OK, here we go....

I, personally, would LOVE to see Lovesexy OFFICIALLY released on DVD/BLURAY (maybe with some extras such as tracks taken from other nights of the tour, rehearsal footage, etc.)

I know it's not going to happen (Prince's views about swearing/sex, etc are different now and who DOES own the rights to the footage now?)

Anyway, if you agree with me about wanting it released, please sign below.

(Maybe, if enough people sign, who knows?)

Thanks,

David

It wasn't shot with film or HD cameras, so a blu-ray wn't happen because the quality would never be better than a DVD. But a DVD would be great!

Technically a PAL DVD would be the best reporduction of this since it was shot on PAL.

Ive seen many LoveSexy shows & 88 was a great year 4 Prince eye would love 2 c a LoveSexy dvd release as i would a Parade dvd!! Infact a dvd from every tour is what eye want plus a dvd from every after show would b so cool.But this is the problem with Prince....The stuff he puts out is so crap!!!Yet he chooses 2 keep all the best stuff locked away!!!!In this respect Prince is an utter tosser!!Its about time he changed his bloody ways!!!!A dvd of LoveSexy...4 what its worth....Yes

"plus a dvd from every after show"

wow.

release it!

I would love this more than anyone but alas, 4:3 aspect ratio is not pretty for BR and HDTVs.

They would need to spend a fortune to do a restoration like they have with many hollywood films shot in 4:3. Hollywood films at least have large film prints to work from. This was a TV broadcast from August 1988. I recorded it on VHS in 88 and still have the tape but I suspect even with a restoration and this is not easy job. I would say do a pan and scan cropped widescreen and have someone go in there and choose the best area of the screen to crop for 16:9 and then I would also put the original 4:3 on same disc as well. Same with audio, I would recommend original stereo and also remaster 5.1 DD/DTS. Extras could be story of this concert and restoration.

if it was released on bluray it could look better than dvd due to a higher bitrate available on dvd for video, and a higher quality sound again due to a higher bitrate

no need to crop to widescreen as most players or tv's have a zoom option so you can reframe yourself if you don't wan't black bars at the side

usually when film is released on dvd they release it in the original aspect ratio, thus using the academy ratio for pre widescreen movies like gone with the wind or wizard of oz. it's typically easier to restore film for bluray release than SD video shot material. wizard of oz was released in a cropped widescreen format a number of years back for cinematic release but fortunately didn't get hacked and slashed for any known vhs/dvd/bluray releases

unique said:

if it was released on bluray it could look better than dvd due to a higher bitrate available on dvd for video, and a higher quality sound again due to a higher bitrate

no need to crop to widescreen as most players or tv's have a zoom option so you can reframe yourself if you don't wan't black bars at the side

usually when film is released on dvd they release it in the original aspect ratio, thus using the academy ratio for pre widescreen movies like gone with the wind or wizard of oz. it's typically easier to restore film for bluray release than SD video shot material. wizard of oz was released in a cropped widescreen format a number of years back for cinematic release but fortunately didn't get hacked and slashed for any known vhs/dvd/bluray releases

You're dealing with limits of pixel information, there is an upward limit of 720 × 576 pixels for a PAL video, and it was shot in 4:3 of course.

Pushing it to blu-ray is completely unecessary for image improvement, because the higher bitrate of blu-ray which is still heavily compressed is engineered for a 1920 x 1080 pixel image. And to fill up even the center of an HD image, you would be scaling it up artificially. If you calculate a bitrate per pixel ratio (not just a flat bitrate number), a dual layer DVD pixel is probably just as good as a blu-ray pixel to the eye.

I know you probably know this, but many people dont. Wizard of Oz was shot on an arguably higher resolution (chemical) format than modern digital 1920x1080 HD. It was shot on 35mm film. So blu-ray is still inferior to an actual pristine film copy of that movie, or any movie shot on 35mm film regardless of when.

