MERGED ----> ZOO TV DVD Hits Amazon + ZOO TV DVD info

[Morgoth321]

I haven't read all 10 pages of this thread, but it seems to have gotten bogged down on technical issues, so hopefully I can go somewhere else.

When I heard about this DVD release, I shared the news with a U2 fan I work with. He then lent me the VHS version of ZOOTV from Sydney, and I watched it last night. I won't discuss picture and sound quality, other than to say that they aren't great on VHS. However, this PERFORMANCE reminded me why I love U2 so much - the segue from RTSS into Streets is spine-tinglingly emotional. The dancer is of course Edge's future wife. Adam seems happy and relieved to still be in the band. Edge is clearly balding under his hat, and Bono is a fabulous frontman who OWNS the huge stadium through force of personality. Larry is just Larry, with bonus points for his leather waistcoat.

I especially like the way the huge brash spectacle of ZooTV slowly and gently ebbs away with the somewhat sinister 'Love is Blindness,' and then a falsetto-laden 'I Can't Help Falling In Love With You'. I'll be buying the DVD.

 

[Neilz]

I haven't read all 10 pages of this thread, but it seems to have gotten bogged down on technical issues, so hopefully I can go somewhere else.

When I heard about this DVD release, I shared the news with a U2 fan I work with. He then lent me the VHS version of ZOOTV from Sydney, and I watched it last night. I won't discuss picture and sound quality, other than to say that they aren't great on VHS. However, this PERFORMANCE reminded me why I love U2 so much - the segue from RTSS into Streets is spine-tinglingly emotional. The dancer is of course Edge's future wife. Adam seems happy and relieved to still be in the band. Edge is clearly balding under his hat, and Bono is a fabulous frontman who OWNS the huge stadium through force of personality. Larry is just Larry, with bonus points for his leather waistcoat.

I especially like the way the huge brash spectacle of ZooTV slowly and gently ebbs away with the somewhat sinister 'Love is Blindness,' and then a falsetto-laden 'I Can't Help Falling In Love With You'. I'll be buying the DVD.

Of course I agree... But noone is questioning the PERFORMANCE and the 'must-have' value of this DVD you know

 

[ponkine]

I'm glad I'm not the only one

The performance IS the most important thing in any live DVD

That makes a world of difference between US fans and Latin American ones: I've read countless fans reviews from USA who acclaim every DVD with a great 5.1 mix. DTS, Surround, etc, etc ... without a care in the world about the actual performance

On the contrary, most of Latin American fans don't review the 4:3 aspect or 16:9 or whatever. We review the reason for buying or not a live DVD: THE PERFORMANCE Undeniably, the most important aspect, obviously !!!!

Sadly, most of critics reviews focus their articles on technical aspects, I mean, Audio set up options, Aspect, Ratio, Menus, etc, etc ... and very little words about the actual quality of the performance. So wrong

Of course nobody want to have a watch and listen to a dry VHS-DVD transfer on the fly, with today's technology every artist can make a much more professional transfer. But when we're talking about (for example) those recently found performances after decades of collecting dust and dampness, which option is better:

To see those previously unreleased performances on DVD at last?... or keep hidding the stuff from the fans?

In the case of Zoo TV, of course everybody knows it was previously released on VHS. Considering it's a quite new performance, the remastering results should be amazing
The most sad thing is they didn't include TTYAAT and the lack of extras. That's simply unforgivable. I'd rather see a 1 DVD version with all those short extras instead. It's clear the 2 DVD version is only for the bucks, not for the fans.

Does anyone in here remember the 12 hours (yes 12 !!!) of Zoo TV on DVD topic?
How many Zoo TV concert professionally filmed do you think the band have?... just Sidney?...

 

[U2Man]

The dancer is of course Edge's future wife.

Are you sure? I believe they used two belly dancers during the ZOO-TV tour. One was Morleigh (Edge's wife now) and the other was called Christina, as far as I remember. I think the one you see on the Sydney video is Christina.

 

[J_NP]

Are you sure? I believe they used two belly dancers during the ZOO-TV tour. One was Morleigh (Edge's wife now) and the other was called Christina, as far as I remember. I think the one you see on the Sydney video is Christina.

