Jump to content

Bullet in a Bible on Blu-Ray: is it a visual upgrade from the DVD?


Yosuke Hanamura

Recommended Posts

(This post is going to be long since there are things needed to be addressed for people who I think i'm out of my mind for asking this, also if some of you don't understand some of the terms i'm using since you don't really focus on video quality, please just ask.)

I wanted to make this topic since most people kind of skimmed over the Blu-Ray release of this concert, and no one really talked about it.

People may assume it's instantly better simply because it has that recognizable Blu-Ray 6 logo on it. Now before I get to my point, let me clear up why concerts, and BIAB would in theory benefit from the Blu-Ray format. 99.9% of the time releases are better, even SD concerts benefit from this because of less video compression on the format, and all concerts benefit from the sound offered on Blu-Ray. Right off the bat it has those going for it. Not to mention for people in America, they are able to view the full 576i recording on their TV sets in NTSC regions without importing the Eurpoean DVD. (Some have even speculated it was recorded on film) That's big! However, you came to this post to wonder why i'm asking the question to begin with. I don't have this release myself, and I want to ask the people who do own this release how it stacks up to the DVD in terms of picture because of one thing. I heard that there was DNR applied to the grain in the video. In an age where more people are starting to recognize what makes up the look of film, this should have been a death sentence. DNR removes the grain of film, and if used excessively can make people look plastic. I really hope this isn't true. My instincts every time I see the Blu-Ray release is to just buy it without a second thought. 

EDIT: The possibility of DNR on the Blu-Ray is why I praised the Music HD broadcast of Bullet in A Bible songs. 

1001.png998.png

Edit: The Blu-Ray release is superior

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I would say it's a massive upgrade from the DVD version. I can't pull screencaps of the DVD version because it's in storage right now, but I can pull some from the Bluray verison. I'm pretty sure it was recorded on 35mm film, and that the grain removal was used. Digital cameras weren't quite there yet with video quality. There would be visual artifacts of resolution like shimmering. Things look a little glossed over because the DNR but it really doesn't effect my viewing experience. It looks amazing, and is still easily the most immersive live concert release I have watched yet. It's hard to capture the quality in screenshots, because it looks way better in motion but here's some anyways. Keep in mind that they've been a little compressed by gyazo.

8925fadffde59bd4799c8b8df439f805.jpg

7c97ff399dc97eb1f073cf752932d69d.jpg

580d6288ad49f1b670e0ccf3cf6a4f53.jpg

cff5c8ba586373b344308ee9c62eb411.jpg

37257a3665f43d0603e5838970f7200e.jpg

 

Again, in motion it looks way better. Same applies to almost all video. It would look worse if there was no DNR applied and you were streaming it from any service like Netflix with compression (in the case that is would be on there.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was MOST DEFINITELY not shot on film. I don't think you guys understand the cost of processing, editing and shooting in film vs 4K (possibly UHD) and contrary to popular belief there is a difference. (Especially on a multicam shoot like BIAB). The film stock alone would cost a ton, not to mention the film processing and transcoding for editing and back.

Even if it was shot in 2K of 1080p (anamorphic TV [like pal vs ntsc) or if was indeed shot in 4K, DVDs use a codec (compressor/decompressor) meaning if compressed it to something called mpeg-2 and uncompressed at the point of your DVD player and it is highly lossless at only 9.7gigs.

Blu-Ray has a little over 50 gigs and even the same exact footage won't need to be downgraded to mpeg-2 (a horrible 10/1 codec used by all DVDs, every one) for DVD and in fact even if shot in 2k of 1080p can be up-rezzed and Blu-Ray is going to look better than the DVD regardless, so without ever seeing the Bluray version, I can GUARANTEE, especially to those that can see it that the BluRay is much much better than the crappy DVD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LaughingClock said:

It was MOST DEFINITELY not shot on film. I don't think you guys understand the cost of processing, editing and shooting in film vs 4K (possibly UHD) and contrary to popular belief there is a difference.