All these older movies (and newer ones) are actually scanned at a much higher pixel resolution for archiving, and in the future as consumers are given even higher resolution formats to enjoy, maybe we'll see these even higher pixel transfers. SOTT got one of these transfers. That's why it showed on Encore HD... before the official DVD's even came out.

But Lovesexy '88 unfortunately was shot on live video PAL technology. It will never truly be anything more than 720 x 576. I wish it was shot on 35mm film like SOTT!

But you're right on about the sound being better on blu-ray with the potential for a PCM or even Master Audio format available.

I hope whomever has 'control' of the actual video of this jewel is taking good care of it. I'm voting for an official release...NO CHANGES!! A censored version could be included as part of the package.

signed

ufoclub said:

unique said:

if it was released on bluray it could look better than dvd due to a higher bitrate available on dvd for video, and a higher quality sound again due to a higher bitrate

no need to crop to widescreen as most players or tv's have a zoom option so you can reframe yourself if you don't wan't black bars at the side

usually when film is released on dvd they release it in the original aspect ratio, thus using the academy ratio for pre widescreen movies like gone with the wind or wizard of oz. it's typically easier to restore film for bluray release than SD video shot material. wizard of oz was released in a cropped widescreen format a number of years back for cinematic release but fortunately didn't get hacked and slashed for any known vhs/dvd/bluray releases

You're dealing with limits of pixel information, there is an upward limit of 720 × 576 pixels for a PAL video, and it was shot in 4:3 of course.

Pushing it to blu-ray is completely unecessary for image improvement, because the higher bitrate of blu-ray which is still heavily compressed is engineered for a 1920 x 1080 pixel image. And to fill up even the center of an HD image, you would be scaling it up artificially. If you calculate a bitrate per pixel ratio (not just a flat bitrate number), a dual layer DVD pixel is probably just as good as a blu-ray pixel to the eye.

I know you probably know this, but many people dont. Wizard of Oz was shot on an arguably higher resolution (chemical) format than modern digital 1920x1080 HD. It was shot on 35mm film. So blu-ray is still inferior to an actual pristine film copy of that movie, or any movie shot on 35mm film regardless of when.

All these older movies (and newer ones) are actually scanned at a much higher pixel resolution for archiving, and in the future as consumers are given even higher resolution formats to enjoy, maybe we'll see these even higher pixel transfers. SOTT got one of these transfers. That's why it showed on Encore HD... before the official DVD's even came out.

But Lovesexy '88 unfortunately was shot on live video PAL technology. It will never truly be anything more than 720 x 576. I wish it was shot on 35mm film like SOTT!

But you're right on about the sound being better on blu-ray with the potential for a PCM or even Master Audio format available.

you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. PAL doesn't have a pixel resolution and neither does film

you can get higher quality picture and sound on blueray from SD and film sources

I prefer something from the past 5 years.

Montreux? 21nights? W2A? W2A in Europe? Coachella?

unique said:

ufoclub said:

You're dealing with limits of pixel information, there is an upward limit of 720 × 576 pixels for a PAL video, and it was shot in 4:3 of course.

Pushing it to blu-ray is completely unecessary for image improvement, because the higher bitrate of blu-ray which is still heavily compressed is engineered for a 1920 x 1080 pixel image. And to fill up even the center of an HD image, you would be scaling it up artificially. If you calculate a bitrate per pixel ratio (not just a flat bitrate number), a dual layer DVD pixel is probably just as good as a blu-ray pixel to the eye.

I know you probably know this, but many people dont. Wizard of Oz was shot on an arguably higher resolution (chemical) format than modern digital 1920x1080 HD. It was shot on 35mm film. So blu-ray is still inferior to an actual pristine film copy of that movie, or any movie shot on 35mm film regardless of when.

All these older movies (and newer ones) are actually scanned at a much higher pixel resolution for archiving, and in the future as consumers are given even higher resolution formats to enjoy, maybe we'll see these even higher pixel transfers. SOTT got one of these transfers. That's why it showed on Encore HD... before the official DVD's even came out.

