McCartney years 3 dvd set

To get McCarthy to release anything is a big plus,So this so-so collection
isn't so bad,but you wonder how great it would be,if they were on the ball.
Maybe a complete re mastered"Rock show" with out takes,Instead we get
part of the film and instead get his complete Superball Performance.

We waited for years for him to release his great Unplugged Show on video
Instead we got a cd and now in this set we get part of the show and he
talks over one of the songs!
The other big problem is the show is cropped to make it 16x9,In fact
the most of the videos on the first two dvds are cropped,and only
the videos that appear as extras seem to not be cropped

While McCartney never released his BBC Live at Abbey Road special(so
what else is New) He gives you the making of show on this set
This is perfect 16x9 and he sings most of the songs in the show.


He also does commentaries which are so so,and the menus all
have rare clips,which are only on the menus
No the James Paul McCartney special isn't anywhere on this set
or the hours and hours of live TV he did,

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

It's worth noting that the songs are mixed to 5.1...

-paul

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

There's been a lot of fall out about the widescreen cropping of the archive videos in this set and rightly so. They praise up the restoration work but it seems that's only been done on the cropped versions. Project manager Dick Carruther's felt he had to respond and made a statement on Amazon's customer forum, but some of the thing's he's said are ridiculous!

Customer images showing the fake widescreen:-
amazon.com/gp/product/customer-images/B000VRJ37I/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all/102-6154491-6793750

Mr Carruther's response and replies:-
macca.devstars.eu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=62113&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=689

amazon.com/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_notf_thread?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxG7S51MMA1OID&cdPage=1&asin=B000VRJ37I&cdThread=Tx2JYF339JTHHLT

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

Wow, what qualifications does this guy have?
First of all - and this should be obvious - the item for sale is not a high definition product. It is a standard definition downconversion from an HD source, but there's more problems with that to be noted later. Second, I personally don't consider any format to necessarily be "future-proof." The closest thing to "future-proof" I would endorse is to use advances in technology to make a duplicate of something as close to the original as possible. This should NOT mean upconverting standard definition video to HD, it should mean keeping a digital copy of the original material in a pixel resolution equal to said material. As users of graphics and photo editing applications are aware, changing the size of an image alters it. It may not be objectionable, but it is NOT archival, nor is it "future-proof." There isn't "more detail" as suggested above.

A "vast improvement" in several ways? What ways? There are none listed. I can understand the author's defense against "faux widescreen" as he seems to think people are accusing him of placing some matting on standard video and calling it widescreen. But it boggles my mind that 720 pixels interpolated to 1920 then downconverted to 720 is considered an improvement! A side-by-side comparison should surely show a change in the detail. "All the pixels" are there if you compare it to the HD version, but there are pixels that aren't there, because they got edited out when transferred to HD. It even sucks to think that some of the older promo films now only exist on tape, so that we can't go back to a higher quality, higher resolution format and put that onto HD. I'm sure someone thought keeping those tapes and ditching the original materials was "future-proof" as well.

Oh, boy. I completely disagree here. The meaning and the art have both been compromised. If those two things are diluted, I find it hard to argue that there is not a diminished impact in the final product. "Better framing" is a personal judgement that changes what was intended when the materials were originally created. "More cinematic" should not enter into the presentation of materials that were largely meant to be watched on televisions - they were designed for that purpose. I might give in to this kind of treatment if you were, in fact, making this available in cinemas. But I'm watching this on a TV!

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

It's a shame. I love McCartney, but after reading all this I think
I'll abstain from buying this set.

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

Well worth the price just for the 5:1 mix...
And don't you have a Acura Ron??
These songs from this set sound great in my g/f's TL.

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

I am a major Beatles/Paul fan and I have also shaken my head at the matting -- but I still had to jump at purchasing this. Just an opinion here, Ron, but it's still worth owning this set. If you think about it, who are you spiting, really, by not owning it? The promos are still enjoyable and it's highly unlikely you'll ever get them released in such nice quality any other way. Truthfully, there weren't that many instances IMO where the top image was severely compromised. These promos are just not going to be gotten any other "official" way. As a longtime collector I already have copies of all McCartney's promos (the ones on this set as well as many not included) but the clarity of the image and sound isn't as nice as featured on this new DVD Collection... (letterboxing issue aside).

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

I've been transferring some old videotapes to DVD, and came across an appearance by Paul on the Tonight Show in 2002. He doesn't perform, but instead (as the Beatles used to) plays a video of his current single, in this case "Your Loving Flame." Man, it was bad. Nice special effects, I guess, but the video made me groan.

I love McCartney, and will get this set, but his video instincts weren't always the best. (I find his concert film, Back in the US, completely unwatchable - the two and three second cuts to the audience, the band, Paul and back again are dizzying.) I'm probably in the category that will enjoy this DVD mostly for the 5.1.