Even if it was shot in 2K of 1080p (anamorphic TV [like pal vs ntsc) or if was indeed shot in 4K, DVDs use a codec (compressor/decompressor) meaning if compressed it to something called mpeg-2 and uncompressed at the point of your DVD player and it is highly lossless at only 9.7gigs.

Blu-Ray has a little over 50 gigs and even the same exact footage won't need to be downgraded to mpeg-2 for DVD and in fact even if shot in 2k of 1080p can be up-rezzed and Blu-Ray is going to look better than the DVD regardless, so without ever seeing the Bluray version, I can GUARANTEE, especially to those that can see it that the BluRay is much much better than the crappy DVD.

I know a little bit more than you give credit for. I say original 576i only because I can't find any definitive proof that it was shot on film, 4k, or on 576i PAL digicams. Originally, I just thought the film grain and full frame shots were just effects added in post. EVEN if that was the case, DNR applied to fake grain is even worse considering it's a lower resolution to film. 4K may be great, but film still is crisper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Yuri Plisetsky said:

I know a little bit more than you give credit for. I say original 576i only because I can't find any definitive proof that it was shot on film, 4k, or on 576i PAL digicams. Originally, I just thought the film grain, and full frame shots were just effects added in post. EVEN if that was the case, DNR applied to fake grain is even worse considering it's a lower resolution to film. 4K may be great, but film still is crisper.

I saw that you know what 576i is and therefore gave you full credit actually.

Most people only know 625 alternating phasing and therefore I know you know what you're talking about but I know from watching it that a) it wasn't shot in PAL (not pure PAL), it was using an NTSC standard (it's easy to tell from the colors), PAL has deeper reds.

Also, they know they are gonna sell more in the states and therefore wouldn't shoot in a PAL standard and in 2004, they would be shooting in almost definitely HD 1080p (1920x1080 progressive), not interlaced for future proofing. They could have shot in 4K even then but wouldn't have. 

I am almost positive they didn't shoot film because there were 12 cameras (aside from the inserts which might have been film). It was easy in 04-05 to shoot in digital and make it look like film and anyway, my point was regardless ALL DVDs use an mpeg-2 codec, every single one and being able to use a better codec because it's on Bluray will increase the quality regardless of how they shot it because mpeg-2 is a horrible codec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LaughingClock said:

I am almost positive they didn't shoot film because there were 12 cameras (aside from the inserts which might have been film). It was easy in 04-05 to shoot in digital and make it look like film and anyway, my point was regardless ALL DVDs use an mpeg-2 codec, every single one and being able to use a better codec because it's on Bluray will increase the quality regardless of how they shot it because mpeg-2 is a horrible codec.

I mean, there's literally backstage footage in BIAB of Sam directing from the control room and I'm sure some cameramen could be found elsewhere also. It wouldn't be hard to check :lol:

Or also just check the end credits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RougeRogue said:

I mean, there's literally backstage footage in BIAB of Sam directing from the control room and I'm sure some cameramen could be found elsewhere also. It wouldn't be hard to check :lol:

Or also just check the end credits.

Maybe in the case with the backstage interviews but since so many cameras were used, it'd be difficult to say for certain what all the cameras were that shot the concert.

1 hour ago, LaughingClock said:

I saw that you know what 576i is and therefore gave you full credit actually.

Most people only know 625 alternating phasing and therefore I know you know what you're talking about but I know from watching it that a) it wasn't shot in PAL (not pure PAL), it was using an NTSC standard (it's easy to tell from the colors), PAL has deeper reds.

Also, they know they are gonna sell more in the states and therefore wouldn't shoot in a PAL standard and in 2004, they would be shooting in almost definitely HD 1080p (1920x1080 progressive), not interlaced for future proofing. They could have shot in 4K even then but wouldn't have. 

I am almost positive they didn't shoot film because there were 12 cameras (aside from the inserts which might have been film). It was easy in 04-05 to shoot in digital and make it look like film and anyway, my point was regardless ALL DVDs use an mpeg-2 codec, every single one and being able to use a better codec because it's on Bluray will increase the quality regardless of how they shot it because mpeg-2 is a horrible codec.

