Peter Gabriel 'Secret World Live' DVD warning [Archive]

Michael St. Clair

03-12-2003, 08:55 AM

If a Gort feels this belongs in the Visual area, move away...I'm unsure.

If you were planning on automatically picking up this DVD (Peter Gabriel Secret World Live), be warned that multiple people at HTF have been very disappointed with the picture quality (noisy and with digital artifacts) and composition (fake widescreen cropped from the 4:3 original). Some aren't real thrilled with the sound; I know the surround mix has instruments in the rear. There are claims of sync problems and that the overdubbing is obvious. I liked the original stereo laserdisc release and didn't find the overdubbing objectionable; I'm not sure if the new (compressed Dolby Digital 2.0) stereo track is the same mix or not.

Anyhow, you might want to seek reviews before buying.

Claviusb

03-12-2003, 09:02 AM

Ugh! Thanks for the warning, but that sux! Finally, something live from PG on DVD shows up and it's funky?!? (and I don't mean funky like Parliment)

Michael St. Clair

03-12-2003, 10:27 AM

Stupid question,

Like I said, I wasn't sure where to post this.

But the 'Beatles Anthology DVD' goes in the music area.

Is there a guideline so I know in the future...

Claviusb

03-12-2003, 10:56 AM

I placed it here because you were discussing the visual quality, Michael. For the sake of consistancy I should probably move the Beatles Anthology DVD threads here too, but at the moment there's no image to be discussed!

BTW, I purposely left a redirect in Music Corner so that people in that forum see this thread exists. :)

cdwolf

03-12-2003, 12:03 PM

Would it make sense to include in the Visual Arts anything involving a DVD or VHS, whether the image is actually discussed or not? That would seem to make it more cut and dried, and easier for posters to figure out where a thread should go.

The Cellar

03-12-2003, 12:08 PM

I have the DVD and it does suck. Big time. The picture is cropped top and bottom, and the image frequently goes soft and actually breaks up into pixels a couple of times. As for the sound mix, I've only listened to the two-channel mix so far, and it sounds _way_ different from the VHS. I almost think they did some new overdubbing; I could do an A/B comparison to be certain, but frankly I'm so disappointed and pissed off with this release I'd rather return it and forget about it.

Claviusb

03-12-2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by cdwolf
Would it make sense to include in the Visual Arts anything involving a DVD or VHS, whether the image is actually discussed or not? That would seem to make it more cut and dried, and easier for posters to figure out where a thread should go.

That's fine, with the exception of DVD-A, because the visual element is unimportant (generally speaking.)

Michael St. Clair

03-12-2003, 12:38 PM

I've only listened to the two-channel mix so far, and it sounds _way_ different from the VHS. I almost think they did some new overdubbing;

Maybe they just downmixed the new 'juicier' surround track back into stereo....ugh.

stinsojd

03-12-2003, 01:01 PM

This is very sad news. This DVD is one that I have looked forward to for quite some time. I've had the VHS version for years, and I really wanted to replace it with the DVD. I did not realize the "widescreen" was going to be a crop job.

Even if they ultimately fix the image problems, it sounds like this DVD is going to fall short of its potential. Still, I'll eventually pick it up - but it is NOT on my short list anymore.

This information is an just one more example of why this forum is invaluable to so many. Thanks to everyone for the info.

JohnG

03-12-2003, 04:53 PM

I have this on order from Amazon. Still I'll give it a shot and if its that bad I can always sell it off.

JohnG

The Cellar

03-12-2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by JohnG
I have this on order from Amazon. Still I'll give it a shot and if its that bad I can always sell it off.

If you find the disc as unacceptable as I do, I suggest returning it for a refund instead. If enough people do this the people responsible for this majorly botched release might get the message.

bartels76

03-12-2003, 05:38 PM

I was going to rush out and get this but not anymore. I'm surprised Gabriel allowed this to be released in this poor quality. Usually he controls everything. He was probably busy w/ his tour and was like "Go ahead, I trust you."

Ed Bishop

03-12-2003, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Claviusb

That's fine, with the exception of DVD-A, because the visual element is unimportant (generally speaking.)

True enough, with the possible exception of the Neil Young and Alice Cooper DVD-A's, which do have some nifty(and very funny)shorts. But yes, the music is supposed to be the message.

And the PG thing is NOT good news at all! Boooooo....:(

ED:cool:

Claviusb

03-12-2003, 08:29 PM

Well, I'me not going to blast anyone with a ray gun if they post on the video section of a DVD-A. We can talk about the image portion of anything here. If you wanna start a thread or threads talking about those shorts, it's ok by me!

Ed Bishop

03-12-2003, 08:47 PM

I wasn't, but so noted, Robert; thanks. Maybe down the road, if enough of them turn up. The NY shorts are so hilarious at times, even if you're not into DVD-A, you might want to invest just for them.

ED:cool:

Michael St. Clair

03-12-2003, 09:47 PM

Paste this screen cap URL into your browser if you want to see it. Linking does not work, the site is prohibiting linking but you can paste the URL into a fresh browser.

www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/0103/Gabriel.jpg

Then vomit.

Yeah, I'll take the laserdisc. It doesn't look like a turd.

stinsojd

03-13-2003, 08:30 AM

That screen capture is exponentially worse than I could even have imagined! It takes bad quality to a new low. I think I'll just start scouring eBay for the laserdisc.

What a wasted opportunity to make this DVD the definitive version.

The Cellar

03-13-2003, 09:06 AM

Pixel alert: Check out "Sledgehammer" at 69:02.

Michael St. Clair

03-13-2003, 11:30 AM

Some people on Usenet are using a single screenshot example as 'proof' that 16:9 was the original intended ratio:

http://www.genesis-movement.co.uk/pg-sw-dvd-ws.htm

The fact is that due to the way we all move about on horizontal planes in live (roads, land, stages, etc), virtually any 4:3 material has some long shots that could look fantastic matted. I could choose selected shots from Citizen Kane, King Kong, The Wizard of Oz, and Gone with the Wind that look great in shorter ("wider") ratios. It doesn't mean that was the intended composition, and it doesn't mean that many shots (and the film as a whole) won't suffer greatly.

The Cellar

03-13-2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Michael St. Clair
Some people on Usenet are using a single screenshot example as 'proof' that 16:9 was the original intended ratio:

Were you lurking on a.m.p.-g. too, Michael? I've read enough of the posts there about the SWL DVD to be satisfied that that newsgroup isn't the first resource I'd turn to for informed opinions about this release. ;)

Michael St. Clair

03-13-2003, 12:42 PM

Were you lurking on a.m.p.-g. too, Michael?

I guess I'd have to call it slumming. :D

kevin

03-13-2003, 05:33 PM

the swl dvd's no worse grain wise than the new kansas dvd[device voice drum]imho

Michael St. Clair

03-13-2003, 06:06 PM

I don't mind grain, but giant macroblocking artifacts...I've mastered/authored better DVDs myself on a PC (converted a couple of my old laserdiscs)! I've also recorded better quality DVD video on a standalone $600 DVD recorder.

Somebody was asleep at the wheel on this one.