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

I think the main gripe for many on this issue is that it was so unnecessary, especially for an SD DVD release, but even the HD argument falls flat as there is (as Dick himself admits) an option to pillarbox archive 4:3 material. Then when downconverting to Standadr Definition this pillarboxed image (black at the sides preserving the 4:3 ratio) comes out as normal full screen 4:3.

MPL bring in this guy to manage the restoration and at stage No.1 the first thing he decides is to zoom and crop the original image! Doh! What a great way of preserving - not. Even if you try and ignore this big, big issue and look at the restoration itself things like "Helen Wheels", "C moon", "Wonderful Christmastime" look decidely poor. Like a VHS bootleg except with added widescreen cropping as well. So many people were waiting for this kind of collection and if they'd only put the videos out in their original ratios everyone would have been happy and MPL could have saved themselves a lot of money.

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

The same thing was done with the QUEEN videos, and the outrage from fans seemed to fall on deaf ears. I guess they're just going to keep doing this (with British musicians, anyhow).

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

"Retroman" David passed along some image comparisons that have been going around, so I'm posting for everyone's benefit.


Some worse than others...

The first image in which Paul's bass is cropped out feels very strange because now there's a dead space. Without the bass, having Paul off center to the right isn't motivated by an action or object (note the composition of the next shot of Linda), and it's even stranger because he's looking straight on. That shot in a 16x9 ratio calls out for a tighter shot of Paul more centered, or a wider shot that includes the bass.

I'm sure the first one from "Say Say Say" that features the "Mac and Jack" sign is part of a pan down from the group to the sign, so it might be a tad misleading alone. But the one where Linda is cropped out feels all wrong because without Linda's head in the shot, only Paul and Michael are looking off to the left, which should have some lead room in front to avoid feeling strange visually.

I'm kinda sad you have to lose "Keyboard Paul" in the background of the "Coming Up" video, because his facial expressions and movements were so funny. All these years later with a broader musical knowledge, I'm wondering if that was influenced by Sparks.

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

Dick Carruther's makes another response to customers reactions:-

I was and am willing to enter the 4x3 / 16x9 debate, but I could do without the insults. Still, this is the internet so I should have expected it, I suppose. Thanks.

I understand the arguments for and against, and we can agree to disagree (?), but I feel overall the plot is being missed. When you look at the fact that the material has been collected, beautifully re-graded, re-synched (sorry about that- I assume preservists would prefer the videos to be out of sync in places for greater originality?) packaged with beautiful menus (thanks for the one compliment Walter), presented with three ways to watch and appreciate them, re-mixed in stunning surround sound, along with Paul's commentaries to boot, how a McCartney fan could say this is all ruined because of the presentation in 16x9 is baffling/ depressing / borderline absurd.

Yes we cropped and racked to make 16x9 versions. To slate us for doing so, or not including certain things, is easy pickings. We think it works. Some people feel passionate about this; fine, so do I; but this is far from the vandalism that some people here would like to imply. It is a fact that a side by side comparison of watching the videos old and new (not just pulling stills,) will clearly bear this out. There are places where it was a compromise in framing or a momentary shame to lose certain parts at the top or bottom of the frame, for sure, but the overall effect of watching the new cleaned-up versions is, I truly believe, visually and aurally stunning.

By the way, Walter, Sir, That crop is 25%. Not a full third, not 'nearly' a third, but a quarter. Music Video Expert at least understands this. And the DVDs most certainly are encoded anamorphically,- with a few pieces having a 4x3 flag. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_one's_cake_and_eat_it_too

Yes ideally the DVDs would be watched on a widescreen TV in surround sound. This was what we were aiming for. I accept that in a particular circumstance if you have your DVD player set to letterbox and are watching on 4x3 TV, it could be annoying if you feel that you are 'missing' some of the picture. I am genuinely sorry if your enjoyment is thus tarnished, but come on guys, that does not render the whole product rubbish or the videos unwatchable does it!? I tentatively suggested watching them anamorphically (set DVD player output/TV to 16x9- since i enjoy watching pics anamorphically and find it quite pleasing,) only to be shot down in flames, -in the same way i expect this post will be attacked- I'll certainly think twice about defending my work again in such a way, since truth or fairness shall not stand in the way of a good vitriolic slagging, or so it seems, based on the posts.)

At the risk of repeating myself I can assure you that the work put into The McCartney Years was all aimed at pleasing the fan and viewer. We most certainly did much research and viewing to locate the most original and best quality masters we could find. We went to great lengths in uncompressed HD to enhance / fix / clean / restore and re-present the originals for a 2007 audience as best we could whilst charging ourselves with maintaining integrity and fidelity to their aesthetics.