(First off, thank you for the credit.) Secondly, I probably should have said that everything is shot in a progressive resolution, and interlaced when it comes on DVD (and broadcast in 1080i on HDTV). And you're right. Even SD content benefits on Blu-Ray because of a better codec (MPEG-4) and less compression on the format. The reason I wasn't entirely sure why it was shot in HD or not was because their music videos at the time were not. WMUWSE was filmed in widescreen, but not HD. So either they bought HD broadcast cameras or used the similar/the same cameras that filmed the music videos for the AI era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Yuri Plisetsky said:

Maybe in the case with the backstage interviews but since so many cameras were used, it'd be difficult to say for certain what all the cameras were that shot the concert.

I probably should have said that everything is shot in a progressive resolution, and interlaced when it comes on DVD (and broadcast in 1080i on HDTV). And you're right. Even SD content benefits on Blu-Ray because of a better codec (MPEG-4) and less compression on the format. The reason I wasn't entirely sure why it was shot in HD or not was because their music videos at the time were not. WMUWSE was filmed in widescreen, but not HD. So either they bought HD broadcast cameras or used the similar/the same cameras that filmed the music videos for the AI era.

They didn't buy cameras for any of it. That's almost never how it's done. A production company was hired to shoot it.

My guess is that the inserts were shot in film and the show was shot in NTSC 1080P.

In 2004 that would have been what they would do. There is an off chance they shot it in PAL 1080P (simply because they were in Europe)  but for the reasons I gave above, most likely not.

As for shooting all 12 cameras in film would just be foolish and expensive as hell. By 2004, you could easily make video look like film. Nowadays, even in film they don't use film unless your Quentin Tatentino or Scorsese. It wasn't then yet, but film has become a throw back,  not the norm and just syncing film (without the benefit of sync burst) as provided by digital media would have made concert footage, aside from editing and processing, a technical nightmare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Yuri Plisetsky said:

Maybe in the case with the backstage interviews but since so many cameras were used, it'd be difficult to say for certain what all the cameras were that shot the concert.

Yes and no. If they used film anywhere, the brand and lab will be the last thing you see in the credits. That would answer that broadly.

But I wonder if you could pause that control room scene and see if there's tech specs floating around on the monitors.

I recall that Sam was fond of using actual film. He did for BOBD, as I remember the shots of him fucking up film strips to get the effect they use on that video.

3 minutes ago, LaughingClock said:

Nowadays, even in film they don't use film unless your Quentin Tatentino or Scorsese.

Or Nolan. Or Fincher. :P

(It's probably used a little more often than you think. Has kinda had a comeback since Fincher used it on Black Swan imo)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RougeRogue said:

Yes and no. If they used film anywhere, the brand and lab will be the last thing you see in the credits. That would answer that broadly.

But I wonder if you could pause that control room scene and see if there's tech specs floating around on the monitors.

I recall that Sam was fond of using actual film. He did for BOBD, as I remember the shots of him fucking up film strips to get the effect they use on that video.

Or Nolan. Or Fincher. :P

(It's probably used a little more often than you think. Has kinda had a comeback since Fincher used it on Black Swan imo)

https://stephenfollows.com/film-vs-digital/

 

Film-vs-digital-on-Hollywood.png?w=1320&

 

I could do this all day but I've been around the film industry as a VFX supervisor for many years and was an adult during the transition and trust me when I tell you that using film in the oughts is a kin to using black and white in the 80s.

There are massive benefits beyond cost to using digital.

The only film that is mostly still used as a standard is IMAX (70mm) and even then that is changing to just higher resolution.

In the late 90s when the Sony Cinealta line began, they used things like spinners (physical) on the camera to make it look like it was flipping like film but now that computers are so powerful and that the newer generation is used to what older fans of the analogue look of film have no emotional attachment to the "somewhat cartoony" look of modern digital camera so they don't even try to make it look like film anymore.

