femi
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2021
- Messages
- 173
- Points
- 43
I mean, he acts like part of the community doesn't have a copy of Nocturne's log.
Is this where this photo originates from? Is there more?
I mean, he acts like part of the community doesn't have a copy of Nocturne's log.
Yes, it is.
APOM would have to be reconstructed as the final edit is on tape.I just wanna say Bad & APOM (live) should've been the first HD videos the Estate posted on the YT channel, they had those Bad short films ready since 2012.
Yes, it is.
Yes, there's more. The full log, to be more precise.
It has not been made public yet.Wait where?
Or they could just re-title the vid: Michael Jackson- Another Part Of Me (New Edit) or Michael Jackson- Another Part Of Me (Director's Cut) (Official 4k Video) or just create another vid all together and update the old video with a master.APOM would have to be reconstructed as the final edit is on tape.
Oh I see.It has not been made public yet.
MJ Beats teased an upcoming book on the tour put together by themselves, which would contain portions (or the full log with all the pages), but it was never released and they just stopped talking about it.
I was gonna link the teaser here for you, but it seems they have made it private on their YouTube channel. The video showed an animation of the pages turning.Oh I see.
Private or Unlisted? Or it's actually private?I was gonna link the teaser here for you, but it seems they have made it private on their YouTube channel. The video showed an animation of the pages turning.
Dawg we want the original video. It's not hard to reconstruct it with the original footage. if they have most of it I don't see why not.Or they could just re-title the vid: Michael Jackson- Another Part Of Me (New Edit) or Michael Jackson- Another Part Of Me (Director's Cut) (Official 4k Video) or just create another vid all together and update the old video with a master.
True, I just think some of the shots in the video are just virtually impossible to piece back together unless they have the original workprint and blueprint of where the footage goes. In one frame, Mike could be in Paris, next he could be in UK, and then in Lausanne. It's scattered, it's a whole bunch of footage. Hopefully they just find the good master tape of it in storage.Dawg we want the original video. It's not hard to reconstruct it with the original footage. if they have most of it I don't see why not.
Some of them are more than likely rarer but again, most of the tour was on film right? They go back to the master tapes and it'll probably have enough of it. Recreation with similar footage is also likely and possible, so it might be different as you said, after all.True, I just think some of the shots in the video are just virtually impossible to piece back together unless they have the original workprint and blueprint of where the footage goes. In one frame, Mike could be in Paris, next he could be in UK, and then in Lausanne. It's scattered, it's a whole bunch of footage. Hopefully they just find the good master tape of it in storage.
Yep, different dates on tour were filmed. Michael liked his documentation. I just don't know why nobody in the Jackson camp or MJ himself didn't find interest or value in the footage. Just to not do a BWT release and put the footage somewhere. Heard LA was considered for a release but I don't know how true that is, a source would help. Imagine working as an editor on the 4K APOM project for the Estate, I wouldn't mind going through footage and piecing the footage together. Getting delivered digitized tapes every day and recreating the slow scenes, looking at different fans reactions to a MJ concert in the tapes. I'm an editor myself and I find that process very interesting, I would volunteer.Some of them are more than likely rarer but again, most of the tour was on film right? They go back to the master tapes and it'll probably have enough of it. Recreation with similar footage is also likely and possible, so it might be different as you said, after all.
Great question.Private or Unlisted? Or it's actually private?
Will You Be There also has multiple versions right? There's an angel, angel free version? You Are Not Alone also? You seem like you'd know about that.Yep, different dates on tour were filmed. Michael liked his documentation. I just don't know why nobody in the Jackson camp or MJ himself didn't find interest or value in the footage. Just to not do a BWT release and put the footage somewhere. Heard LA was considered for a release but I don't know how true that is, a source would help. Imagine working as an editor on the 4K APOM project for the Estate, I wouldn't mind going through footage and piecing the footage together. Getting delivered digitized tapes every day and recreating the slow scenes, looking at different fans reactions to a MJ concert in the tapes. I'm an editor myself and I find that process very interesting, I would volunteer.
I wouldnt say impossible, just expensive and would take alot more time. This is probably the reason why we didn't get it in 2012. Instead of tracking down, scanning, and editing the film shot for shot, they got spike to just make his own edit. I love the quality but spikes edit is nowhere close to as good as the original.True, I just think some of the shots in the video are just virtually impossible to piece back together unless they have the original workprint and blueprint of where the footage goes. In one frame, Mike could be in Paris, next he could be in UK, and then in Lausanne. It's scattered, it's a whole bunch of footage. Hopefully they just find the good master tape of it in storage.
Time consuming & costly?? WTF else are they doing. They got time! & hell of cash from us with the dumbest releases. (Chalk)There are a LOT of digital FX on that short film though, so I'd imagine it would be very costly and time consuming to replicate those.
Then you lose detail.Yeah they are not remastering ancient film footage just to keep the grain on it.
Maybe? Expound on this plzThen you lose detail.
It'd be nice if they had been working on this the whole time. Since at least Vision came out.Black or White is absolutely, 100% shot on film based on that photo. That's a Panavision camera - potentially the Panavision Platinum Panaflex, from 1986.
Which would mean it was shot in 35mm film - which would scan to 4k easily, 6k res at a push.
There are a LOT of digital FX on that short film though, so I'd imagine it would be very costly and time consuming to replicate those.
Vision should have been delayed to be a BluRay boxset, rather than compiling the same old copies with minor fixes (a lightning-like film artifact on a frame of Billie Jean, for example).It'd be nice if they had been working on this the whole time. Since at least Vision came out.
Vision was a great item as well, rarely talked about.
When it comes to actual film and not digital recording grain is always there. If you remove too much grain you lose detail.Maybe? Expound on this plz
I don't know where you heard vision was great. Probably the worst quality the short films have been released in tbh. Another one of the estate's amazing "remasters".It'd be nice if they had been working on this the whole time. Since at least Vision came out.
Vision was a great item as well, rarely talked about.
This is interesting because some dates doesn’t seem to match up with the available date information out there on the internet.Yes, it is.
Yes, there's more. The full log, to be more precise.
Yeah, a bunch of dates were either cancelled or rescheduled (Montpellier and Nice being examples that come to mind).This is interesting because some dates doesn’t seem to match up with the available date information out there on the internet.
I see. Well don't remove all the grain. Just don't leave obvious artifacts all over it.When it comes to actual film and not digital recording grain is always there. If you remove too much grain you lose detail.
I like the idea of it okay? I know it's standard def to say the least.I don't know where you heard vision was great. Probably the worst quality the short films have been released in tbh. Another one of the estate's amazing "remasters".
The picture in physical film is made of grain so removing it removes detail. Good Blu-Ray releases of older movies have film grain. If you remove it too much faces start to look very waxy and unnatural. Left image is from a bad Blu-Ray release with grain removed using DNR (digital noice reduction):Maybe? Expound on this plz
Doesn't the Beatles Get Back remove most of its grain?The picture in physical film is made of grain so removing it removes detail. Good Blu-Ray releases of older movies have film grain. If you remove it too much faces start to look very waxy and unnatural. Left image is from a bad Blu-Ray release with grain removed using DNR (digital noice reduction):
I haven't seen it but I have heard it does.Doesn't the Beatles Get Back remove most of its grain?