But Lovesexy '88 unfortunately was shot on live video PAL technology. It will never truly be anything more than 720 x 576. I wish it was shot on 35mm film like SOTT!

But you're right on about the sound being better on blu-ray with the potential for a PCM or even Master Audio format available.

you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. PAL doesn't have a pixel resolution and neither does film

you can get higher quality picture and sound on blueray from SD and film sources

Funny, I make my living dealing with these formats and rendering out stuff for this type of media, authoring DVD's, blu-rays etc. Dealing with PAL vs NTSC...and dealing with frame pulldown for film to NTSC...

But if you say so,

(And of course film is a chemical process, but the estimation of resolution can be made and in reality, the average grain size of the film stock can also be translated to a numeric pixel value.. You should research it out.)

ufoclub said:

unique said:

you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. PAL doesn't have a pixel resolution and neither does film

you can get higher quality picture and sound on blueray from SD and film sources

Funny, I make my living dealing with these formats and rendering out stuff for this type of media, authoring DVD's, blu-rays etc. Dealing with PAL vs NTSC...and dealing with frame pulldown for film to NTSC...

But if you say so,

(And of course film is a chemical process, but the estimation of resolution can be made and in reality, the average grain size of the film stock can also be translated to a numeric pixel value.. You should research it out.)

i know all sorts of facts about film, video, conversion, different types of pulldown, fields, frames etc which is why i point out that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. just because you make a living from something doesn't make you an expert. people who make a living working at burger king aren't necessarily experts at catering

i would have expected as minimum that you would know that analogue SD video could look better on bluray than dvd

I'd prefer Prince to release a remastered DVD box set which features.....

Disc 1 - 1999 Tour Bloomington [support act footage not included]

Disc 2 - Purple Rain Tour Syracuse [Do Me Baby and God removed]

Disc 3 - Parade Tour Detriot [Full concert]
Disc 4 - LoveSexy Tour Dortmund [Camera angles are a mix between original broadcast and VHS versions]

Disc 5 - Nude Tour Tokyo [Sequenced in the right order]

Disc 6 - Diamonds and Pearls Tour London [15 June - now with full version of Insatiable and with Gett Off and The Flow. Dead On It and Jughead removed]

and with possible more box sets in the near future.

we have Lovesexy already in great quality. Why release it again now? That would be a waste of a release. I would rather see a different tour show released.

unique said:

ufoclub said:

Funny, I make my living dealing with these formats and rendering out stuff for this type of media, authoring DVD's, blu-rays etc. Dealing with PAL vs NTSC...and dealing with frame pulldown for film to NTSC...

But if you say so,

(And of course film is a chemical process, but the estimation of resolution can be made and in reality, the average grain size of the film stock can also be translated to a numeric pixel value.. You should research it out.)

i know all sorts of facts about film, video, conversion, different types of pulldown, fields, frames etc which is why i point out that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. just because you make a living from something doesn't make you an expert. people who make a living working at burger king aren't necessarily experts at catering

i would have expected as minimum that you would know that analogue SD video could look better on bluray than dvd

The reason I am the expert, is because I run the business. I don't work for anyone, and I'm the one creating and designing the files. I am solely creating the media by the technical specs. So in fact I am a high end caterer who is running the entire dinner I provide. There's some big companies that have come to me for advice and for services when their entire internal departments couldn't get the technical issues straight about unusual video problems. I even got a call from a post house in LA for my opinion on solving a technical problem with frame rates.

You said "you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. PAL doesn't have a pixel resolution and neither does film. You can get higher quality picture and sound on blueray from SD and film sources" (when you can measure resolution exactly to the pixel on any PAL DVD file, just extract the movie), and when in fact you cannot derive any more actual quality out of a PAL original by slapping it into the middle of an HD signal and scaling it up. Can you give one example of an SD television program put onto blu-ray for comparison to the DVD? I mean an original show produced on SD video. I agree on part of what you said: you can put better sound on a video blu-ray than a video DVD and encode a better picture from non-SD sources like 35mm film or bigger.

