shaun vox
New Yorker
fuck me
WalkOn21 said:Why is everyone so certain that it's going to be released? There have been exactly zero official announcements about it. Everyone's just assuming they're going to release it, because, "they have filmed it, right? Who in their right mind would not release something that has been filmed?"
The San Diego shows were pro-shot too, does anyone think they will have a DVD release? No? Then tell me, why would the Milan show have a DVD release.
tuwie said:^____________^ omg! yay
is this the show the day after adam missed one?
tuwie said:^____________^ omg! yay
is this the show the day after adam missed one?
WalkOn21 said:
It'd better be 16:9, or...
Chrisedge said:
It wasn't filmed in HiDef, or with film, so I fully think this will be in it's original aspect ratio (Which is what you want) as 4:3.
ntalwar said:I agree with the HD part, but do we know for a fact that is was filmed in 4:3 and not movie film ratio?
Popmartijn said:
Yes, as it was filmed specifically for television. In fact, the concert was broadcasted (almost) live on a pay-per-view channel.
And oh, in those days there weren't any 16:9 TVs, so TV = 4:3.
ntalwar said:
I agree with the HD part, but do we know for a fact that is was filmed in 4:3 and not movie film ratio?
Zooropean103 said:clips on 60 minutes, ESPN, vertigo on U2.communication CD and now COBL on new U2 video iPOD
While many people think that 16:9 must mean it's either filmed in HD or shot on film, that isn't true. Many European tv shows have been in 16:9 for years, shot on video and broadcasted standard def. Look at the BBC.Chrisedge said:
It wasn't filmed in HiDef, or with film, so I fully think this will be in it's original aspect ratio (Which is what you want) as 4:3.
WalkOn21 said:While many people think that 16:9 must mean it's either filmed in HD or shot on film, that isn't true. Many European tv shows have been in 16:9 for years, shot on video and broadcasted standard def. Look at the BBC.
Also, the 'fan cam' footage on the Boston DVD is 16:9. Clearly this 'fan' isn't holding a film camera or a HD camera.
Partyslammer said:It's entirely possible and a bit unfortunate, but the 4:3 original video could be matted for the 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio. This would suck because it would crop the top and bottom of the original picture.
If it would suck depends on how the matting is done.Partyslammer said:It's entirely possible and a bit unfortunate, but the 4:3 original video could be matted for the 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio. This would suck because it would crop the top and bottom of the original picture.
WalkOn21 said:In this process the cropping is decided on a frame-by-frame basis. If done properly, there will be no decapitated band members.
My widescreen tv doesn't display 4:3 that well, so I hope for a 16:9 DVD. But I can understand others have their own preferences.
Chrisedge said:I'll take OAR please (4:3) even though I have a beautiful 16:9 set!
To those that think they'd prefer a matted 16:9 image, understand that when the video was originally shot, the compositions were photographed with 4:3 viewing in mind. So if the original video is matted for widescreen tvs, no matter how carefully someone even shot by shot tries to get a decent composition, it's still not going to look right and in some instances will undoubtably looks screwed up and distracting.
Also, as I mentioned previously, a non HD matted 16:9 video will have to be upscaled and it will be noticably grainier on *any* tv then any true HD video such as the recent Chicago dvd. I'd say again, just release it as it was originally shot.
Bigger is sometimes not better.
One of the common questions we've had is over the screen format. It is being presented in 4:3 format... attempts were made to create a good widescreen picture, but as it was originally shot in 4:3, this proved difficult. Decisions were then made to revert to 4:3 (standard television shape).