24 frames a second is what the eye naturally sees and gives motion blur as if you were watching naturally which is why we play films at 24fps (48 for 3D) and in some cases the digitial projector ruin the film look anyway. We used to have reel to reel cameras in every theater.

The same way analogue purists such as people that like vinyl, the hissed and cracks are part of the emotion.

In film, it's the grain and yet at the beginning of a Dolby theater, they show pure black and then say "The projector is running right now" and then splashes the HDR perfect blacks and pixels shown by Dolby HDR.

Ive only just come around to it personally. The look of the prequels to Star Wars is a perfect example where people that wanted a film look were pissed about the cartoon look and hence VII was made to look practical and so was Rogue 1 to play to the Star Wars fans of the 70s.

Again, the cost of 12 film cameras to shoot on would make the production costs ASTRONOMICAL to the point of being almost, if not completely, unprofitable.

Frankly, I don't know but if anything but the inserts were film, I'd be quite surprised.

____________________________________________

Totally off topic, as I was searching for the cameras (which I can't find but I will try and find out), I found out this unfortunate fact for our friends with bibles with a bullet.

This was only shot with a 9mm and anyone that knows guns, knows that any bullets used in any war, are going to be much more powerful.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I hear you, and I get it. I work at a (mostly) CG/Animation production company myself and I was the last graduating class of my film school to be taught to use actual film. There's still people that dig it, particularly when they have the money to do it (Dunkirk) it's also not a -huge- deal to do short films on actual film which is why I think you can still find it in the indie scene. Hell, my school did it for the longest time and our movies didn't make money. They only stopped in 2012.

Anyhow, I went back through the credits.

They DID use film - Panavision cameras, film stock came from Kodak. Used two labs - Technicolor UK and Yale Film & Video.

Can't tell you what exactly was used during the show vs. the interviews vs. the backstage portions, but there it is. Film was used on BIAB, no question.

 

1 hour ago, LaughingClock said:

 

I could do this all day but I've been around the film industry as a VFX supervisor for many years and was an adult during the transition and trust me when I tell you that using film in the oughts is a kin to using black and white in the 80s.

There are massive benefits beyond cost to using digital.

The only film that is mostly still used as a standard is IMAX (70mm) and even then that is changing to just higher resolution.

You say that, but you gotta look at the names that are shooting on 35mm, man. Again, Dunkirk, Wonder Woman, freaking Star Wars. Last Jedi just used film. Baby Driver. 3 Oscar movies from last year used film. Just...there's soooo many blockbusters doing it right now and it makes sense- they have the money to do something seemingly inconvenient and costly.

I don't particularly have an opinion either way. But you can't look at the lineup of film users right now and say "yeah but no one does that nowadays". Not everyone, but some very significant titles are using film again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RougeRogue said:

^ I hear you, and I get it. I work at a (mostly) CG/Animation production company myself and I was the last graduating class of my film school to be taught to use actual film. There's still people that dig it, particularly when they have the money to do it (Dunkirk) it's also not a -huge- deal to do short films on actual film which is why I think you can still find it in the indie scene. Hell, my school did it for the longest time and our movies didn't make money. They only stopped in 2012.

Anyhow, I went back through the credits.

They DID use film - Panavision cameras, film stock came from Kodak. Used two labs - Technicolor UK and Yale Film & Video.

Can't tell you what exactly was used during the show vs. the interviews vs. the backstage portions, but there it is. Film was used on BIAB, no question.

 

You say that, but you gotta look at the names that are shooting on 35mm, man. Again, Dunkirk, Wonder Woman, freaking Star Wars. Last Jedi just used film. Baby Driver. 3 Oscar movies from last year used film. Just...there's soooo many blockbusters doing it right now and it makes sense- they have the money to do something seemingly inconvenient and costly.

I don't particularly have an opinion either way. But you can't look at the lineup of film users right now and say "yeah but no one does that nowadays". Not everyone, but some very significant titles are using film again.

Like I said, for the interviews. 

 

Id be hella surprised if they used them on the jibs, chopper, and stage. Just too much. I'm sires they shot it "live to tape". I can almost guarantee it. And then they edited the live to tape. I WILL find out.