You specifically mentioned that the higher bitrate of a blu-ray offers a better picture than DVD, but let's look at that mathematically with the average bandwidth supposedly offered by each medium:

PAL DVD: 720 x 576 @ 25fps and max video bitrate of 9.8Mbs
which results in (9.8*1024*1024) / (720*576*25) bits/pixel =0.9911

BLURAY: 1920 x 1080 @ 24 fps and max video bitrate of 40Mbs
which results in (40*1024*1024) / (1920*1080*24) bits/pixel = 0.8427

Oh shit! On a per pixel basis of the average bit rate of each medium... PAL DVD won (per pixel)!

In the above mathematics, the reality is that some of that bitrate is used for the sound, so the rate for both mediums is less, and in the case of the blu-ray, the sound takes up even more of the bitrate proportionately since it is often encoded in full uncompressed quality for a concert these days.

ufoclub said:

unique said:

i know all sorts of facts about film, video, conversion, different types of pulldown, fields, frames etc which is why i point out that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. just because you make a living from something doesn't make you an expert. people who make a living working at burger king aren't necessarily experts at catering

i would have expected as minimum that you would know that analogue SD video could look better on bluray than dvd

The reason I am the expert, is because I run the business. I don't work for anyone, and I'm the one creating and designing the files. I am solely creating the media by the technical specs. So in fact I am a high end caterer who is running the entire dinner I provide. There's some big companies that have come to me for advice and for services when their entire internal departments couldn't get the technical issues straight about unusual video problems. I even got a call from a post house in LA for my opinion on solving a technical problem with frame rates.

You said "you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. PAL doesn't have a pixel resolution and neither does film. You can get higher quality picture and sound on blueray from SD and film sources" (when you can measure resolution exactly to the pixel on any PAL DVD file, just extract the movie), and when in fact you cannot derive any more actual quality out of a PAL original by slapping it into the middle of an HD signal and scaling it up. Can you give one example of an SD television program put onto blu-ray for comparison to the DVD? I mean an original show produced on SD video. I agree on part of what you said: you can put better sound on a video blu-ray than a video DVD and encode a better picture from non-SD sources like 35mm film or bigger.

You specifically mentioned that the higher bitrate of a blu-ray offers a better picture than DVD, but let's look at that mathematically with the average bandwidth supposedly offered by each medium:

PAL DVD: 720 x 576 @ 25fps and max video bitrate of 9.8Mbs
which results in (9.8*1024*1024) / (720*576*25) bits/pixel =0.9911

BLURAY: 1920 x 1080 @ 24 fps and max video bitrate of 40Mbs
which results in (40*1024*1024) / (1920*1080*24) bits/pixel = 0.8427

Oh shit! On a per pixel basis of the average bit rate of each medium... PAL DVD won (per pixel)!

In the above mathematics, the reality is that some of that bitrate is used for the sound, so the rate for both mediums is less, and in the case of the blu-ray, the sound takes up even more of the bitrate proportionately since it is often encoded in full uncompressed quality for a concert these days.

but picture quality isn't measured by adding pixels. it's measured by sight and how it looks

are you honestly trying to say that taking an SD analogue broadcast mastertape and mastering it professionally to bluray and seperately mastering it to dvd, with the same care and attention used in both cases, you believe the PAL dvd would look better?

and if you were going to measure in pixes from a PAL broadcast master you wouldn't master your bluray at 24fps

the other thing you haven't considered in your mathematics is the analogue SD PAL master is in academy ratio, not widescreen. and you consider yourself the expert on the subject?

try again

how many things have you mastered from analogue SD pal to bluray btw?

unique said:

ufoclub said:

The reason I am the expert, is because I run the business. I don't work for anyone, and I'm the one creating and designing the files. I am solely creating the media by the technical specs. So in fact I am a high end caterer who is running the entire dinner I provide. There's some big companies that have come to me for advice and for services when their entire internal departments couldn't get the technical issues straight about unusual video problems. I even got a call from a post house in LA for my opinion on solving a technical problem with frame rates.

