ChrisC
Guests
You did! hahaha
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Michael Jackson’s Thriller 3D
- Thread starter datblackboi08
- Start date
You did! hahaha
Hulkamaniac
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,531
- Points
- 113
Oh yes I'm sorry. i thought he was referring about Ghosts. I prefer a Victory Tour DVD from the original analog master tape instead of a Blu ray, because I'm realistic, there is no way they could find and work on the film reels from it
Joce
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Messages
- 123
- Points
- 0
Oh yes I'm sorry. i thought he was referring about Ghosts. I prefer a Victory Tour DVD from the original analog master tape instead of a Blu ray, because I'm realistic, there is no way they could find and work on the film reels from it
Uh, if they work from the original negatives, they can release it in 4K. I'm almost sure that the show from Toronto has been shot in 35mm.
But with the Estate, we can dream.
Last edited:
Hulkamaniac
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,531
- Points
- 113
Uh, I know and I repeat what I said, it's impossible that they could ever work with the film reels/original negatives (call them as you wish). Toronto? prove it. Source is tape and it does not have any film grain on it. it's tape. I don't see any film cameras on the stage either
Joce
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Messages
- 123
- Points
- 0
Uh, I know and I repeat what I said, it's impossible that they could ever work with the film reels/original negatives (call them as you wish). Toronto? prove it. Source is tape and it does not have any film grain on it. it's tape. I don't see any film cameras on the stage either
So you are saying that "It's impossible" just because you haven't see any grain on the crappy videos from Youtube ? LOL you made my day. Do you know that you need a HD version (at least a true 720p) to see the grain on any film ? It's like saying "Thriller was shot on tape and not on film, because i don't see any film grain on it when i watch it on Youtube lolz". And please stop your attitude "You are wrong, and i'm right" It's pretty childish.
Last edited:
Galactus123
Proud Member
Last edited:
Hulkamaniac
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,531
- Points
- 113
lmaooooo I'm talking about the FILM DIRT/GRAIN which you can even see in the crappy low quality version of Thriller and on many other film footage edited on tape. Did I need true 720p to see the film dirt/grain on those? I guess not.
With that said, prove Toronto is on film I'm waiting
Galactus123
Proud Member
Toronto videos we have are not from film. There is no reason to believe that. They are most likely just jumbotron footage.
Galactus123
Proud Member
Someone who has seen Thriller 3D says on the other MJ forum that the making-of documentary was not restored. I'm sure he would have noticed if it was in HD. It might be disappointing to some people but I wasn't really expecting them to make HD version of an old TV documentary.
Joce
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Messages
- 123
- Points
- 0
lmaooooo I'm talking about the FILM DIRT/GRAIN which you can even see in the crappy low quality version of Thriller and on many other film footage edited on tape. Did I need true 720p to see the film dirt/grain on those? I guess not.
With that said, prove Toronto is on film I'm waiting
So obviously you don't even know about what you are talking about :doh: Because Film dirt and Film grain is totally different FYI
. Grain is part of the film, film dirt isn't. Even with a giant monitor or TV it is impossible to see the grain in Thriller, except the snippet in Moonwalker Blu-ray. (We will see it perfectly in the restored 4K version that John Landis made).And about the Victory Tour, sorry man, i didn't shot myself the Victory Tour and do not have the reels in my bedroom, but i wish though. You should just made some search about Patrick Kelly, the guy who shot it (and some part at the Bad Tour), or make a request to the Estate, maybe they will answer you
Joce
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Messages
- 123
- Points
- 0
Yeah, i have heard this too : "Thriller was made in the 80's, HD wasn't here, why do you ask a blu-ray for this lol"
Who the hell said DVD? I'm talking about the 2010 broadcast of Ghost, in excellent 1080i HD quality. You must be a billionaire if you had that resolution on your TV in 2004. If the Estate decides to release it, it would look the same because it was not edited on film, the special effects were edited on tape. So keep dreaming til they release a real HD version of Ghosts
The Film - http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...nd-WAV-added-Tutorial)?highlight=ghosts+1080i
The Making of - http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...annel)-(506-MB)-(720p)?highlight=ghosts+1080i
By the way, I'm sure that nobody needs a Blu ray of anything.
That channel broadcasted in 1080i, but the version of Ghosts that was aired there was in SD, not HD.
That version was in a 4:3 format, if it was in HD, the original fiim reels would have been scanned and the movie would be displayed in 16:9, not 4:3, and i have seen the broadcast and it is far from HD in quality, so a lot can be gained with a blu-ray release.
