[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ramblings on tech details Re: New TSRTS cover

OK, be warned. I'm about to ramble even more.


How much of the initial non-concert footage was played without music?
I know the two scenes involving Peter Grant didn't have any music
behind them, but what else?  Isn't it possible that the same running
time could mean that the fantasy sequences were cut in favor of the
live footage, too?  Or am I seriously miscalculating the timing (which
is probably the case, lol)?
I thought of that too. If they took out all the non-musical stuff (the intro with Grant's fantasy sequence, the bits where the band members are informed of the tour, the bird flying around, the bit with Plant talking about the "cosmic energy", Grant berating the guy for selling pirated t-shirts, the bank robbery press conference etc.) and then put more music in, maybe it would add up to almost the same running time by coincidence. I'm not enough of a trainspotter to go and find out the duration of those sequences versus that of the extra songs, though :-) 


I've seen the Plant/Grant interview... but what is the bank robbery
thing and the Cameron Crowe radio show thing, again?
Bank robbery = complete local NYC tv station news report about the bank robbery, I think. 

Cameron Crowe radio show, I have no idea. Maybe audio only?


Not presumably.  It's Shirley... this release should sound and look as
good as "DVD."
Personally I agree with you there; I think the audio will kick ass. I put that "presumably" in there 'cause there may be some purists out there who think the original vinyl pressings of the album, or the original theatrical print soundtracks, have better sound than today's DVDs... 


Personally I love Widescreen, because I prefer seeing more what's on
the sides than what's on top and bottom, especially when it comes to
live concert footage.
OK, serious techno/geek alert here. :-) I knew this would happen... I _am_ going to go into the same level of detail as in my posts a few years ago. So sit back in your chairs, and get ready. :-)
What I discovered when researching the aspect ratios of the different releases of the film (original home video, laserdisc and DVD) is that the film was originally shot in 4:3 35mm and distributed in 4:3 35mm. The image was cropped in theaters (via a combination of masks in the projection room and curtains around screens to chop off the top and bottom) to achieve the widescreen effect. Note that this was done with many feature films back in the day that weren't actually shot in widescreen formats like Panavision and Vistavision (because the film stock was far more expensive and cameras were scarcer). That's why you can sometimes see boom microphones above the actors if such films happen to be projected in a non-widescreen theater, or shown on TV, in 4:3. When shooting such films, the director and camera operator knew they were framing their image for an eventual widescreen cropping, so they didn't worry about boom mics or other extraneous stuff in the top or bottom part of the 4:3 frame. It also allowed them to place the boom mics closer to the actors mouths and get better sound pickup.
In other words, the _sides_ remain the same :-) in both the 4:3 and widescreen versions of TSRtS; it's stuff on the _top and bottom_ that gets lost when the widescreen format is applied. In the days before 16:9 TVs became popular and we all had 4:3 TVs, if you watched TSRtS on the old laserdisc format (a digital precursor to DVD that was popular among videophiles in the late 80s and early 90s) on a 4:3 TV, you actually saw the picture _as it was shot_ in the camera, and saw more picture than anyone who had seen the film in theaters ever did.
And when TSRtS was shown on, say, MTV or VH-1, they would chop the sides off the already-chopped widescreen version, so you got even less picture!
If anybody's read this far and understands what the hell I'm talking about, congratulations. :-P 


I wrote my own review just now (4-Stars, though I say I may change
that).  More a response to a 2-Star review that just got posted
(rather hastily, might I add... the 2-star was hasty, that is... mine
was thought out and not so hasty... or so I'd like to think... :D).
Was that 2-star you, BTW? :D


Nice job! No, the other review wasn't me.


The KS is suspicious, but I don't think it is Shirley because there is
one other review on his profile, though that could mean nothing.
I think it's him; it looks like his writing style. I can't imagine anybody out there would so not have a life that they'd feel the need to impersonate KS online. :-) And if someone _did_ want to impersonate KS online, they'd put "Kevin Shirley," not a fake name. 

But stranger things have happened.