Steven Wilson Pink Floyd - Live at Pompeii - Steven Wilson mix - May 2nd 2025

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My son and I are going the Sunday, April 27th IMAX showing in an Atlanta suburb.
l am in part going to convince myself the same thing. That my modest audio + visual system is better than the theater industry.
Well, at least the audio part.
I have not been to a movie theater in many years. I don't know how things go these days, but phones ringing, people yakking, just turned me off to what was a beautiful experience in my younger days.
The total disregard some seem to have for others became too appalling to tolerate.
But I do hope your experience is great!
 
It was shot simultaneously on video and film using separate cameras?
The Electronicam that they used for The Honeymooners shot live video and 35mm film at the same time. Hardly a fair comparison to capturing a live concert 40 years later.
 
I have not been to a movie theater in many years. I don't know how things go these days, but phones ringing, people yakking, just turned me off to what was a beautiful experience in my younger days.
The total disregard some seem to have for others became too appalling to tolerate.
But I do hope your experience is great!
My experience at the TFF live film last year was pretty good, I'd say.
 
My experience at the TFF live film last year was pretty good, I'd say.
Sweet.
I went to an ELP concert in Germany many many years ago and I thought the audience fairly subdued. Could be a cultural thing, IDK.
I never attended any films there, though. Most of my time not traveling was spent around the general Wurzburg/Giebelstadt area as I visited some Army buds.
 
It was shot simultaneously on video and film using separate cameras?
It used a hybrid camera that exposed 35mm film while also sending out a video signal for the live broadcast. Videotape either wasn't yet really a thing or was too new (clunky? expensive?) to use. The main purpose was to give the west half of the continent something less awful than the kinescopes of the day. I don't know if it was a consideration at the time, but it also created high-quality source material for later syndication.

I have no idea how the film editing was accomplished. It certainly couldn't have been done in time to be ready for broadcast an hour or two later. Maybe the part of the country that couldn't get the live version got the episode a week later?
 
Last edited:
The Electronicam that they used for The Honeymooners shot live video and 35mm film at the same time. Hardly a fair comparison to capturing a live concert 40 years later.
Hence my <pedantry> tag. I was just pointing out that the idea isn't entirely without precedent. Cost and inconvenience aside, I assume the thought never crossed anyone's mind back in 1994 simply because videotape was pretty good, reliable and relatively inexpensive by that point and any potential later need for something with higher definition wasn't on anyone's mind.
 
The biggest hope for Pulse would be technology like James Cameron used for his recent 4k remasters. While this admittedly had mixed results (True Lies looks to scrubbed and processed while The Abyss looked pretty good), the tech will continue to improve and may help things like Pulse be improved on.

And yeah in 1994, no one was thinking beyond NTSC/PAL. Neither was great and the format they shot it in was more than enough for those display standards.
 
The biggest hope for Pulse would be technology like James Cameron used for his recent 4k remasters. While this admittedly had mixed results (True Lies looks to scrubbed and processed while The Abyss looked pretty good), the tech will continue to improve and may help things like Pulse be improved on.
The problem with the video is that the hot whites blast away all detail that can't be recovered, not even with the latest technology. That was never an issue with the examples you sited.
Hence my <pedantry> tag.
I would have chosen a different adjective. 😉
 
James Cameron used for his recent 4k remasters. While this admittedly had mixed results (True Lies looks to scrubbed and processed while The Abyss looked pretty good),
I never understood why they used ai for those when they very easily could have gone back to the original 35mm camera negatives to create a native 4k master even when it saves time and money.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the video is that the hot whites blast away all detail that can't be recovered, not even with the latest technology. That was never an issue with the examples you sited.

I would have chosen a different adjective. 😉

I'm not saying you'll get something that looks like it was shot on a modern 4K digital camera, I don't see that happening. But you may be able to salvage some detail and improve things.
 
I never understood why they used ai for those when they very easily could have gone back to the original 35mm camera negatives to create a native 4k master even when it saves time and money.

From what I recall he wanted them to look like recent films with more detail (and probably less grain). Personally I'd be fine with what you suggest (I have a fair amount of older films mastered just like you outlined). I just picked this example because it's recent and most people have probably at least heard of it. Not defending Cameron's choices.
 
It’s pretty common these days for a film to get a new 4k transfer, get released first as a Bluray, then to get released some time later as a 4k UHD disc (I’ve been burned several times by this). I’m going to be patient and wait on this purchase (I doubt the Bluray version will go out of print any time soon)

Yes. I’ve just bought the 4K version of Can’t Stop the Music. Truth be told I struggle to tell the difference between the Blu Ray and Ultra
 
Back
Top