GEN
Active topics
  1. Anaheim was by far one of the most exciting 360 show, but it's also definitely not a representation of the tour as a whole. My favorite film is still Vertigo live from Chicago. Not only was the stage design great, but they also utilized the in-house screens and lights to add to the ambiance. I think a concert film has the potential to be really, really good this time around since the visuals are so critical to the show.
  2. Chile, Brazil or Argentina. Do those, y'foo's.
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1277&v=2Fv1GtSjtco
    I'd never seen this Buenos Aires (??) video...this is fun. (And it's shot pretty damn close to the band.)

    And yeah. Chicago DVD is by far my favorite concert DVD of them. (Although Red Rocks is a lot of fun, too.) I don't watch the 360 DVD much at all...but I still watch Chicago all the time. Great show, well-shot. No idea what to expect this round.
  4. The shots they get of the band members that get fed to the screens on the sides of the venue are actually really, really good and I think we'll get that in the DVD at the very least. The question is going to be how they record the stunning visuals...
  5. Originally posted by Hoosier2012:https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1277&v=2Fv1GtSjtco
    I'd never seen this Buenos Aires (??) video...this is fun. (And it's shot pretty damn close to the band.)

    And yeah. Chicago DVD is by far my favorite concert DVD of them. (Although Red Rocks is a lot of fun, too.) I don't watch the 360 DVD much at all...but I still watch Chicago all the time. Great show, well-shot. No idea what to expect this round.
    One of my all time favourites.
  6. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
    Do you mean the Royal Albert Hall DVD? It looks and sounds terrific indeed. Although it's an indoor and pretty small venue, I guess from a direction standpoint it's easier to make a great film out of that rather than a big ass stadium like Rose Bowl?


    Yes, that's the one. I still remember the first time I switched from the flat Dobly 5.1 to DTS-HDMA 5.1........... it was like
    It's actually addictive, once you hear the difference it's almost impossible to look, or hear actually, back.

    Regarding your question, it's theoretically and depending your approach, easier to record a concert in a place like that, but having a HUGE place like the Rose Bowl gives you plenty of options to position cameras, use drones, steady cams to record at ground level, etc, etc. For me, being epic with a show like that it's preferable. The question is, how are you going to do that?
    That being said, I think they had the options, but they decided to go with Tom Krueger...

    I mean, it's a matter of taste what we're talking about here, but he goes from a steady, perfectly smooth shot to an over the top shaky and pixelated footage of the band, and that, at least for me, it's frankly an amateur level.
    It's like everyone says, you only need a little bit of luck and you'll reach the stars. It's not that the man it's awful at what he does, but as I said, he goes from an excellent framed shot to a disastrous image that I can even start to describe.... and the latter it's present 90% of the time
    He also directed the Magnificent video, the one that is recorded indoors and again, there are a couple of shots there, but then you have those erratic zooms, those shaky shots....

    I don't know, maybe I'm too used to the perfection that Ridley Scott likes to add to his films and shortfilms, but I'm not remembering any live concert from any big band to be memorable. Am I being too demanding?
  7. I love all the DVDs for the music. Sadly, 360 suffered because the band was so focused on wanting a picture, they did not care that Bono's voice was shot for most of the show. It was all about the image, and the sound meant nothing. And Hamish is a terrible director for the ones he did. The shaky 4,000 cuts per second gets me dizzy. Way too many concert DVDs are ruined by shaky cameras and way too much worry about the picture, and no focus on the sound. I would love to have a DVD of the Raliegh 360 show with HD audio, but we don't.

    And like...(I forgot who!) said, cutting Breathe out was a crime. Starting a DVD with the second song made no sense. They could have cut a good deal with Bowie to have the full intro. Bowie should realize that having his song in a U2 DVD can mean more exposure and interest in his music, but no. He is too rich to want any extra money, it seems.

    It's just too bad that these issues exist on U2 DVD, but I still love listening to them. Slane is not so bad on the eyes as Boston, and the sound on nearly all of them is wonderful, so overall, I am satisfied with U2's DVD history, and at least most of the tours have been released. Sadly, no Lovetown, and we likely will never get it.
  8. U2 is the most terrible band in the world in terms of commercial releases.

    When was their last video concert release? 2009???

    Their last video compilation?? 2006? Almost 10 years ago?

    And then their next video release would be another awful 24fps overly saturated mess?

    But that U23D video is pure gold, best sound ever(mainly bono's voice). It deserves a new release with all its footage(they claimed 100 hours).
  9. Originally posted by pleasegone:I love all the DVDs for the music. Sadly, 360 suffered because the band was so focused on wanting a picture, they did not care that Bono's voice was shot for most of the show. It was all about the image, and the sound meant nothing. And Hamish is a terrible director for the ones he did. The shaky 4,000 cuts per second gets me dizzy. Way too many concert DVDs are ruined by shaky cameras and way too much worry about the picture, and no focus on the sound. I would love to have a DVD of the Raliegh 360 show with HD audio, but we don't.

    And like...(I forgot who!) said, cutting Breathe out was a crime. Starting a DVD with the second song made no sense. They could have cut a good deal with Bowie to have the full intro. Bowie should realize that having his song in a U2 DVD can mean more exposure and interest in his music, but no. He is too rich to want any extra money, it seems.

    It's just too bad that these issues exist on U2 DVD, but I still love listening to them. Slane is not so bad on the eyes as Boston, and the sound on nearly all of them is wonderful, so overall, I am satisfied with U2's DVD history, and at least most of the tours have been released. Sadly, no Lovetown, and we likely will never get it.
    Well, I agree almost in everything, but in terms of sound the 360 it's actually the best of all of them, having only the Slane concert just in the same place.
    What sample did you hear to conclude that? I'm asking because of the depth and clarity that the DTS-HDMA track has. It's practically, in so many ways, unbeatable. The only movie I've recently heard that it has even more impact, at least for me, was Whiplash. You don't even need to calibrate accurately your HT in order to have GREAT sound out of it. And just to clarify my point, I'm talking about sound quality, not the selection of songs. I hated not having Breathe too
  10. Originally posted by tchezao:U2 is the most terrible band in the world in terms of commercial releases.

    When was their last video concert release? 2009???

    Their last video compilation?? 2006? Almost 10 years ago?

    And then their next video release would be another awful 24fps overly saturated mess?

    But that U23D video is pure gold, best sound ever(mainly bono's voice). It deserves a new release with all its footage(they claimed 100 hours).
    It seems like a while, but the band was on a long break after 360. I do agree that the tour evolved so much that a second DVD would have been nice to showcase the second half of it. But I understand their decision against it as the other tours with two DVDs had each one in a different sort of venue (one indoor and one outdoor).
  11. It would have been better to wait a little bit, but taking into account that they like to release some concerts "earlier" than usual, I just hope this time around they get it right, with a director that can show the majesty on its full greatness. Which is not THAT much of an issue, just you need to show the da·$& concert.

    What bothers me the most, I think, it's the inconsistency in quality. The shots are practically horrible 90% of the time, so, there is no discussion there. But the last 10% is good, that could be useful....

    This a great example of how you should, minimally, shoot a concert:



    And over here you can find a little bit more of info about the second model of Sony cameras being used, the F55. Currently, the F65 is the top of the line camera, and it's utterly a beast on its own but anyway:

  12. Muse's Rome DVD/BR is a beast. And not only because I appear there a couple of times