Jump to content

Who prefers the old videos compared to the new HD ones ?


TonyMontana
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know that it won't be a popular opinion but i don't really like those new HD remastered versions they are doing on her videos. It changes the colors we have been used to for decades, and on some videos her eyes look like they have a cartoonish filter on it... i don't know, it doesn't look natural, it looks kinda "fake" and altered, not the way it was filmed originally. Am i the only one who prefers the old regulars version, even if the quality is not that great ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always prefer the original SD masters, same with music, really. During remastering some decisions are made that always change the original in some way.

BUT Madonna's official videos on YouTube were not the original SD versions, anyway, they were the "Celebration" DVD versions. The new HD masters can be hit or miss but are generally always an improvement over the YouTube uploads before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her whole videography is a mess and never seems to be treated with the respect it deserves - this upscaling is just a joke but fans in here still see to lap it up mainly because they can’t tell the difference - I would rather Warner’s just leaves it now until they can go back to the original film reels ( if they even exist) it’s not like they can’t afford it or M - 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rlittler81 said:

I prefer JML as it was, just because I have strong memories of watching the VHS single and it having a soft, blurry quality to it rather than being a sharp image like in HD. Purely nostalgic reasons.

Well in my opinion a lot of 80's video works better with their original grainy/little blurry image. It's part of the imagery. An 80's video (with the looks an all) with a sharp 2021 image looks kinda "Off" to me. This is just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prayer said:

The new HD masters can be hit or miss but are generally always an improvement over the YouTube uploads before.

Yeah exactly. Plus they were 480p. At least once all these videos are upscaled we can go to YouTube and watch a good quality version of it easily.

The fact is if you were around in the 80’s you were watching on very different tv’s with less colours/detail and for many people with varying tv reception so comparing the quality and experience to today is probably not a fair comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Blue Jean said:

The fact is if you were around in the 80’s you were watching on very different tv’s with less colours/detail and for many people with varying tv reception so comparing the quality and experience to today is probably not a fair comparison.

That's true... I had a black and white TV and the first colour one I had was in 1986. Imagine when I descovered that "Material girl" dress was pink and things like that... :P. I want the original videos in black or white, no the colored versions used on her VHS  releases :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wtg1987 said:

Her whole videography is a mess and never seems to be treated with the respect it deserves - this upscaling is just a joke but fans in here still see to lap it up mainly because they can’t tell the difference - I would rather Warner’s just leaves it now until they can go back to the original film reels ( if they even exist) it’s not like they can’t afford it or M - 

You've only got to look at George Michael's Freedom video to see what a real HD video looks like :)

Madonna's videos are Topaz'd :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, deathproof said:

That is if you have the space on your hard drive  for it

I meant online. To keep you can choose the ones you like best. The point is these upgrades are just another choice (as long as they don't ask posters on youtube to remove the original videos they posted on their accounts).

What i'm really curious about are the videos shot on film. Were they "panned & scanned" to fit tv screens format back then ? So if they unearth the reels maybe not only the video will be clearer and shinier but there could be more footage on each shots...if the videos were filmed in panavision widescreen (which was standard then). Some may well have been shot with a wider frame than what we saw on tv. I guess it's a question that should be asked to one her video directors like Fincher...or just ask Bobby Woods, he may know about this since he was the mastermind behind all her videos at Propaganda. Maybe Mary Lambert on twitter can answer this. Ask her if the videos she directed were panned & scanned in 4:3 (tv standard) from widescreen or were they shot  directly in 4:3. 

*For those who don't know what i'm talking about, in the old days all tv screens had square 4:3 screens, to fit these screens, the frame shots were zoomed in, leaving out footage on both sides (another technique was to add a black bar up and down the screen to leave the frame as it was shot).

Justify my love comes from the master not directly from the rolls. But this would mean directors would have to re-edit their videos (if the rolls are still in good shape and can be printed) and colour grad them. It's massive work and they would probably ask a lot of money for it. Again, Bobby Woods is the one who must know whom own the rolls (directors ? Warner ? Propaganda ? Madonna ?) and where they are or were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Ghost said:

You've only got to look at George Michael's Freedom video to see what a real HD video looks like :)

Madonna's videos are Topaz'd :)

screenshots from both videos and the quality looks good in both (even if one of them is in 4k and doesn't have much movement as frozen does). and ofc the blur in freedom isn't mentioned, if there was a blur like this in madonna's video, y'all would've make sure to mention it 100 times.

MpBk9NH.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Régine Filange said:

screenshots from both videos and the quality looks good in both (even if one of them is in 4k and doesn't have much movement as frozen does). and ofc the blur in freedom isn't mentioned, if there was a blur like this in madonna's video, y'all would've make sure to mention it 100 times.

MpBk9NH.jpg

Have you not seen the Madonna videos directed by Fincher? Let alone Finchers music videos in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SD masters will always be better than upscales. It's not very usual, but SD masters can reach 1600x900 (between 720 and 1080) and I'd rather have them this way than upscales. Something I consider a crime is changing the colors and saturations. People like to be fooled, thinking that videos made years ago look like new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Roland Barthes said:

I meant online. To keep you can choose the ones you like best. The point is these upgrades are just another choice (as long as they don't ask posters on youtube to remove the original videos they posted on their accounts).

What i'm really curious about are the videos shot on film. Were they "panned & scanned" to fit tv screens format back then ? So if they unearth the reels maybe not only the video will be clearer and shinier but there could be more footage on each shots...if the videos were filmed in panavision widescreen (which was standard then). Some may well have been shot with a wider frame than what we saw on tv. I guess it's a question that should be asked to one her video directors like Fincher...or just ask Bobby Woods, he may know about this since he was the mastermind behind all her videos at Propaganda. Maybe Mary Lambert on twitter can answer this. Ask her if the videos she directed were panned & scanned in 4:3 (tv standard) from widescreen or were they shot  directly in 4:3. 