It's pretty easy to see they used film on the documentary shots but it's just not feesable for the rest but I've been wrong a couple times. Again, I can definitely see the film look on the documentary parts and they did a good job (especially for 05) of making the show footage look film like (if it wasn't).

Will find out this week.  

As for your film career, are you in London? Im in SoHo at The Mill, Lip Sync, GoldCrest and a couple other places on gigs on occasion. I'll give you a tour next time I'm in town if ya like.

Also, what school?

 

edit: oh, you're not in UK I see, and I see you live in Orlando so Full Sail or UCF? I taught film for 2 years in the late 90s to about 2002 at both. You were probably my student. Lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LaughingClock said:

edit: oh, you're not in UK I see, and I see you live in Orlando so Full Sail or UCF? I taught film for 2 years in the late 90s to about 2002 at both. You were probably my student. Lol.

Neither. Florida State. Same school as Barry Jenkins from Moonlight. Among the most highly ranked film schools in the nation, oh yeahhhh :toocool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, RougeRogue said:

Neither. Florida State. Same school as Barry Jenkins from Moonlight. Among the most highly ranked film schools in the nation, oh yeahhhh :toocool:

I'm a Gator! We are enemies! 

That said, we are both hurting. Sorry about Francois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Grinch said:

if there was no DNR applied and you were streaming it from any service like Netflix with compression

With digital services, fair enough. But this is a 50gb 1080p High Definiton Blu-Ray disc. A physical medium which far surpasses that of digital services. The grain was not something people complained about on the DVD whatsoever. When it comes to film stock, or fake grain applied to a picture which can not be removed after already rendering it that way, the grain IS the detail. It'd be like if you applied smoothing to a Sega Genesis or Super Nintendo game. Yeah it may look more visually appealing at a glance, until you check and wonder where some of the details went.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LaughingClock said:

I'm a Gator! We are enemies! 

That said, we are both hurting. Sorry about Francois.

Homie, I stopped following our football team when our quarterback was stealing crab legs. 

...or in other words, when I graduated. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RougeRogue said:

Homie, I stopped following our football team when our quarterback was stealing crab legs. 

...or in other words, when I graduated. :P

Haha! Smart move. I'm diehard and it's fucking ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2017 at 11:34 AM, LaughingClock said:

It was MOST DEFINITELY not shot on film. I don't think you guys understand the cost of processing, editing and shooting in film vs 4K (possibly UHD) and contrary to popular belief there is a difference. (Especially on a multicam shoot like BIAB). The film stock alone would cost a ton, not to mention the film processing and transcoding for editing and back.

Even if it was shot in 2K of 1080p (anamorphic TV [like pal vs ntsc) or if was indeed shot in 4K, DVDs use a codec (compressor/decompressor) meaning if compressed it to something called mpeg-2 and uncompressed at the point of your DVD player and it is highly lossless at only 9.7gigs.

Blu-Ray has a little over 50 gigs and even the same exact footage won't need to be downgraded to mpeg-2 (a horrible 10/1 codec used by all DVDs, every one) for DVD and in fact even if shot in 2k of 1080p can be up-rezzed and Blu-Ray is going to look better than the DVD regardless, so without ever seeing the Bluray version, I can GUARANTEE, especially to those that can see it that the BluRay is much much better than the crappy DVD.

Digital cameras were hardly used for cinema still at the time. Today most films are shot with 2K, 4K (or sometimes 8K cameras) digitally, where the very earliest 4K digital cinema cameras weren't out until late 2006. The screenshots I posted show obvious use of film. If they're part of post processing than I would say that it's pretty impressive. There could have been detailed film imitation special effects applied but we're talking about a straight to DVD release live concert. Studies in 2007 explained how much more difficult and expensive it would be to store digital masters at the time instead of film reels. Hard drive costs, maintaining, backups, and choosing hardware that will last the test of time.  The lossless footage of all those cameras would be a lot of money (but I guess same with scanning all of it on film). Maybe I'm completely wrong idk.