Beyond the technology - this is about the artist's great body of work, the longevity, the surprising and amazing effect of seeing together the video and live manifestations across the years and in its many facets. For a review that really watched then experienced this and understood it perhaps check this out;

musicbox-online.com/filmreviews-2007/paul-mccartney-years-12142007.html

DC

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

Keyboard Paul in Coming Up is most definitely a play on Ron Mael from Sparks. McCartney 'does' a few others in there as well - Buddy Holly and Beatle Paul. I've always wondered of some of the others were nods to other musicians as well.

-paul

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

That Dick Carruthers really has some nerve in getting bent out of shape and protesting fans' objections to hacking off information on these promo films!

You did an overall mediocre job, Dick. It's interesting that some of the promos which were designated for "bonus features" (like the one for LONDON TOWN) were permitted to remain 4x3. This business of changing the original ratio just to accomodate today's 16x9 fetish is deplorable. PERIOD.

Sure, I still recommend buying it anyway as it's better than nothing and I assume most fans don't have access to all of these songs (and many more which weren't included - gee, thanks) on unofficial sources, as some of us do ( ) .

I can't post screengrabs, but someone may want to go to HELEN WHEELS and post a comparative pic of Linda and Deny Laine on the top of the screen where their heads are cut in half.


What's with the quotation marks in the word 'missing', as though we're actually wrong and are NOT 'missing' anything?


I enjoy watching movies (pics) in widescreen -- when that's the way a film was intended. Otherwise, all you've done here is the equivalent of painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.


The average "viewer" won't care; it's the McCartney fan who will pay the cash to buy this release. I will say it came out better and more extensive than I ever could have hoped for, but the fact you'll just have to get used to is that many fans are not totally pleased.

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

Believe it or not, Paul has said it's not Buddy Holly. I forget who it is at the moment, but it's not Holly.

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

Just out of curiosity, where is Dick Carruther getting his
Internet feedback from?

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

Hank Marvin of the Searchers. And the drummer is based on Bonham...

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

Actually, Hank Marvin was a member of The Drifters, Cliff Richard's backing band, who later became The Shadows to avoid confusion with the American band The Drifters, which was fronted by Ben E. King.

Sometimes I frighten myself with the things I know.....

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

Ron, I belive the internet feedback/conversation between Mr. Carruther and the fans has taken place on Amazon.

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

Yes, that's right. The whole thread takes it's name from the posting of a concerned customer 2 days before the DVD was released, being called;

"Paul, don't hack up the video! (No fake widescreen, please)"

But of course, they did...

Due to various comments and customer reviews, possibly elsewhere as well as Amazon, Mr Carruther's felt he needed to respond. I don't think what he's said has done him any favours at all.

amazon.com/Paul-hack-video-widescreen-please/forum/FxG7S51MMA1OID/Tx2JYF339JTHHLT/1/ref=cm_cd_dp_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=dvd&cdAnchor=B000VRJ37I&asin=B000VRJ37I&store=dvd

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

Hi Joe

I don't think you can mean that as no film was ever intended to be viewed anamorphically.

That term describes the horizontally compressed image that exists on a Cinemascope/Panavision 35mm film print (everything looks very tall and thin) before a special lens extends that image back out horizontally (doing the opposite of what the camera lens did) to give the 2.35:1 ratio picture. Today the term also describes widescreen enhanced DVDs, so instead of transferring a 1.75:1, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 ratio film with black matting top and bottom, the image is laid down vertically stretched to using more of the TV lines available.

Then there's two ways of viewing such a widescreen DVD if you have a 4:3 set for correct aspect pictures. Either 1) The DVD player itself collapses the image back to letterbox adding black lines top and bottom and this is sent to the TV as a standard 4:3 picture. Or 2) if the TV is equipped with 16:9 scans (the raster is collapsed to 16:9) the anamorphic widescreen enhanced picture is fed straight from the DVD player and the TV does the reformatting.

What I dont think anyone would want to do (except Dick Carruthers that is) is view the anamorphic image straight from the DVD player on a 4:3 set without either of the conversion processes above. Then you'd get a vertically stretched image with tall thin people and car wheels looking like eggs. The reason I highlighted what Dick had written about this in red is because if you set the DVD output to 16:9 TV but feed that to a 4:3 TV (as he says) this is exactly what you'll get. And this is the guy that gets put in charge of the restoration work!??

I hope I've not been stating the obvious here, I don't mean to annoy.

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

And I frighten myself that I screwed that up - both here AND in my review! Oops - thanks for the correction! I'm sure Macca said "Shadows" but I remembered "Searchers"...

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

I may have used the incorrect word there (I've gone back and changed it), but the point was that a movie (promo films in this case) should be shown in their proper AR, not with fake widescreen to accomodate modern 16x9 wide TVs. I think just about all of us agree on that.

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

it's not a great choice to crop videos but queen did the same thing when they released their videos....with the same reaction.

Re: McCartney years 3 dvd set

For all my criticisms, I still think THE McCARTNEY YEARS is well worth having. Most fans will not have seen many of the videos and not have access to all the "unofficial" copies floating about.