*For those who don't know what i'm talking about, in the old days all tv screens had square 4:3 screens, to fit these screens, the frame shots were zoomed in, leaving out footage on both sides (another technique was to add a black bar up and down the screen to leave the frame as it was shot).

Justify my love comes from the master not directly from the rolls. But this would mean directors would have to re-edit their videos (if the rolls are still in good shape and can be printed) and colour grad them. It's massive work and they would probably ask a lot of money for it. Again, Bobby Woods is the one who must know whom own the rolls (directors ? Warner ? Propaganda ? Madonna ?) and where they are or were.

Just to clear something up, just because a movie was shot on film, doesn't mean it was automatically widescreen or 16x9 or some other larger format like Panavision. Yes there is framing that occurs, so technically there would be more info on top and to the sides, but I don't believe any of her music videos were shot in the 80's or early 90's in anamorphic or with 16x9 protection, meaning you frame for both 4x3 and 16x9 (many 90's sitcoms did this, which is why Friends is available this way, but it was not technically shot this way, which is why the original HD masters had mistakes in them)

In fact I doubt seriously they ever did this as the end result had to be for 4x3 screening and unlike sitcoms which go into syndication and have the possibility of being seen decades after production, no one would have forseen the social media age where 80's music videos were still being played with the same regularity. It really wasn't until 1993 that the US adopted practices for HD broadcasts, that was when HD tv was originally planned for roll out but ended up being scrapped for almost 10 years. Again many shows filmed with the future in mind, many did not. 

Yes if they went back to the camera negative it would need to be re-edited, but that just means following the original notes left by the editor at the time. Yes it would be expensive, which is why I doubt they will ever do it. Warner and M know where they are, I don't think they see the value in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, me1981 said:

Just to clear something up, just because a movie was shot on film, doesn't mean it was automatically widescreen or 16x9 or some other larger format like Panavision. Yes there is framing that occurs, so technically there would be more info on top and to the sides, but I don't believe any of her music videos were shot in the 80's or early 90's in anamorphic or with 16x9 protection, meaning you frame for both 4x3 and 16x9 (many 90's sitcoms did this, which is why Friends is available this way, but it was not technically shot this way, which is why the original HD masters had mistakes in them)

In fact I doubt seriously they ever did this as the end result had to be for 4x3 screening and unlike sitcoms which go into syndication and have the possibility of being seen decades after production, no one would have forseen the social media age where 80's music videos were still being played with the same regularity. It really wasn't until 1993 that the US adopted practices for HD broadcasts, that was when HD tv was originally planned for roll out but ended up being scrapped for almost 10 years. Again many shows filmed with the future in mind, many did not. 

Yes if they went back to the camera negative it would need to be re-edited, but that just means following the original notes left by the editor at the time. Yes it would be expensive, which is why I doubt they will ever do it. Warner and M know where they are, I don't think they see the value in it. 

The videos shot in widescreen have been released as such with black bars. The rest are 4:3. In the Frozen video on the Chris Cunningham DVD you can clearly see the edges of the frame that were cut out on the other versions.

If anything some of the widescreen videos like oh father and bad girl might have been shot in 4:3 and cropped to widescreen for a cinematic effect. That’s what they did with Truth Or Dare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thegoldencalf said:

The videos shot in widescreen have been released as such with black bars. The rest are 4:3. In the Frozen video on the Chris Cunningham DVD you can clearly see the edges of the frame that were cut out on the other versions.

If anything some of the widescreen videos like oh father and bad girl might have been shot in 4:3 and cropped to widescreen for a cinematic effect. That’s what they did with Truth Or Dare. 

Yeah I get the feeling Oh Father and Bad Girl were matted for effect. If not, then yes both would be great in wide format. 

Though my guess would be anything pre 1993 is doubtful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, me1981 said:

Just to clear something up, just because a movie was shot on film, doesn't mean it was automatically widescreen or 16x9 or some other larger format like Panavision. Yes there is framing that occurs, so technically there would be more info on top and to the sides, but I don't believe any of her music videos were shot in the 80's or early 90's in anamorphic or with 16x9 protection, meaning you frame for both 4x3 and 16x9 (many 90's sitcoms did this, which is why Friends is available this way, but it was not technically shot this way, which is why the original HD masters had mistakes in them)

In fact I doubt seriously they ever did this as the end result had to be for 4x3 screening and unlike sitcoms which go into syndication and have the possibility of being seen decades after production, no one would have forseen the social media age where 80's music videos were still being played with the same regularity. It really wasn't until 1993 that the US adopted practices for HD broadcasts, that was when HD tv was originally planned for roll out but ended up being scrapped for almost 10 years. Again many shows filmed with the future in mind, many did not. 

Yes if they went back to the camera negative it would need to be re-edited, but that just means following the original notes left by the editor at the time. Yes it would be expensive, which is why I doubt they will ever do it. Warner and M know where they are, I don't think they see the value in it. 

At some point they will probably regret being so cheap about it because the film will deteriorate over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, rlittler81 said:

I prefer JML as it was, just because I have strong memories of watching the VHS single and it having a soft, blurry quality to it rather than being a sharp image like in HD. Purely nostalgic reasons.

Its not even that sharp they added some fake grain effect that makes it unwatchable IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, realityisalways said:

Its not even that sharp they added some fake grain effect that makes it unwatchable IMO.

Thank you! I just watched Sunset Boulevard for the first time and it had all these areas of the screen that danced around like old school tv static. Sometimes right on an actors face would be pixels of grey dancing around. Then when I clicked play on JML video it sadly has the same thing. I dont know what that is... but I don't like that at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Write here...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...