Same with the History Tour Munich that aired on ZDF, their channel broadcasts in 720p, but they just broadcasted the version they had, which was an old copy in SD, hence the same 4:3 seen in Ghosts. That concert was reportedly shot in native 1080i, but that version has not been broadcasted.
Just because a channel broadcasts in HD does not mean that the content is in HD.
Last edited:
Galactus123
Proud Member
I hope so. Some companies have ruined many classics by removing the grain. I hope they didn't make that mistake.So obviously you don't even know about what you are talking about :doh: Because Film dirt and Film grain is totally different FYI
What does that have to do with what I said?
Joce
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Messages
- 123
- Points
- 0
myosotis
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,224
- Points
- 48
This is a letter from the film editor of the 3D film Captain EO (Walter Murch) to Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times who reviewed 'The Green Hornet' in 3D.
Murch says that 3D film does not (and never will) work properly with human vision..........
Hello Roger,
I read your review of "The Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.
The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.
I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.
The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.
If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.
We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.
Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.
And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch.
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here is Murch talking about editing Capt EO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnv1X06AsL4
Murch says that 3D film does not (and never will) work properly with human vision..........
Hello Roger,
I read your review of "The Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.
The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.
I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.
The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.
If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.
We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.
Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.
And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch.
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here is Murch talking about editing Capt EO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnv1X06AsL4
Robbsaber01
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 113
Patrick Kelly did film on his own camera (towards the end you can see him on stage) but the toronto footage we have is from the jumbotron VHS. It was probably shot on Betacam then transferred later on..
Hulkamaniac
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,531
- Points
- 113
EXACTLY! But most of the concert, Patrick filmed the crowd reactions. There is no proof that a Victory or Bad Tour was filmed in full, at least from start to finish.
IMWhizzle
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,134
- Points
- 63
Galactus123
Proud Member
Actually there is proof that full Bad Tour concerts were filmed. Read this:
https://icolorist.com/2011/07/29/grading-michael-jackson/
I'm suprised if you haven't seen that. That guy Warren Eagles worked on the films and he has no reason to lie. Some fans have also contacted him on twitter and he has said that full shows were filmed. I don't know about Victory Tour.
HIStoric
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 3,456
- Points
- 48
Yeah, Galactus is right. Bad Tour was shot on film. It's just a question of where the film is, given Michael's sporadic archiving habits.
Last edited:
HIStoric
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 3,456
- Points
- 48
Not always the case. It'll vary film by film, by what the DOP has chosen as well as the type of film stock it was shot on.
Great example are older films before the 1950s (before widescreen took over to combat the competition television brought to cinema), which took up most of the frame and shot with 4:3 in mind. See this shot from Casablanca below:
You're not going to get a widescreen version of Casablanca that allows you see what's to the side of Humphrey Bogart here.
Some TV shows in the 1990s, such as The X Files or That 70s Show were shot on film 'protecting for 16:9'. This basically means when they shot, they deliberately allowed extra room on the side, before going in and cropping it to 4:3 when it first entered post-production, so the editors never looked at the 16:9 image.
It's not perfect however, as you can see. They've been able to get some extra room on the side (we can see the record collection on the right for example), but unfortunately Fez (in orange) has had his feet cut off. We can assume that the DOP for this episode shot it on normal 35mm film, and framed it to allow for later cropping to widescreen, but used almost all of the frame vertically in the 4:3 version, and therefore to keep with the 16:9 aspect ratio they could go a bit extra on the sides but had to cut off some of the top/bottom.
It also comes down to the film stock they use too. Here is a comparison of The X Files, which was shot on 35mm. Left shot is how it aired originally in 4:3, right shot is how it aired in 16:9. You can ignore the grids, but if you wanna know, the red grid represents what extra information you see on the 16:9 image, the green grid shows what you seen on the 4:3 image.
Season 1:
Season 3:
These two episodes were shot on different 35mm film stocks (4-perf Academy Offset 35mm vs 3-perf or 4-perf Super-35mm). As you can see in Season 1, as with that 70s Show, they lost some of the top and bottom when formatting for 16:9. However in Season 3, using a different 35mm film type (Super 35mm), they were able to extend to the sides without any loss of the image. Super 35mm allows for a wider image because it utilises the part of the film strip that is normally reserved for the optical audio track.