You said "you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. PAL doesn't have a pixel resolution and neither does film. You can get higher quality picture and sound on blueray from SD and film sources" (when you can measure resolution exactly to the pixel on any PAL DVD file, just extract the movie), and when in fact you cannot derive any more actual quality out of a PAL original by slapping it into the middle of an HD signal and scaling it up. Can you give one example of an SD television program put onto blu-ray for comparison to the DVD? I mean an original show produced on SD video. I agree on part of what you said: you can put better sound on a video blu-ray than a video DVD and encode a better picture from non-SD sources like 35mm film or bigger.

You specifically mentioned that the higher bitrate of a blu-ray offers a better picture than DVD, but let's look at that mathematically with the average bandwidth supposedly offered by each medium:

PAL DVD: 720 x 576 @ 25fps and max video bitrate of 9.8Mbs
which results in (9.8*1024*1024) / (720*576*25) bits/pixel =0.9911

BLURAY: 1920 x 1080 @ 24 fps and max video bitrate of 40Mbs
which results in (40*1024*1024) / (1920*1080*24) bits/pixel = 0.8427

Oh shit! On a per pixel basis of the average bit rate of each medium... PAL DVD won (per pixel)!

In the above mathematics, the reality is that some of that bitrate is used for the sound, so the rate for both mediums is less, and in the case of the blu-ray, the sound takes up even more of the bitrate proportionately since it is often encoded in full uncompressed quality for a concert these days.

but picture quality isn't measured by adding pixels. it's measured by sight and how it looks

are you honestly trying to say that taking an SD analogue broadcast mastertape and mastering it professionally to bluray and seperately mastering it to dvd, with the same care and attention used in both cases, you believe the PAL dvd would look better?

and if you were going to measure in pixes from a PAL broadcast master you wouldn't master your bluray at 24fps

the other thing you haven't considered in your mathematics is the analogue SD PAL master is in academy ratio, not widescreen. and you consider yourself the expert on the subject?

try again

how many things have you mastered from analogue SD pal to bluray btw?

There are some very incorrect unprofessional things you just said there, things like "but picture quality isn't measured by adding pixels. it's measured by sight and how it looks"

Of course the picture quality difference between blu-ray and DVD is first and foremost a pixel resolution difference.

I don't think anyone has bothered to put SD programming to blu-ray for the very reason I am talking about (no increase in quality).

Do you have any examples of a product that was SD video mastered to blu-ray?

By the way the pixel resolution for widescreen vs 4:3 on DVD is the same. The widescreen version is just programmed to stretch the pixels horizontally.

802 said:

I'd prefer Prince to release a remastered DVD box set which features.....

Disc 1 - 1999 Tour Bloomington [support act footage not included]

Disc 2 - Purple Rain Tour Syracuse [Do Me Baby and God removed]

Disc 3 - Parade Tour Detriot [Full concert]
Disc 4 - LoveSexy Tour Dortmund [Camera angles are a mix between original broadcast and VHS versions]

Disc 5 - Nude Tour Tokyo [Sequenced in the right order]

Disc 6 - Diamonds and Pearls Tour London [15 June - now with full version of Insatiable and with Gett Off and The Flow. Dead On It and Jughead removed]

Disc 7 - Musicology Tour

Disc 8 - 21Nights in London

Disc 9 - Montreux 2009

Disc 10 - Welcome 2 America Euro Tour (needs to get filmed with one of those great setlists)

unique said:

and if you were going to measure in pixes from a PAL broadcast master you wouldn't master your bluray at 24fps

the other thing you haven't considered in your mathematics is the analogue SD PAL master is in academy ratio, not widescreen. and you consider yourself the expert on the subject?

try again

how many things have you mastered from analogue SD pal to bluray btw?