Directed by : DAVID MALLETT Produced by : NED O'HANLON & ROCKY OLDHAM Lighting Consultant : ALLEN BRANTON U2 Show Designer : PETER 'WILLIE' WILLIAMS Sound Recording : ROBBIE ADAMS Editors : TIM WADDELL, DAVE GARDNER, BRUCE McKENNA Choreographer/Dancer : MORLEIGH STEINBERG.

 

[U2Man]

I stand corrected.

Why is it that she doesn't look like Morleigh then?

 

[WalkOn21]

PS. Chrisedge is right in my opinion... cropping old 2.4:1 movies to 4:3 is not more than normal... The bars on the screen would be larger than life!

It wasn't Chrisedge, but Ntalwar who said that. Chrisedge considers it a crime to crop 2.39:1 to 4:3. By the way, why do you say "old" 2.39:1 movies? Almost all 'wider than 16:9' movies these days are still 2.39:1.

Furthermore; The sides of a movie screen are never as important as the top/bottom of a movie screen... Cropping a perfectly normal and good 4:3 format to 16:9 is a crime!

I wonder how you came to that idea. Because it's largely untrue.
The human vision concentrates on width, not on height. We will notice changes in width sooner than changes in height. This has nothing to do with cinematography, aspect ratios, or television screens. It's a biologic fact.
You can't say it's less noticeable to crop horizontally than cropping vertically.

 

[J_NP]

She does look mate In Fact , the thing reminds the most is , like I find Morleigh much more pretty than the other one , Cristina . Watch Mysterious Ways again , specially the end , in the solo .

 

[Neilz]

It wasn't Chrisedge, but Ntalwar who said that. Chrisedge considers it a crime to crop 2.39:1 to 4:3. By the way, why do you say "old" 2.39:1 movies? Almost all 'wider than 16:9' movies these days are still 2.39:1.

But these days most people have widescreen TV's and it's no longer needed to crop these formats.. That's why I was refering to 'old' as in 'those days'...

I wonder how you came to that idea. Because it's largely untrue.
The human vision concentrates on width, not on height. We will notice changes in width sooner than changes in height. This has nothing to do with cinematography, aspect ratios, or television screens. It's a biologic fact.
You can't say it's less noticeable to crop horizontally than cropping vertically.

Of course you are right about this... And I was not refering to this... Everyone knows why there is widescreen; Because the human vision is based on width...

What I was trying to say was that the sides of a 16:9 picture are never (or almost never) as important as the top and bottom of 4:3 or picture... And with important I'm talking about the what's happening onscreen and not the human vision...

With most 4:3 version's of 2.39:1 movies people don't even notice what's missing on the sides... But when Bono's head is missing because the 4:3 version is cropped to 16:9, people will certainly notice that

 

[WalkOn21]

What I was trying to say was that the sides of a 16:9 picture are never (or almost never) as important as the top and bottom of 4:3 or picture... And with important I'm talking about the what's happening onscreen and not the human vision...

With most 4:3 version's of 2.39:1 movies people don't even notice what's missing on the sides... But when Bono's head is missing because the 4:3 version is cropped to 16:9, people will certainly notice that

Well, on some points I agree with you.

Truth is, it entirely depends on the composition. For example, BBC detective series are usually very well framed: they're really using the entire 1.78:1 frame. For Dutch tv they're cropped to 4:3 and it's noticeable instantly. Framing becomes very tight then.

2.39:1 movies are usually framed so that cutting them to 1.78:1 doesn't remove much (apart from destroying the composition). For most 2.39:1 movies there really isn't much extra information in the far left and far right corners, just extra space to make the movie feel wider.
However, cropping them to 4:3 certainly does remove vital information in many cases: in a dialogue where one person is at the left side of the frame and the other at the right side, the image has to be panned for the 1.33:1 version (while in the original 2.39:1 the camera was just unmovingly at the same spot).

It all depends on
a) how tight the framing is
and
b) how much you crop off

 

[Chrisedge]

Bah, it is a crime. I grabbed 4 frames from the Laserdisc version of the DVD.

