I'm sure there will be more than a few copies making their way to Australia too.
Marian
The Ultimate Performer
wish I would stop using that C word 
Hi All
I agree with Richard, 'An Evening With...' on this dvd release is an added bonus, simple as that.
That's how I view it.
I bought the disc for the 'Matt on TV' section, everything else was a very special treat.
However, the fact that the disc is in widescreen absolutely doesn't bother me, any cropped areas will only be superfluous.
If anyone is in two minds whether to buy this dvd, believe me, it's worth it for the Dave King footage alone.
I agree with Richard, 'An Evening With...' on this dvd release is an added bonus, simple as that.
That's how I view it.
I bought the disc for the 'Matt on TV' section, everything else was a very special treat.
However, the fact that the disc is in widescreen absolutely doesn't bother me, any cropped areas will only be superfluous.
If anyone is in two minds whether to buy this dvd, believe me, it's worth it for the Dave King footage alone.
It's not the cropping as such that I object too Gray, it's because when they crop the rest of the picture is zoomed in which takes the picture quality down.
The resolution of a standard TV picture is 576 x 720 pixels which when you think about a digital photo is not very much! - zoom in on this and you loose quality. a bit like taking a low resolution photo and printing it too big.
To me it's as bad as taking colour footage and only issuing it in black and white.
The resolution of a standard TV picture is 576 x 720 pixels which when you think about a digital photo is not very much! - zoom in on this and you loose quality. a bit like taking a low resolution photo and printing it too big.
To me it's as bad as taking colour footage and only issuing it in black and white.
Point taken, Richard.
But I'm still delighted with the dvd!
And, I suppose the dvd is in line with the current trend to show everything in 16:9 to fit the modern tv.
All of the BBC's 'Legends' output was broadcast cropped, as was the recent Motown footage from the 60's.
Not saying it's right, but, it seems to be the way at the moment.
Films shown on tv shot in Panavision (2.35:1 ratio) but broadcast in 16:9 lose the outer edges also.
The purist in me squirms at this, so I do know what you mean.
Not from a quality point of view, but the fact that we are losing parts of a composition.
However, TV footage is a bit different to me, and I did enjoy watching Matt on TV in a widescreen format. Sorry!
But I'm still delighted with the dvd!
And, I suppose the dvd is in line with the current trend to show everything in 16:9 to fit the modern tv.
All of the BBC's 'Legends' output was broadcast cropped, as was the recent Motown footage from the 60's.
Not saying it's right, but, it seems to be the way at the moment.
Films shown on tv shot in Panavision (2.35:1 ratio) but broadcast in 16:9 lose the outer edges also.
The purist in me squirms at this, so I do know what you mean.
Not from a quality point of view, but the fact that we are losing parts of a composition.
However, TV footage is a bit different to me, and I did enjoy watching Matt on TV in a widescreen format. Sorry!
Last edited by Gray on Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OK, as long as I haven't offended you!
You are the expert after all, I edited my post about 5x times as I didnt want to offend your intelligence.
There was a Hitchcock documentary shown on BBC 4 this weekend hosted by Paul Merton.
All the footage recently shot of Merton was in 16:9, but the clips of Hitch's early British work 4:3 with matt black edges at the right and left.
I felt sure they would of cropped the top and bottom off as they did with the 'Legends' and Motown doc's to fit the 16:9 ratio, but they kept the original frame of the Hitchcock movie intact.
Interesting, I thought.
Richard, I have another couple of questions for you please:
1. Would you rather watch analogue tv (really good signal) or digital tv?
2. Through my amp, I thought there is a noticable difference in audio quality on 'An Evening With...', I thought Matt's voice shone through.
Can we have your comments please?
With an experts ear!
I was really impressed, but what do I know!?
Thanks in advance.
You are the expert after all, I edited my post about 5x times as I didnt want to offend your intelligence.
There was a Hitchcock documentary shown on BBC 4 this weekend hosted by Paul Merton.
All the footage recently shot of Merton was in 16:9, but the clips of Hitch's early British work 4:3 with matt black edges at the right and left.
I felt sure they would of cropped the top and bottom off as they did with the 'Legends' and Motown doc's to fit the 16:9 ratio, but they kept the original frame of the Hitchcock movie intact.
Interesting, I thought.