I've mastered IMAX resolution down to blu-ray down to dvd, and mastered SD stuff up to HD fomat too. For science museum exhibits.

above you mentioned 25 fps. You're killing your own arguement, because 25 fps is more information than 24 fps.

Also for blu-rays they slow the frame rate down from 25 to 24 fps if needed (in the rare case that an HD show was shot at 50i or 25 fps), and adjust the sound to synch. An big example is supposedly the Planet Earth series.

or vice versa "Pulp Fiction" (Australia version) is sped up from 24fps to 25 fps on their odd rare 50i blu-ray.

You're also killing your own arguement by bringing up the widescreen to 4:3 ratio. this is just another reason why a blu-ray transfer of an SD video is a waste.

ufoclub said:

unique said:

and if you were going to measure in pixes from a PAL broadcast master you wouldn't master your bluray at 24fps

the other thing you haven't considered in your mathematics is the analogue SD PAL master is in academy ratio, not widescreen. and you consider yourself the expert on the subject?

try again

how many things have you mastered from analogue SD pal to bluray btw?

I've mastered IMAX resolution down to blu-ray down to dvd, and mastered SD stuff up to HD fomat too. For science museum exhibits.

above you mentioned 25 fps. You're killing your own arguement, because 25 fps is more information than 24 fps.

Also for blu-rays they slow the frame rate down from 25 to 24 fps if needed (in the rare case that an HD show was shot at 50i or 25 fps), and adjust the sound to synch. An big example is supposedly the Planet Earth series.

or vice versa "Pulp Fiction" (Australia version) is sped up from 24fps to 25 fps on their odd rare 50i blu-ray.

You're also killing your own arguement by bringing up the widescreen to 4:3 ratio. this is just another reason why a blu-ray transfer of an SD video is a waste.

of course 25fps is going to take up more data than 24fps. but on a bluray encoded properly in VBR the data used on 4:3 is going to be less than on something 16:9

and you wouldn't convert 25fps SD video to 24fps unless you were a moron. pal speedup is common (and fucking horrible), 3/2 pulldown on video keeps the running speed far closer to the original 24fps on a film source

if you were aware of the bluray standards you would know that you have a number of different resolutions and frame rates, so you wouldn't have to necesarily convert to 1080i/p

so if you are a maths whizz and a real expert on the subject, try reworking your calcs to make it work, instead of working them to make them not work, and you will see i'm right in what i say

you can make SD analogue material look and sound better on bluray

unique said:

ufoclub said:

I've mastered IMAX resolution down to blu-ray down to dvd, and mastered SD stuff up to HD fomat too. For science museum exhibits.

above you mentioned 25 fps. You're killing your own arguement, because 25 fps is more information than 24 fps.

Also for blu-rays they slow the frame rate down from 25 to 24 fps if needed (in the rare case that an HD show was shot at 50i or 25 fps), and adjust the sound to synch. An big example is supposedly the Planet Earth series.

or vice versa "Pulp Fiction" (Australia version) is sped up from 24fps to 25 fps on their odd rare 50i blu-ray.

You're also killing your own arguement by bringing up the widescreen to 4:3 ratio. this is just another reason why a blu-ray transfer of an SD video is a waste.

of course 25fps is going to take up more data than 24fps. but on a bluray encoded properly in VBR the data used on 4:3 is going to be less than on something 16:9

and you wouldn't convert 25fps SD video to 24fps unless you were a moron. pal speedup is common (and fucking horrible), 3/2 pulldown on video keeps the running speed far closer to the original 24fps on a film source

if you were aware of the bluray standards you would know that you have a number of different resolutions and frame rates, so you wouldn't have to necesarily convert to 1080i/p

so if you are a maths whizz and a real expert on the subject, try reworking your calcs to make it work, instead of working them to make them not work, and you will see i'm right in what i say

you can make SD analogue material look and sound better on bluray

So wrong for sure about the Planet Earth blu-ray. Look up the the story on the conversion of the 50i Planet Earth Blu-ray. And you didn't name one SD video on blu-ray.