First
4:3

Or
16:9

The opening shot...mmm might work even if it was "tighter"


Next
The Edge walking
4:3

Or
16:9

I really didn't see him walking cause that was all cut off.

The Fly (Screens)
4:3

Or
16:9

Wow, when I saw it in concert originally it was cool to see it transfered to the video kinda the same way..but now all the letters don't really "fit" They are all at the bottom...and sometimes the heads get cut off.

Acoustic Stage
4:3

Or
16:9

I prefer the original shot.

Keep it 4:3

 

[U2Man]

If they haven't recorded it in 16:9, I don't think they should release it at all.

 

[WalkOn21]

My attempts:

I don't think I'm missing any vital information on these, compared to the 4:3 version.

 

[Popmartijn]

My attempts:

I don't think I'm missing any vital information on these, compared to the 4:3 version.

Well, to me it looks like you did 'flatten' the images a bit in order to show more information in the 16:9. So not only is there less information than in the 4:3 view, the images are also distorted!
I'd say, when the DVD gets released, feel free to make your own 16:9 version, but I prefer the original one.

 

[WalkOn21]

Well, to me it looks like you did 'flatten' the images a bit in order to show more information in the 16:9. So not only is there less information than in the 4:3 view, the images are also distorted!

Eh, flatten? I take it by 'flattening' you mean cropping the frame at the top and bottom (which indeed makes it "flatter")? 'Cause that's all I did.

I just cropped 120px off the top/bottom using Irfanview. Maybe you're trying so hard to prove that cropping is evil, that you're now actually seeing things that aren't there? To my eyes, there's nothing unnatural to those screenshots (like guitars that are too long, or Bono suddenly being 10 pounds heavier).

 

[U2FanPeter]

They did a 16x9 edit of the Peter Gabriel Secret World Tour DVD, which was originally shot and released on 4:3 VHS.

Go to Amazon.com and read the PG fans SAVAGE the editting job and asking for their money back. I have the DVD and hacking off the bottom and top of the picture ruined the concert film.

All Hollywood films prior to 1955 or so were shot on 4:3. Are any of them cropped 16x9 for current release?

Does anyone know if ZOOTV was actually shot on HD or not. I know that the technology existed back then on some japanese broadcasts around the time. Woodstock 94 was shot on HD.

Where the ZOOTV Sydney DVD should shine most is the Audio upgrade. It's quite pathetic on VHS and the PCM track on Boston/Slane etc.. have been extrememly good for music DVDs. Way better than the 2 ZOOTV Live samples released on 90/00 and Boston.

u2fp

 

[ntalwar]

They did a 16x9 edit of the Peter Gabriel Secret World Tour DVD, which was originally shot and released on 4:3 VHS.

Go to Amazon.com and read the PG fans SAVAGE the editting job and asking for their money back. I have the DVD and hacking off the bottom and top of the picture ruined the concert film.

The bad amazon reviews I read complained about the grainy video for Peter Gabriel, not the cropping. In other words, it was a poor DVD transfer. It is rated at 4* overall.

There is also the 2001 "Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band - Live in New York City" DVD which is 16:9 and has rave reviews. This was originally a HBO TV broadcast (so I assume 4:3).

 

[Popmartijn]

There is also the 2001 "Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band - Live in New York City" DVD which is 16:9 and has rave reviews. This was originally a HBO TV broadcast (so I assume 4:3).

No, Bruce Springsteen's shows were shot in 16:9. I can remember reading about this (and that one way or another it wasn't possible for U2 to shoot the Boston shows in 16:9).

 

[WalkOn21]

Does anyone know if ZOOTV was actually shot on HD or not. I know that the technology existed back then on some japanese broadcasts around the time. Woodstock 94 was shot on HD.

LOL, HD? Boston was shot on video and in 4:3, and you think 8 years earlier ZooTV was shot in HD? Even U2 don't go backwards in technology.

 

[U2FanPeter]

LOL, HD? Boston was shot on video and in 4:3, and you think 8 years earlier ZooTV was shot in HD? Even U2 don't go backwards in technology.

