memine

Members
  • Posts

    65
  • Joined

  • Online

About memine

  • Rank
    Burning Up

Recent Profile Visitors

425 profile views
  1. memine

    It's not so much about the artist passing as much as it is about time passing. The bands from the 60's who have blu-rays with videos out is because their videos have been released numerous times before without significant update in quality so re-releasing the same stuff looking the same way for the 5th decade in a row wasn't doable anymore. Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston have been dead for a while but there hasn't been an operation of upgrading their videos as of yet to cash in on their deaths. There's no indication of this happening with Prince either. Music video collections from Madonna's contemporaries have been released once or twice at best with no quality upgrade worth mentioning.
  2. memine

    Mary Lambert has a Vimeo channel with her Madonna videos that don't look any better than what we're used to for what is worth.
  3. memine

    Not shot, but it is possible they cut them to tape (the b-rolls definitely look like it) so this would be what the masters are archived on, which is why the film rolls would have to be re-scanned as we discussed earlier.
  4. memine

    The tapes used for Madonna's videos weren't invented back when those Beatles videos were shot so when you see the high quality is because the masters were on film rather than on tape.
  5. memine

    I agree, it's why i said if someone has those films stored somewhere it's Madonna herself, considering she realised so early what kind of potential the videos actually had. The thing with the videos is that their purpose was to promote the music and of course with Madonna the investment, no matter how big, in the videos paid off anyway.
  6. memine

    The thing is unless there is someone who cares, stupid decisions are made even when important footage is in question. There are tons of stories of lost or damaged studio masters and multitracks from important albums and artists like David Bowie for example. How important music videos as a piece of art are considered to be is hard to tell for the same reason we're having this conversation. They aren't really treated as such so i can't even tell an example of a video from the 80's or early 90's that has been released in upgraded quality like it happens with movies or some tv shows even. Actually if the film wasn't digitalized yet it means it has to be scanned frame by frame which i guess is more expensive than it is complicated and i don't see a label paying that money for what little video DVDs or Bluerays sell these days. It's far more about money than it is about art.
  7. memine

    I wouldn't be surprised if the raw footage wasn't considered intellectual property similar to how multitrack stems can't be copyrighted. I doubt everything that was shot is on the B-rolls because if this was the case they would be hours long. I thought of another thing that points to the fact that there is no higher quality footage readily available of the videos from the 80's and 90's. The footage from older videos that is used in the backdrops in concerts of acts that have been around for decades always looks terrible which means not even the artists themselves have footage in the best quality available. I think the original film rolls exist if Madonna has them stored somewhere. I doubt anybody else involved in making and producing the videos would bother spending money on properly storing this big rolls of film. I don't think they even keep all the footage that ends up being unused in movies. Actually unless the film rolls are properly indexed they would actually have to go frame by frame to properly match the original videos.
  8. memine

    Yes but the thing is the broadcast quality up to the end of the 90's was so low that i guess the quality of the finished video wasn't much of a priority no matter how big the artist, which is why so many of those videos look underwhelming now. There's little doubt those videos were shot on high end medium the problem is they were probably edited to standard tv quality because that's what they were intended for. I think music video dvds don't sell well enough for the artists and labels to be willing to spend money on upgrading the quality of the videos beyond what has already been done especially if this means going back to the film rolls and re-editing them if they still exist.
  9. memine

    Betacam was introduced in 82 while Betamax was only a consumer product not used professionally. Those older shows might have been archived to one of the betacam formats (both analog and digital exist) at a later date.
  10. memine

    I think Itunes uses whatever the labels give them, as do many other on-line stores like Amazon. Sadly often those are mediocre scans of the albums when it come to stuff that is older than 15 years.
  11. memine

    Multitracks can't be copyrighted for example. There are a lot of grey areas regarding this stuff.
  12. Multitracks have nothing to do with masters. The final stereo mix is what the mastering engineer works on to produce the masters. It's basically fine tuning the stereo mix. Hd Tracks sells some very compressed music, depending on what the labels give them to sell.
  13. memine

    PCM is uncompressed so and can be stereo only on DVD, the 5.1 track is encoded in DTS which is what your home theater may not be supporting.
  14. She didn't have a peak, she has a one of a kind career (as evidenced by the fact that she can get away with omitting a substantial part of her big hits from her set lists) this is why i'm surprised by it. Seems like she made the right decision by picking so many very early hits though.
  15. What surprises me the most about the reviews is that the pre-LAP stuff is considered her greatest hits. I would have never thought the LAV hits would turn out be staples on her tours, it diminishes her career in a way by implying that was the peak for her and most of what came after is irrelevant by comparison.