Also 3/2 pulldown is only used between 24p (or 23.976 fps) and 30p (or 29.97fps).

"Working With 24 fps And PAL

Another consideration is converting 24 frame film and 24p video to PAL or HD that is PAL compatible. PAL has a frame rate of 25 fps, and HD in the PAL world is also at 25 fps. There are currently two main ways to convert 24 fps to 25 fps.

2:2 Pulldown: This traditional method is a 1 to 1 distribution of frames. Each film frame is sent to 2 fields of video (1 complete video frame). Because of the difference in frame rate, this method speeds up the film by 4%.

2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 Pulldown: Another adoption is a different pulldown method, which avoids changing the speed of the footage. Its not the same as the 2:3 pulldown, instead the pulldown used is 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3. With this method, each frame is sent to 2 video fields (one video frame), except every 12th frame is sent to 3 fields (1 1/2 video frames)"

Please name one SD video on blu-ray with the good mastering so I can compare!

Hang on, just a 'YES' or 'NO' would have done

ufoclub said:

unique said:

of course 25fps is going to take up more data than 24fps. but on a bluray encoded properly in VBR the data used on 4:3 is going to be less than on something 16:9

and you wouldn't convert 25fps SD video to 24fps unless you were a moron. pal speedup is common (and fucking horrible), 3/2 pulldown on video keeps the running speed far closer to the original 24fps on a film source

if you were aware of the bluray standards you would know that you have a number of different resolutions and frame rates, so you wouldn't have to necesarily convert to 1080i/p

so if you are a maths whizz and a real expert on the subject, try reworking your calcs to make it work, instead of working them to make them not work, and you will see i'm right in what i say

you can make SD analogue material look and sound better on bluray

So wrong for sure about the Planet Earth blu-ray. Look up the the story on the conversion of the 50i Planet Earth Blu-ray. And you didn't name one SD video on blu-ray.

Also 3/2 pulldown is only used between 24p (or 23.976 fps) and 30p (or 29.97fps).

"Working With 24 fps And PAL

Another consideration is converting 24 frame film and 24p video to PAL or HD that is PAL compatible. PAL has a frame rate of 25 fps, and HD in the PAL world is also at 25 fps. There are currently two main ways to convert 24 fps to 25 fps.

2:2 Pulldown: This traditional method is a 1 to 1 distribution of frames. Each film frame is sent to 2 fields of video (1 complete video frame). Because of the difference in frame rate, this method speeds up the film by 4%.

2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 Pulldown: Another adoption is a different pulldown method, which avoids changing the speed of the footage. Its not the same as the 2:3 pulldown, instead the pulldown used is 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3. With this method, each frame is sent to 2 video fields (one video frame), except every 12th frame is sent to 3 fields (1 1/2 video frames)"

Please name one SD video on blu-ray with the good mastering so I can compare!

but wtf has any of this got to do with anything? your just typing a load of irrelevant shite

and you didn't even notice your flaw earlier. SD analogue pal material converted to 24fps would take up more data than 25fps. thus whilst you said your figures would take up more space as 25fps and i agreed with you to see what you would say, it's wrong

and you just ignored the fact that the bluray standards allow for a number of different video options and SD 50i to 1080i/p would just be a waste of time thus a pointless example. so if you really know your stuff, do the math on the different options if you can

and furthermore, you also said that 4:3 material on dvd stretches across the screen pixel wise, which is complete shite. an anamorphic encoding would "stretch" the image down the screen, but you don't get anamorphic 4:3 material, so fuck knows wtf you are on about there

do you really work for a video company or are you just talking absolute shite?

i know all about pulldown methods, i could bore ppl 2 sleep with it, but it has absolutely fuck all to do with the type of SD video conversion we are talking about

There are two versions of this floating around that are excellent, the laserdisc sourced release from Excalibur, and Superball's excellent Livesexy release.