BIAB 2005:

9403ab033ae0a276897b4bf3c03696e6.jpg

Nirvana live at the paramount shot on 16mm film

e433e476a8ced95247cf986e184057ff.jpg

Looks similar, right? Shots more cropped and zoomed have the stronger grain. If it wasn't on film, then why would they give it the effect of looking like it was recorded on film, then run it through more effects to give it the look of grain removal? Doesn't make any sense to me.

I do agree to an extent that upscaled blu-ray will look better than native DVD simply because of the less compression, but DVDs aren't very compressed anyways. 10mbps video for 480i 24/30fps is pretty good in term of compression and quality, probably being optimized in the best possible way.

 

Just a question, how do you know it was shot with exactly 12 cameras? Did you just count all of the unique shots you saw? I think the control room cameras are very specifically only for the large displays but I might be wrong because it looks like Billie endlessly repeats behind himself a few times.

22 hours ago, Yuri Plisetsky said:

With digital services, fair enough. But this is a 50gb 1080p High Definiton Blu-Ray disc. A physical medium which far surpasses that of digital services. The grain was not something people complained about on the DVD whatsoever. When it comes to film stock, or fake grain applied to a picture which can not be removed after already rendering it that way, the grain IS the detail. It'd be like if you applied smoothing to a Sega Genesis or Super Nintendo game. Yeah it may look more visually appealing at a glance, until you check and wonder where some of the details went.

It's not really visible on DVD is why. It kinda is, but it was probably smoothed out on all versions of Bullet in a Bible.  Older music videos like Longview has easily visible grain on the DVD release. Those Palladia screenshots you posted above if anything they look worse than the BluRay release and have less grain. I do agree saying that the detail is in the grain. I even like adding a little bit of the stupid grain effect to Left 4 Dead because it "Feels" more detailed. Most 16 bit era games look gross with any sort of HQXX filtering applied.

 

I'm not a big time film expert or anything so maybe I'm just completely stupid and wrong but it just doesn't seem right that they recorded this digitally. I guess all that truly matters is that the Bluray version is clearly the definitive way to watch Bullet in a Bible. Big step up from the DVD release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New source became available as of recently for comparison. 1080i French HDTV Broadcast (Screenshots are .jpg format, the actual broadcast is much better) Judging from the screenshots, the grain appears to be intact, just heavy compression in these screenshots giving a different impression.

POrs71g_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fzLNUuhq_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fEmDPzCc_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fD6h81UB_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fzoxJJfN_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Yuri Plisetsky said:

New source became available as of recently for comparison. 1080i French HDTV Broadcast (Screenshots are .jpg format, the actual broadcast is much better) Judging from the screenshots, the grain appears to be intact, just heavy compression in these screenshots giving a different impression.

Uhh yeah like I said, it doesn't look any different than the Bluray version besides worse. There's no difference in gain besides the lack from compression and it's NOT those screenshots. I already explained this. I don't understand how a TV broadcasted version would look better than the bluray version or have any less post processing. I'm like 90% positive this was recorded with film instead of digital cameras (at least in some way besides the interviews.) Maybe 16mm?

Here's BETTER versions of those same exact screenshots you posted and compared to Bluray:

5d5340fbfbedab64a8024785f036afc378311edb

b796efea551159c5915c1e3d649e7c9e.jpg

4a47bb51f8198618f51fe5c14ded2e738ad4e6fc

e035a04dcb9735aa9c4407cb69d13ff0.jpg

?????????? not trying to see like a jerk but I'm also trying to show that I'm not stupid or clueless about this.

Also how are you going to find out, LaughingClock? Do you have a contact to ask them about how it was filmed? I'm excited to find out

 

Edit: is it possible to run the selected video through film the same way you can run digital recordings through a tape recorder to get the effect? Seems unneccesary and probably really hard to do but I was just wondering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grinch said:

not trying to see like a jerk but I'm also trying to show that I'm not stupid or clueless about this.

