Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Montreal dvd: 35 mm vs 70 mm???

forum rss feed
Author

eiricd user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 61 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 Sep 07, 10:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'm not very into this, so if someone could please explain this to me...

35 mm is, from what I've read, the best way to record a film. I know Brian stated this on his website in relation to the budapest footage

BUT; I've also read somewhere (don't have the link) that Montreal 81 was shot on 70 mm????

does this mean that 35 mm is not the ideal way to record a shot??

AND; what do you reckon the cost of shooting montreal was?? from what I understand, HD is not as good as actual film, but it's a cheaper way of getting great quality

pittrek user is on Queenzone.com
pittrek
Deity: 10070 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 Sep 07, 11:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

70mm films are twice as big as 35mm -> film shot on 70mm will have always much bigger detail as 35 or even 16mm. Also 70mm films can have a magnetic 6-channel audio track, while 35mm films are stereo.

All currently commercially used digital formats (DVD, HD-DVD, BlueRay or whatever) use a lossy compression, what is one of many reasons why film is ALWAYS better then these currently used digital formats.

Sorry for the chaotic answer but I hope it's understandable :)

eiricd user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 61 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 Sep 07, 11:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

that's very helpful, thanks!!!

I was always under the impression that 35mm was the ultimate way to shoot film..but there you go :)

so is there anything better than 70 mm??

Jeroen user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 403 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 Sep 07, 11:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Err... 140 mm?! ;-)


Roger AAAAAHHHH!
coops user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 402 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 Sep 07, 13:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

pittrek wrote:



All currently commercially used digital formats (DVD, HD-DVD, BlueRay or whatever) use a lossy compression, what is one of many reasons why film is ALWAYS better then these currently used digital formats.
:)


True, but. I use an hd-dvd player, and a blu-ray player on a 1080p lcd 50" tv. If the transfer is good, and the source material is in good shape, the picture is way better than what I see at the movies. A lot of this has to do with the environment. Theaters usually turn the lamp bulb way down to make it last longer, for example, and this does not help the picture.
Lossy compression means you lose data as you compress, but that does not mean you lose quality. People may think they see a difference, but they probably don't. This applies to music and photos also.
The wider the film stock, the bigger an image you can project. Imax film is 2-3 times wider than 70mm. The film usually does not have room for audio, this is captured on seperate tape and added later, once it's mixed down.
I have high hopes for the upcoming Montreal dvd in high def.
Anybody seen the QPR show on hd tv? It,s edited down pretty badly, but the video and sound quality is quite good.

Canadian May Fan user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 106 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 Sep 07, 13:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

pittrek wrote:


All currently commercially used digital formats (DVD, HD-DVD, BlueRay or whatever) use a lossy compression, what is one of many reasons why film is ALWAYS better then these currently used digital formats.


This one actually isn't so iron-clad -- the way a lot of high-budget videos are made these days is that a low-res copy is made for editing purposes, and the original high-res/uncompressed tapes/data are cut together to match that edit.

While some compression is likely still necessary, the professional/high-end formats use codecs that make that very hard to detect.


"I'll top the bill, I'll overkill, I've got to find the will to carry on... The show must go on."
slithybill user not visiting Queenzone.com
slithybill
Bohemian: 112 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 Sep 07, 15:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

eiricd wrote:

so is there anything better than 70 mm??


IMAX 70mm filmstock is 3 times larger than regular 70mm, and 10 times larger than 35mm.

http://www.1570films.com/imax.htm#IMAX%20Experience

Don't know if Montreal was shot on 5 perf 70mm or 15 perf. Don't know what format MobileVision used.

http://www.mobilevisionusa.com/

This site also has a promo video from the original "We Will Rock You" arena tour. I actually had 2 tickets to the show at the Hampton Coliseum in May 1983, but the show was cancelled. I can't believe I needed my $15.00 back so much that I turned in my tickets to get a refund. I remember asking the Record Bar employee to give me my money but let me keep the tickets. No deal. Wish Kinko's had been around back then to make a photocopy!



Intoxicate your brain with what I'm saying
onevsion user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2241 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 Sep 07, 18:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

eiricd wrote:

that's very helpful, thanks!!!

I was always under the impression that 35mm was the ultimate way to shoot film..but there you go :)

so is there anything better than 70 mm??


Hmm... dunno. I think 70mm is the best you can get.

KevoM user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 292 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Oct 07, 11:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I too also assumed that it was originally shot in 70mm, however...

I have the original 1982 Cannes Film Festival Press kit for the We Will Rock You film (Montreal concert) and inside is a technical spec sheet in the 'production notes'.

It says it was filmed in 35mm using Panavision 'double anamorphic' lenses (10 cameras used).

The audio was recorded onto 6 Track Dolby.

For the Mobilevision screenings, a 70mm projector was used for these '20 storey' sized screens. I think it's this 70mm PROJECTOR that has caused the confusion.

KevoM user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 292 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 02 Nov 07, 06:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Miami Vice wrote:

Thanks for the information KevoM. And that is a nice piece of memorabilia you have.


Thanks.

It's on QueenMuseum.com...

http://www.queenmuseum.com/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=34&catid=1&PageNo=5

Scroll to the bottom of the page.

carboengine user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1283 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Nov 07, 01:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think it says it was 35 mm on the DVD in the director's comments section, and that each film only lasted something like 6 minutes (not sure about the minutes.) I can't even imagine what a nightmare it must have been to edit all of that. And the director talks about how Freddie kept apologizing to the crowd for the interruptions what with cameras all over the place and the cameramen dashing about to reload. They also said they filmed on two different nights so they could use the best of the best, and they wanted the band to use the same costumes both nights; but Freddie being Freddie came out at the end in those outrageously tight, white shorts that he didn't wear the night before. I love that DVD. Freddie is so graceful, so slinky. I believe he said somewhere that he thought of himself as a black panther. Well, he was a black panther that night for sure!

http://s26.photobucket.com/albums/c138/carboengine/?action=view&current=f42.jpg


Yes, it was a worthwhile experience.