You may as well grab one or both of these, because an official release of this will not happen any time soon.

[Edited 7/18/11 13:31pm]

unique said:

ufoclub said:

So wrong for sure about the Planet Earth blu-ray. Look up the the story on the conversion of the 50i Planet Earth Blu-ray. And you didn't name one SD video on blu-ray.

Also 3/2 pulldown is only used between 24p (or 23.976 fps) and 30p (or 29.97fps).

"Working With 24 fps And PAL

Another consideration is converting 24 frame film and 24p video to PAL or HD that is PAL compatible. PAL has a frame rate of 25 fps, and HD in the PAL world is also at 25 fps. There are currently two main ways to convert 24 fps to 25 fps.

2:2 Pulldown: This traditional method is a 1 to 1 distribution of frames. Each film frame is sent to 2 fields of video (1 complete video frame). Because of the difference in frame rate, this method speeds up the film by 4%.

2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 Pulldown: Another adoption is a different pulldown method, which avoids changing the speed of the footage. Its not the same as the 2:3 pulldown, instead the pulldown used is 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3. With this method, each frame is sent to 2 video fields (one video frame), except every 12th frame is sent to 3 fields (1 1/2 video frames)"

Please name one SD video on blu-ray with the good mastering so I can compare!

but wtf has any of this got to do with anything? your just typing a load of irrelevant shite

and you didn't even notice your flaw earlier. SD analogue pal material converted to 24fps would take up more data than 25fps. thus whilst you said your figures would take up more space as 25fps and i agreed with you to see what you would say, it's wrong

and you just ignored the fact that the bluray standards allow for a number of different video options and SD 50i to 1080i/p would just be a waste of time thus a pointless example. so if you really know your stuff, do the math on the different options if you can

and furthermore, you also said that 4:3 material on dvd stretches across the screen pixel wise, which is complete shite. an anamorphic encoding would "stretch" the image down the screen, but you don't get anamorphic 4:3 material, so fuck knows wtf you are on about there

do you really work for a video company or are you just talking absolute shite?

i know all about pulldown methods, i could bore ppl 2 sleep with it, but it has absolutely fuck all to do with the type of SD video conversion we are talking about

What do you mean? 24 is less than 25. You can learn that on Sesame Street. A video file of 24 frames is less then a video of 25 frames. Less information. The reason that DVD's and Blu-rays were encoded with a 24p file as opposed to a pulldown derived 29.97 file is because the file size is smaller. There's less video frames.

Give me an example of a common blu-ray in a different format to 60i or 24p (or 23.976fps)? Do you have one? Are there any new releases you can cite? Just name one. I really want to know.

And you have completely proven yourself to be ignorant if you don't know that a 720 x 480 pixel DVD in 4:3 still has the same number of pixels as a 720 x480 DVD in widescreen. Same goes for a PAL widescreen to a 4:3 DVD. The pixels are stretched. I have to deal with that all the time when you author DVD's with graphics. Just google it. Or better yet, why don't you rip the video off of a dual sided DVD where the movie is wide on one side and 4:3 on the other. You will find the same pixels dimensions. Try it.

Really, to get back to proving your point, can you just bring up one example of an SD video put to blu-ray with improved quality?

Why are you getting so mad. Don't cuss. It's only video tech stuff.

[Edited 7/18/11 15:15pm]

^ Based on what I know, I believe UFOclub is right on this, it looks like unique is talking out of his ****.

You can't magically improve the quality if the source is the same but the medium is better. Just because Blu Ray is higher quality makes no difference if the original is limited quality- ie limited resolution and limited aspect ratio. You can't upscale stuff if the original is poor...there's nothing to improve upon.

The only way around this would be as ufoclub rightly is if they took at 35mm film transfer, unfortunately it wasn't shot on film.