whereas Super 16mm, introduced in 1969, is 1.6667:1 (aka 5:3). Assuming it was shot in Super 16mm, you could crop it to widescreen with little difference as seen below.

I'd prefer whatever the cinematographers intended

If this is so very little they have to cut out to make it into widescreen it would be fine by me to do so.

I like to use the entire screen. - And this would not make us miss important things anyway.

I just hope for a HD Blu-Ray release soon !! - with superior sound!

 

[MichaelD]

Looking into it, Standard 16mm is 1.33:1 (aka 4:3), whereas Super 16mm, introduced in 1969, is 1.6667:1 (aka 5:3). Assuming it was shot in Super 16mm, you could crop it to widescreen with little difference as seen below.

I'd prefer whatever the cinematographers intended

That'd obviously the best. But yeah, it's just speculation what kind of sources the Estate has...
With the 'solution' I suggested couple of posts above the amount lost image data would of course be much higher, and it wouldn't work for every shot, but still it could result in a nice widescreen experience. Again, it all depends on the source.