You're right. After looking at this, the Blu-Ray is much better. I was just so convinced in my mind that the grain was an effect that I despised the idea of DNR of any kind. I'll just post screenshots from my DVD to confirm any doubts I, or other people in the future may have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grinch said:

 

b796efea551159c5915c1e3d649e7c9e.jpg2b21ef80e1ff452f46d74435e615c8c1.png

Blu-Ray: Left (Top on mobile)

DVD: Right (Bottom on mobile)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2017 at 4:13 PM, Grinch said:

Digital cameras were hardly used for cinema still at the time. Today most films are shot with 2K, 4K (or sometimes 8K cameras) digitally, where the very earliest 4K digital cinema cameras weren't out until late 2006. The screenshots I posted show obvious use of film. If they're part of post processing than I would say that it's pretty impressive. There could have been detailed film imitation special effects applied but we're talking about a straight to DVD release live concert. Studies in 2007 explained how much more difficult and expensive it would be to store digital masters at the time instead of film reels. Hard drive costs, maintaining, backups, and choosing hardware that will last the test of time.  The lossless footage of all those cameras would be a lot of money (but I guess same with scanning all of it on film). Maybe I'm completely wrong idk.

BIAB 2005:

9403ab033ae0a276897b4bf3c03696e6.jpg

Nirvana live at the paramount shot on 16mm film

e433e476a8ced95247cf986e184057ff.jpg

Looks similar, right? Shots more cropped and zoomed have the stronger grain. If it wasn't on film, then why would they give it the effect of looking like it was recorded on film, then run it through more effects to give it the look of grain removal? Doesn't make any sense to me.

I do agree to an extent that upscaled blu-ray will look better than native DVD simply because of the less compression, but DVDs aren't very compressed anyways. 10mbps video for 480i 24/30fps is pretty good in term of compression and quality, probably being optimized in the best possible way.

 

Just a question, how do you know it was shot with exactly 12 cameras? Did you just count all of the unique shots you saw? I think the control room cameras are very specifically only for the large displays but I might be wrong because it looks like Billie endlessly repeats behind himself a few times.

It's not really visible on DVD is why. It kinda is, but it was probably smoothed out on all versions of Bullet in a Bible.  Older music videos like Longview has easily visible grain on the DVD release. Those Palladia screenshots you posted above if anything they look worse than the BluRay release and have less grain. I do agree saying that the detail is in the grain. I even like adding a little bit of the stupid grain effect to Left 4 Dead because it "Feels" more detailed. Most 16 bit era games look gross with any sort of HQXX filtering applied.

 

I'm not a big time film expert or anything so maybe I'm just completely stupid and wrong but it just doesn't seem right that they recorded this digitally. I guess all that truly matters is that the Bluray version is clearly the definitive way to watch Bullet in a Bible. Big step up from the DVD release.

There is simply mostly untrue. I have been working in the digital and analogue world during, before and after the transition.


The Cinealta line from Sony was available in the late 90s (like 98) and commercially viable in 2001 by most and oft used instead of film cameras (especially for concerts and multi-cams). The shots in the documentary part are film cameras.  The copter shots are 2k digital cameras (or I should say 1080p also known as 2k when shot at 1.85 anamorphic).  THERE IS NO way that they used 12 film cameras for the concert footage.  It's just not feasible to have made.  

I never said it would have been shot at 4k. I said it would have been shot at 1080p for future proofing although the Cinealta line was actually available in 2004.  In 2005 we we're well on our way to a complete phasing out of film for digital. Not just for the processing costs (do you have any idea how much money it would cost to process 12 cameras worth of live footage???).  Even if you telicined it, and then used the key codes to then send it back to film, you would have to sync the audio which would need things like camera markers (they aren't just there for looks) and even if you did just use pops and other methods, it would be a mother fucker to do to 12 COMPLETE logs, not just one camera and some footage. You would have to get both nights on all 12 cameras, logged, telecined (transferred to video which is what we used to do with film before the days of processing the film, putting it in a room full of processed film while the editor and the director would look through all the films and literally cut it together with what was called a KEM).  I actually used to cut and splice film and watch stuff go on what is still called "The Cutting Room Floor" as a trash can in most editors.

