Uploaded on Nov 3, 2023 at 7:04 pm" - Scott McCullough


-----

I'm not posting a direct link, but scroll down on the page and you will find it. Also another thing, if you log in, then you also will find an option to downlod a 8,2GB "original" file of the video:

https://vimeo.com/scottmccullough

Thanks for sharing!

Adding the titles isn't exactly a "Directors Cut" but, is it me, or is this a lot less grainy in the dark sections? Like, no grain at all?

(Maybe just my laptop monitor rather than watching on a big TV?)

[Edited 12/3/24 3:00am]

happyshopper said:

Thanks for sharing!

Adding the titles isn't exactly a "Directors Cut" but, is it me, or is this a lot less grainy in the dark sections? Like, no grain at all?

(Many just my laptop monitor rather than watching on a big TV?)

Elfar Sigmundsson did some comparisons that suggests that he (Scott McCullough) did more than what he wrote.
Directors cut to the left, and the Blu-ray to the right:

Yeah. Seems much brighter and sharper.

Maybe the compression to Blu-ray reduced the quality a little.

[Edited 12/2/24 11:39am]

Thank you ☺️

Thanks for sharing!

happyshopper said:

Yeah. Seems much brighter and sharper.

Maybe the compression to Blu-ray reduced the quality a little.

. I’m no expert but might also be down to interlacing (which would make the image softer) for video and colour limiting for “broadcast” (Generally dulls the colour, especially reds)

[Edited 12/2/24 11:39am]

.

Gotta love how people who obviously have no clue use big words and think they make a point.

.

A streaming video that's less than 9 GB does not have less compression than a video on a 50GB Blu-ray. Hint: a 4K Netflix stream is probably more compressed than the average video on a Blu-ray.

.

Oh, and the video on the Blu-ray doesn't use interlacing. Why would it when the source is a film scan? (Nor does the stream, BTW.)

.

And as for "colour limiting for “broadcast”" -- in what way is a BD a "broadcast"?

Just to be sure I understand the situation: outside of colors and text added, is there any other difference in audio and/or video with the BR?

databank said:

Just to be sure I understand the situation: outside of colors and text added, is there any other difference in audio and/or video with the BR?

I downloaded the Director's Cut and played it on my TV via Plex and I definitely heard some differences, maybe the DC has a rough mix or alternate mix of the audio? Was definitely hearing, for example, Rosie as differing volumes at times compared to the released audio on the Bluray/CD audio, plus hearing different instruments be more prominent at differing times

strawberryletter23 said:

databank said:

Just to be sure I understand the situation: outside of colors and text added, is there any other difference in audio and/or video with the BR?

I downloaded the Director's Cut and played it on my TV via Plex and I definitely heard some differences, maybe the DC has a rough mix or alternate mix of the audio? Was definitely hearing, for example, Rosie as differing volumes at times compared to the released audio on the Bluray/CD audio, plus hearing different instruments be more prominent at differing times

could you hear Prince's banter towards the end of "Cream" much better than the bluray?

The "Director's Cut" version defintely looks sharper and cleaner overall.

Has anyone sorted out why the Blu-Ray version is 2 minutes and 10 seconds longer? Has anything been cut from the McCullough version, or just different editing?

[Edited 12/8/24 12:37pm]

Wheher it is just improved visuals or more - still good to hear it again and be reminded of the more complete set I saw played in Sydney earlier that year.

ElGorillos said:

happyshopper said:

Thanks for sharing!

Adding the titles isn't exactly a "Directors Cut" but, is it me, or is this a lot less grainy in the dark sections? Like, no grain at all?

(Many just my laptop monitor rather than watching on a big TV?)

Elfar Sigmundsson did some comparisons that suggests that he (Scott McCullough) did more than what he wrote.
Directors cut to the left, and the Blu-ray to the right:

My God this man was so sexy. Thanks, OP, for the post.

bizzie said:

happyshopper said:

Yeah. Seems much brighter and sharper.

Maybe the compression to Blu-ray reduced the quality a little.

. I’m no expert but might also be down to interlacing (which would make the image softer) for video and colour limiting for “broadcast” (Generally dulls the colour, especially reds)

[Edited 12/2/24 11:39am]

.

Gotta love how people who obviously have no clue use big words and think they make a point.

.

A streaming video that's less than 9 GB does not have less compression than a video on a 50GB Blu-ray. Hint: a 4K Netflix stream is probably more compressed than the average video on a Blu-ray.

.

Oh, and the video on the Blu-ray doesn't use interlacing. Why would it when the source is a film scan? (Nor does the stream, BTW.)

.

And as for "colour limiting for “broadcast”" -- in what way is a BD a "broadcast"?

As is clearly proved here, big file size doesn't mean better quality, so I'm not sure what your point is exactly?

Something in the transfer to Blu-ray process has made the picture softer.

The colour limiting is for anything made for broadcast, and including streaming and dvds/blu-rays, etc. It's called "Broadcast Safe" but I assume used for DVDs and Blu-Rays too.

https://larryjordan.com/articles/broadcast-safe-keep-video-levels-legal/comment-page-1/

Looking at the screen grabs I don't necessarily see more or less compression (those constantly moving "blocks" that one usually sees during heavily compressed scenes featuring a lot of black) but the director's file does seem to be sharper and a tad brighter. Maybe he uppped the exposure a tiny bit and ran it through a video upscaling program like Topaz for a gentle pass.

If anyone can rec how to download the director's version, would love a PM!

[Edited 12/11/24 12:37pm]