Now I have to admit, I haven't read the whole argument between you all, but assuming you're talking about Ghosts, depending on what the DOP framed the shot for and depending on the film type they used, it's definitely possible we can get a widescreen version which just extends out the sides, or we can get a widescreen version that cuts off some of the top/bottom. This begs many questions, did the DOP intend for it to be shown in 16:9 or 4:3? If we're using plain old 35m, will the crop cut off Michael's feet? This is a creative dilemma that the Estate will not go for as Michael made it known he wanted the feet to be visible. Personally, I like seeing it widescreen but if the DOP preferred it to be shown in 4:3, then I'm fine with that.
Last edited:
Galactus123
Proud Member
Interview with Landis:
Not always the case. It'll vary film by film, by what the DOP has chosen as well as the type of film stock it was shot on.
Great example are older films before the 1950s (before widescreen took over to combat the competition television brought to cinema), which took up most of the frame and shot with 4:3 in mind. See this shot from Casablanca below:
You're not going to get a widescreen version of Casablanca that allows you see what's to the side of Humphrey Bogart here.
Some TV shows in the 1990s, such as The X Files or That 70s Show were shot on film 'protecting for 16:9'. This basically means when they shot, they deliberately allowed extra room on the side, before going in and cropping it to 4:3 when it first entered post-production, so the editors never looked at the 16:9 image.
It's not perfect however, as you can see. They've been able to get some extra room on the side (we can see the record collection on the right for example), but unfortunately Fez (in orange) has had his feet cut off. We can assume that the DOP for this episode shot it on normal 35mm film, and framed it to allow for later cropping to widescreen, but used almost all of the frame vertically in the 4:3 version, and therefore to keep with the 16:9 aspect ratio they could go a bit extra on the sides but had to cut off some of the top/bottom.
It also comes down to the film stock they use too. Here is a comparison of The X Files, which was shot on 35mm. Left shot is how it aired originally in 4:3, right shot is how it aired in 16:9. You can ignore the grids, but if you wanna know, the red grid represents what extra information you see on the 16:9 image, the green grid shows what you seen on the 4:3 image.
Season 1:
Season 3:
These two episodes were shot on different 35mm film stocks (4-perf Academy Offset 35mm vs 3-perf or 4-perf Super-35mm). As you can see in Season 1, as with that 70s Show, they lost some of the top and bottom when formatting for 16:9. However in Season 3, using a different 35mm film type (Super 35mm), they were able to extend to the sides without any loss of the image. Super 35mm allows for a wider image because it utilises the part of the film strip that is normally reserved for the optical audio track.
Now I have to admit, I haven't read the whole argument between you all, but assuming you're talking about Ghosts, depending on what the DOP framed the shot for and depending on the film type they used, it's definitely possible we can get a widescreen version which just extends out the sides, or we can get a widescreen version that cuts off some of the top/bottom. This begs many questions, did the DOP intend for it to be shown in 16:9 or 4:3? If we're using plain old 35m, will the crop cut off Michael's feet? This is a creative dilemma that the Estate will not go for as Michael made it known he wanted the feet to be visible. Personally, I like seeing it widescreen but if the DOP preferred it to be shown in 4:3, then I'm fine with that.
Good points here , i noticed in the blu-ray of Moonwalker, some of the bottom and height was cut a little bit, but i think in most cases, like for a blu-ray release they would choose a 16:9 ratio for Ghosts like Moonwalker if possible.
But yes, i was referring to Ghosts, the version broadcasted was not in HD regardless of the aspect ratio
Considering the age of Ghosts, since it it not that old 16:9 would be most likely for a release i guess.Galactus123
Proud Member
Would be great if they included both aspect ratio versions when they release Thriller 3D on Blu-ray. 1.85:1(almost 16:9) is the version they show in cinemas but people have gotten used to the 4:3 tv version. Would be awesome to have both.
Robbsaber01
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 113
Bad tour Leeds, victory tour (chicago?) Were shot on film in full.
barbee0715
Proud Member
If he hadn't said some really hateful, hurtful things before Michael died, I'd give this comment a pass.^
Landis seems to have a mental 'script' which includes mentioning 'W J' at any opportunity. He can't even be respectful for one interview?
He's right-the Making of Thriller seemed like a joyous, thrilling, wonderful time in Michael's life, where everything he had worked so hard for had come together. Everybody in the world was seeing what I had been raving on for years. All the crap stuff came later.
His comment kinda reminds me of that magazine cover where Michael is doing a self portrait of himself a la Norman Rockwell. It's like after his death, the tabloid stuff just fell apart-it's lovely that we can enjoy and remember him and talk about him without all that baggage and that's my hope for this next generation coming up.
Hulkamaniac
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,531
- Points
- 113
Yes, I posted this before but nobody seemed to notice it lol, a guy from MJHO who saw it posted this -