My inquiries have more to do due whether the visuals on a upcoming DVD will be a noticable upgrade from the 1994 Sydney DVD or the original PPV broadcast. I also wonder if the sample on the Boston DVD was merely a copy of the laserdisc rather than a complete remastering.

u2fp

 

[clifedge]

I only just now found out about this release! This is gonna be freaking sweet!

 

[clifedge]

doesn't look like it's listed on the U.S. site yet...

Still isn't...

 

[lazarus]

I can't believe the statement "Most people now have widescreen TVs". Most rich people, maybe. I know they're steadily getting cheaper, but the notion that anywhere near a majority of the public who will buy this DVD has a widescreen television is absolutely insane. I would venture to say it's 5% or less, and even if the DVD is for posterity I don't think it should simply cater to those with the most current technology. Save that for an HD or Blu-Ray release.

 

[U2Man]

I can't believe the statement "Most people now have widescreen TVs". Most rich people, maybe. I know they're steadily getting cheaper, but the notion that anywhere near a majority of the public who will buy this DVD has a widescreen television is absolutely insane. I would venture to say it's 5% or less, and even if the DVD is for posterity I don't think it should simply cater to those with the most current technology. Save that for an HD or Blu-Ray release.

Definitely not 5% or less in Europe. You can hardly buy 4:3 TV's anymore where I live. 16:9 is not a luxury here at all.

 

[U2FanPeter]

Definitely not 5% or less in Europe. You can hardly buy 4:3 TV's anymore where I live. 16:9 is not a luxury here at all.

If it's so many, why not release 2 versions of the DVD. it should be as much hassle as the jewel case/dvd case release of Slane or the 1/2 disc version of Chicago.

u2fp

 

[Neilz]

My attempts:

I don't think I'm missing any vital information on these, compared to the 4:3 version.

I don't like any cropping or flatting... So I don't like this either

 

[LMP]

im still excited for ZooTV, but is there any news at all for PopMart?

 

[WalkOn21]

I can't believe the statement "Most people now have widescreen TVs". (...) I would venture to say it's 5% or less

That's a ridiculous statement. Here in Europe about 55% of the tv-owners have a widescreen tv. Now I know it's less in the US, but 5% or less? No way.

even if the DVD is for posterity I don't think it should simply cater to those with the most current technology.

The 'most current technology'? Are you joking? Widescreen tv's have been on the market since 1992. That's 14 years ago, that's even before ZooTV Sydney was recorded! I can't call that 'current technology'.

 

[mobvok]

I can't believe the statement "Most people now have widescreen TVs". Most rich people, maybe. I know they're steadily getting cheaper, but the notion that anywhere near a majority of the public who will buy this DVD has a widescreen television is absolutely insane. I would venture to say it's 5% or less, and even if the DVD is for posterity I don't think it should simply cater to those with the most current technology. Save that for an HD or Blu-Ray release.

A quick Google reveals this:

http://www.awb.org/cgi-bin/absolutenm/templates/?a=644&z=10

He doesn't reveal the source, but the guy claims as of 2004 that 25% of all Americans have a widescreen TV. I can only imagine it's gone up in the last two years as HD has taken off. I can also tell you from my brief employment in a furniture store that we were only selling widescreen TVs because that's all anyone wanted. Makes everyone who bought big screen 4:3 TVs in the late 90s look a little foolish now. I know I'd rather watch a 30 inch HDTV then a 50 inch 4:3 SDTV.

All of that said, I'd like ZooTV to be in widescreen, but not at the expense of screen size. Go with 4:3, have an awesome print, let us see all of it.

Edit- that's 25% of all *poor* Americans that had an HDTV.

 

[Neilz]

That's a ridiculous statement. Here in Europe about 55% of the tv-owners have a widescreen tv. Now I know it's less in the US, but 5% or less? No way.
The 'most current technology'? Are you joking? Widescreen tv's have been on the market since 1992. That's 14 years ago, that's even before ZooTV Sydney was recorded! I can't call that 'current technology'.

HD and flatscreen's are current technology... In Holland you can't even buy a good quality 4:3 TV anymore and quality widescreen TV's (not the flatscreens) are available from 199 Euro's...

4:3 is just like VHS; Old!