The reason editors have a program monitor and a live monitor with a timeline is because it is a relic of this:

1884ly0459fmgjpg.jpg

 

So I just went and looked at the cast for BIAB and they only list 4 camera ops with a focus puller and one first AC (this changes my thoughts a little as I assumed their were more cameras) but I would still bet that the one camera that is film would be the documentary one and the fact that there is only one AC would lend some credence to that but I'll back off a little on my assurance since there is only 4 camera ops listed and each one had a focus puller which also lends credence to it possibly being film.  I can tell you this though in 2004, I can almost guarantee that nobody (or almost nobody here can tell the difference between 1080p made to look like film) and film, especially now.

I knew for the record that of course it wasn't 4K.

I would be less surprised now, but still surprised if they used 5 film cameras. It would be an extraordinary waste of money and either way, it would look better on Blu-Ray over DVD.  it's Mpeg-2 vs. Mpeg-4

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LaughingClock said:

There is simply mostly untrue. I have been working in the digital and analogue world during, before and after the transition.


The Cinealta line from Sony was available in the late 90s (like 98) and commercially viable in 2001 by most and oft used instead of film cameras (especially for concerts and multi-cams). The shots in the documentary part are film cameras.  The copter shots are 2k digital cameras (or I should say 1080p also known as 2k when shot at 1.85 anamorphic).  THERE IS NO way that they used 12 film cameras for the concert footage.  It's just not feasible to have made.  

I never said it would have been shot at 4k. I said it would have been shot at 1080p for future proofing although the Cinealta line was actually available in 2004.  In 2005 we we're well on our way to a complete phasing out of film for digital. Not just for the processing costs (do you have any idea how much money it would cost to process 12 cameras worth of live footage???).  

I knew for the record that of course it wasn't 4K.

I would be less surprised now, but still surprised if they used 5 film cameras. It would be an extraordinary waste of money and either way, it would look better on Blu-Ray over DVD.  it's Mpeg-2 vs. Mpeg-4

 

I might have forgot but in my later post I started to agree that all 12 cameras most likely weren't on film, but I said that at least 1 must have besides the interview parts. I never said that all 12 were film cameras (by then I realized that you're right that 12 would be totally unrealistic for film.) I was asking how you knew there were 12 TOTAL cameras (film or digital) in the movie total. By counting the unique shots? Also yea Bluray would always look better than DVD.

Also that is so cool that you have first hand experience and got to use that equipment before. I always found that fascinating.

 

On 9/5/2017 at 6:13 PM, Grinch said:

Just a question, how do you know it was shot with exactly 12 cameras? Did you just count all of the unique shots you saw? I think the control room cameras are very specifically only for the large displays but I might be wrong because it looks like Billie endlessly repeats behind himself a few times.

7 hours ago, Grinch said:

 I'm like 90% positive this was recorded with film instead of digital cameras (at least in some way besides the interviews.) 

By "at least in some way" meant there had to have been at least one or some film cameras because of all of those screenshots posted above. I could have clarified that better.

On 9/4/2017 at 11:52 AM, LaughingClock said:

Also, they know they are gonna sell more in the states and therefore wouldn't shoot in a PAL standard and in 2004, they would be shooting in almost definitely HD 1080p (1920x1080 progressive), not interlaced for future proofing. They could have shot in 4K even then but wouldn't have. 

This is where I thought you meant that 4K was a possibility at the time.

On 9/5/2017 at 6:13 PM, Grinch said:

Today most films are shot with 2K, 4K (or sometimes 8K cameras) digitally, where the very earliest 4K digital cinema cameras weren't out until late 2006. 

Now I just wish the other GD movies would have been released on Bluray (besides AAF). Would be great to get a new live concert release soon but I kinda doubt it will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Grinch Dunno. They usually put out some live DVD or album after the tour. The fact that they have been sooooo stuck to the setlist lately has been making me wonder if it's a live version practice or just so they have multiple takes like in AAF.

But then I remember that's not neccrsary and stupid as fuck and also god damnit! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...