Richard, I have another couple of questions for you please:
1. Would you rather watch analogue tv (really good signal) or digital tv?
2. Through my amp, I thought there is a noticable difference in audio quality on 'An Evening With...', I thought Matt's voice shone through.
Can we have your comments please?
With an experts ear!
I was really impressed, but what do I know!?
Thanks in advance.
It takes a lot to offend me, worry not.
I'm quite happy with the general picture you get from digital TV although freeview often looks better than sky. Yes, a really good Analogue signal was better but on the other hand you can't get a decent widescreen picture through analogue. Most general viewing is fine in digital, its fast movement that lets the format down.
Whilst I didn't see the Hitchcock programme at least the producers respected the fact that what was on film was what the director wanted you to see! Just because some thing can be wide screen doesn't mean it should!
I have listened to parts of the concert and there is definitely an improvement. Nothing staggering, but an improvement none the less.
The sound comes from an optical soundtrack rather than magnetic tape and these can suffer from scratches (just like vinyl) and the high frequency range is limited (compare the optical soundtrack on the Liberace clips - with no restoration to one of the video sourced clips and you'll see what I mean). Most of the improvement is probably down to the superior transfer on top notch High Definition telecine equipment, there may have been a bit of restoration work done as well - perhaps a bit of hiss removal and perhaps a touch of crackle removal too. Much of the clearer sound comes from some sensitive re-eqing which will as you say, make Matt's voice shine through.
I don't think I could have improved it much more than this myself, simply because the information just isn't there on the optical soundtrack to make it any clearer.
This will not have been done by Odeon by the way, they don't do anything in house, It may have been done by the BBC by one of their restoration engineers with decent ears (believe me there are some at the beeb who are far too heavy handed, they recently ruined the CD issues of "I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again" by removing the hiss so much that they've taken away lots of high frequencies and sucked the life of the recordings - the masters of which were in great condition anyway and didn't need it! A few years back they did the same to all of the archive footage used in a series called "The Story of Light Entertainment" on BBC2).
As I'm sure you can tell, I'm far fussier about sound than I am with pictures, I just want whatever is issued to be the best it possibly can be, as in many cases it may never get issued again!
I shall (along with Michele) be striving to get a large amount of Matt's catalogue issued from the correct sources from this point forward.
There have been far too many corners cut in the past. For instance one of Matt's albums ("The Other Side of the Stars" if memory serves me correctly), has been taken from a vinyl copy on CD - and in the case of one track a very ropey copy too! The master tapes of all his albums exist in the archives so there is no excuse. Other albums suffer from excessive noise reduction or use transfers from second generation tapes. Some even use digital masters from the early 1980's. Technology has come such a long way in the intervening 25 years that it's criminal that this is still happening.
Whilst we are in the hands of EMI with most of these issues, I will do my best to push for the right tapes (I know where every single original master is!) in future releases.
I'm quite happy with the general picture you get from digital TV although freeview often looks better than sky. Yes, a really good Analogue signal was better but on the other hand you can't get a decent widescreen picture through analogue. Most general viewing is fine in digital, its fast movement that lets the format down.
Whilst I didn't see the Hitchcock programme at least the producers respected the fact that what was on film was what the director wanted you to see! Just because some thing can be wide screen doesn't mean it should!
I have listened to parts of the concert and there is definitely an improvement. Nothing staggering, but an improvement none the less.
The sound comes from an optical soundtrack rather than magnetic tape and these can suffer from scratches (just like vinyl) and the high frequency range is limited (compare the optical soundtrack on the Liberace clips - with no restoration to one of the video sourced clips and you'll see what I mean). Most of the improvement is probably down to the superior transfer on top notch High Definition telecine equipment, there may have been a bit of restoration work done as well - perhaps a bit of hiss removal and perhaps a touch of crackle removal too. Much of the clearer sound comes from some sensitive re-eqing which will as you say, make Matt's voice shine through.
I don't think I could have improved it much more than this myself, simply because the information just isn't there on the optical soundtrack to make it any clearer.
This will not have been done by Odeon by the way, they don't do anything in house, It may have been done by the BBC by one of their restoration engineers with decent ears (believe me there are some at the beeb who are far too heavy handed, they recently ruined the CD issues of "I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again" by removing the hiss so much that they've taken away lots of high frequencies and sucked the life of the recordings - the masters of which were in great condition anyway and didn't need it! A few years back they did the same to all of the archive footage used in a series called "The Story of Light Entertainment" on BBC2).
