got the dvd on monday and i must say that i wasn't expecting anything great but i cant believe how poor the quality of the picture is...and the sound isn't that great either.
what i want to know is how come the quality is so poor...i know that prince does almost everything myself these days and probably got whatever film crew on the cheap but i would have thought nowadays that all this digital stuff is fairly idiot proof??... i mean film the concert with however many guys with good film cameras, mix and edit the footage and bobs your uncle, good quality footage.. the prince live at the alladin reminds me of my wedding video for quality...but that was filmed by my half drunk uncle!!!
...so does anybody with a bit of knowledge about making a good quality dvd know where this one went wrong?

it's the best the fams can get for their money...Prince is spending it on a new house..and new rags.

Vashti said:

hope he'll spend a couple bux on buyin a sammich...

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

send me more pictures, girlie!!!

I'm not saying this to be contradictory or confrontational - in fact, I might just be getting poor eyesight in my old age - but I finally checked out some of the DVD on the small screen last night, and although I just watched "The Ride" all the way through, I don't think the quality is so bad. It was dodgey on the big screen, but the DVD wasn't made to be projected on the big screen, so it was understandable to me that it would look a little funky in the theater.

I mean, okay, it's not Francis Ford Coppola, but I don't think it's bad enough to warrant all the feedback it's gotten.

And believe me, if I thought it were truly that dodgy, I'd be glad to gripe with the best of 'em.

Should I be looking out for something in particular?

the NTSC format is a lower frame rate than the rest of the world (was taught this in college, but cant remember WHY it is a lower frame rate, there is a reason - may be something 2 do with the signal having 2 be carried 2 such a wide and diverse area, but not sure) so it can be quite noticable when watched in countries where people are used 2 a higher resolution system, like say PAL...

MADARTISTA would know!!!

bananacologne said:

thanks 4 thinking of me...

NTSC is 24 frames per second, PAL is 30. To accomodate frames are dropped or duplicated.

As for the actual video quality and the cutting out of SOOO much good quality, I'm guessing it to be poor source footage. There were, to my recollection, 5 cameras used for the shoot. They were miniDV cameras, and mostly handheld. From what we do see (and what we don't see as well), and having a video editing background, I have to think that other footage wasn't usable.

Vashti said:

awready done

Cheers Chris!

u da man!

I must've gotten a rare copy because the quality of mine is just great! Maybe your DVD player is bootleg.

Use of MiniDV with a lossy codec created all of the artifacts that make this such a terrible "film". Parts of the digital bitstream were lost when used in conjunction with Protools and burned to a master DVD or HD. There was no film involved in the making of the video, only digital tape. The grain that you see is a filter, used in a vain attempt to cover the gigantic scan lines.

The whole fiasco is very bush-league, for someone with enough money to do it right the first time.

Best viewed on a very small screen, where these problems become less obvious. Forget about a large rear-projection CRT...

The only thing I didnt care for is the dvd kept getting low and high too often.. I had to hold that remote cause at certian parts it would be too loud and low.. that was irritating.

CORRECTION:

NTSC (30fps) has a higher frame rate than PAL (25fps) but it has less lines so it is REFRESHING MORE AT LOWER QUALITY making the picture worse than for PAL.

PAL is a superior format so those with PAL tvs should NOT BUY THE NTSC BUT ORDER THE PAL VERSION FROM THE UK/EUROPE.

okaypimpn said:

Freaker said:

Hi Freaker - Surely that wont make any difference? As it was originally filmed on NTSC anyway? U cant make a better quality copy of something if the data simply isnt there 2 do so?

I got my Amazon (PAL) copy in the post this morning, I flicked through and only saw a couple of "pixley" bits the rest of it seems fine. I couldn't really understand what all the fuss has been about. Yea it's a bit short, but there are some great moments and the picture quality makes it more real, not overproduced. Can't beat a bit of shaky cam for that.

Well Banana thats true to a point but it also depends on how well it has been converted and transferred.

I heard that Prince CDs in Japan are made much better quality because the market demands it. Is this true anyone?

Freaker said:

thanks!!!

It isn't the picture quality that is the real problem it is the sound.

At the beginning of the show Prince complains that the audience can't hear him...I can't work out whether this was part of the speil or whether people really couldn't hear him...Whatever, the sound quality is appalling, the ONA tour I saw was loud, loud and base heavy...not this tinny piece of rubbish that we've been fobbed off with. To take a quote for Lovesexy era, on this evidence, "his funk is half assed". Which we all know it isn't, don't we?

I haven't read that it's in black n' white!
Like the copy I've got!
Should I be worried?
Is it color after all?
DOH!

okaypimpn said:

You must be watching it across your very large living room on a 25 inch TV(or smaller).

Rudedog

blackboab said:

I saw the DVD over the weekend. And I kept asking myself why people were complaining about the quality of the dvd. I didn't see anything wrong with it. What exactly are U talking about and which parts of the dvd are U talking about. Please clear this up 4 me. I haven't a clue what U are talking about. Thanks

Don't know about the actual "Prince" CDs but I do have both Madhouse albums on Japanese CD and they still sound great today even on £3K worth of Hi-Fi. The same cannot be said for any Prince CD released before 1992 in the West.
[This message was edited Tue Aug 26 12:15:05 PDT 2003 by BlurredEye]

ScottNPG said:

The DVD is in colour! How do you have your DVD player hooked up to the TV? If you don;t have it connected via RGB Scart or S-Video then it will show in B & W on a PAL TV.

I didn't mind that much.

I mean, it was kinda "wobble cam" and not very good quality... and the editing was clumsy and there was no continuity... and the still image sequences were very cheesy... but none of that really bothered me.

Some great performances, and the whole thing had a real home-made feel to it. Nice to see Sheila E and Eric Leeds playing with Prince again too. The tracklist was a bit weird but you can't please everyone. For the most part I enjoyed it, and considering it was so cheap, it's pretty good value.

BoySimon said:

What set up are you playing this on? sounded pretty good in this house.

Freaker said:

This is true for many CDs by other artists, but my Japanese pressings are IDENTICAL to domestic pressings in terms of sound. US plants caught up to Japan in the quality control issues of the mid-eighties.

If you have an old, first US pressing and compare it to a NEW Japanese or US pressed Prince disc, then you'll hear a difference.

Otherwise, you just pay extra for the Obi strip.

rudedog said:

Nah, I've seen it on a 19-inch and Bitch 2000. Still looks great to me!

there has to be a bad batch going around, im fussy (though not advd expert) and mine is fine, i dont believe that on mass people would be complaining so much if thier dvd looked like mine, how can so many people think its awful picture and others like me think its fine unless there is a dodgy lot about.
.
.