As I'm sure you can tell, I'm far fussier about sound than I am with pictures, I just want whatever is issued to be the best it possibly can be, as in many cases it may never get issued again!
I shall (along with Michele) be striving to get a large amount of Matt's catalogue issued from the correct sources from this point forward.
There have been far too many corners cut in the past. For instance one of Matt's albums ("The Other Side of the Stars" if memory serves me correctly), has been taken from a vinyl copy on CD - and in the case of one track a very ropey copy too! The master tapes of all his albums exist in the archives so there is no excuse. Other albums suffer from excessive noise reduction or use transfers from second generation tapes. Some even use digital masters from the early 1980's. Technology has come such a long way in the intervening 25 years that it's criminal that this is still happening.
Whilst we are in the hands of EMI with most of these issues, I will do my best to push for the right tapes (I know where every single original master is!) in future releases.
Thanks for the detailed information, Richard.
I can understand how you are far more fussier with sound as opposed to image.
Glad you have some sympathy for good old analogue TV, though.
Interesting how you mentioned that the end result of a restoration can be very much down to the person doing the work.
The same as a sound engineer mixing recorded music...?
I can understand how you are far more fussier with sound as opposed to image.
Glad you have some sympathy for good old analogue TV, though.
Interesting how you mentioned that the end result of a restoration can be very much down to the person doing the work.
The same as a sound engineer mixing recorded music...?
Yes, just like mixing music and mastering too.
But whilst a lot is down to personal preferences and techniques (my mastering tends to favour clear high frequencies and warm sounding bass) there are some people who are very good at it and some who are equally as bad! The problem is that once someone who isn't very good gets into a position where nobody questions what they are doing.
I have been very grateful that EMI have been happy with both my restoration AND my mastering - they have not changed a single thing and as the masters are sent to Abbey Road for checking before they are sent to be pressed they have had ample chance to do so!
As Michele will no doubt echo I don't go around blowing my own trumpet but I have had comments from Peter Mew the chief mastering engineer at Abbey Road about my restoration (for a non Monro project) even though he didn't actually know who had done it. I worked with the Estate of Flanders and Swann for a while and undertook some private work for them. When EMI issued a box set of rarities last year they worked from the original tapes and discs (much as I like to do when even possible) but sometimes used my restorations as a reference! I in turn listened to his restoration work and commented accordingly. In almost every case his work was very similar to mine apart from one which I wasn't impressed by - it came from an early 195O's acetate disc. Mr Mew had had access to the original disc, whereas I had only had someone else’s dub to work with. I sent him - via the estate - a copy of my restoration which he was extremely impressed by and meant he had to go back to the drawing board!
Not that any of that led to any extra work of course, but there you go!
By the way guys, if any of you ever have any technical questions about Matt (or anything else for than matter) do feel free to ask.
Richard
But whilst a lot is down to personal preferences and techniques (my mastering tends to favour clear high frequencies and warm sounding bass) there are some people who are very good at it and some who are equally as bad! The problem is that once someone who isn't very good gets into a position where nobody questions what they are doing.
I have been very grateful that EMI have been happy with both my restoration AND my mastering - they have not changed a single thing and as the masters are sent to Abbey Road for checking before they are sent to be pressed they have had ample chance to do so!
As Michele will no doubt echo I don't go around blowing my own trumpet but I have had comments from Peter Mew the chief mastering engineer at Abbey Road about my restoration (for a non Monro project) even though he didn't actually know who had done it. I worked with the Estate of Flanders and Swann for a while and undertook some private work for them. When EMI issued a box set of rarities last year they worked from the original tapes and discs (much as I like to do when even possible) but sometimes used my restorations as a reference! I in turn listened to his restoration work and commented accordingly. In almost every case his work was very similar to mine apart from one which I wasn't impressed by - it came from an early 195O's acetate disc. Mr Mew had had access to the original disc, whereas I had only had someone else’s dub to work with. I sent him - via the estate - a copy of my restoration which he was extremely impressed by and meant he had to go back to the drawing board!
Not that any of that led to any extra work of course, but there you go!
By the way guys, if any of you ever have any technical questions about Matt (or anything else for than matter) do feel free to ask.
Richard