The Who "WHO ARE YOU", new 4k video remastering on their YouTube channel...

So this new 4K video is a new version of the song, different than even the previous video? It sounds like different audio to me (better!) and it's certainly a new video cut. So this makes 3 audio versions of this song now. Is that correct?

 

Certainly a new video cut?? I am getting confused now... this is the same video clip that's been around since the initial release of TKAA, no? Yes, super cleaned up and restored, but to these eyes and ears this is the same video/audio thats been around since the film release, VHS, DVD directors cut???

 

No, I believe it's a different cut. Anyone else agree?

 

Yes, anyone else? Instead of digging out the dvd , i found the movie on youtube, did a quick a & b. I'll be damned if that's a different video cut...

 

Oh my, I guess it's not so odd then to enjoy it a bit more after all these years.

 

Im saying it's the exact same clip as since first released

 

Yes, it's a lot better now. The edit differences are fairly subtle, but wow, they add up to a much superior viewing experience. So not only do we get this super clean new 4K look, but it's just a much better cut! I'm so glad they did this. I've watched it a few times now just cause it's so damn good.

And thanks again to our wonderful host Steve for sharing this with us!

 

Again, it's the exact same cut. What subtle edit differences? I know I'm being a stickler here, but as I posted above, I haved loved this video for years now, and besides it looking and sounding the best it's ever been, it's still the same, I'm telling ya. Compare them, I did

 

I'm not sure of the question entirely or even the answer but fwiw I do now distinctly remember that a few years ago I dubbed a stereo downmix from that special 5.1 mix of WAY from my copy of the expanded TKAA re-release and sent a copy of the downmix to a friend who already owned the dvd special edition as well and of course the pure sound of it and the downmix imaging to stereo itself was interesting and enjoyable (relative to the dedicated stereo mix) enough for me to do so. Thanks for jogging my memory on that even if we are talking about two different things

 

No, it is a different cut. Subtle yes, but different. Do the A/B check again. I did.

 

Bingo- I was just going to say this. On the Pete-Cam, you can clearly see the slide, then his immediate jump back up. I know that a lot of audio parts were overdubbed later in the studio, but I never heard of the footage being spliced between performances of the song. Stein was unhappy with all of their performances of the tune leading up to this one, which led to them getting pissed off...which, for The Who, was always the fire that made their performances so incendiary.

As a side note, Pete’s physicality on stage kept him in fine shape, and is probably partly responsible for his longevity. He marvels about this in his autobiography, where he discusses having chest pains while rowing on the Thames in the ‘70s, only to have the doctor tell him that he’s perfectly fit. Blew his mind, considering his propensity for booze back in those days.

 

They got 1080p and 60fps in 1993..? I didn't know. Also not wanting to derail anything, but would it be possible to scan old film to 4K and make it 60fps? Is it technically possible?

 

That video makes me a little misty-eyed. It’s the closest I’ve come to seeing some of my memories of growing up in NYC in the early ‘90s- fantastic quality.

 

Yeah, the quality is mind blowing. It looks like it was shot yesterday.

 

Watching Keith crack John up during the instrumental part is a testament to the beauty of friendship.

 

Part of the problem is figuring out what exactly people mean when they say “cut” or “take” in this context. Usually, I find that these terms are used when describing another recording of a song in which a different recording of the basic tracks is used. Most times, it reflects the fact that the basic tracks of the given song were cut live in the studio (say, drums +/- rhythm guitar +/- bass).

This is not the case here. “Who Are You’s” rhythm tracks were not cut live in the studio- every single track is overdubbed atop Pete’s synth track. So this version is the synth track + different overdubs for the drums, bass, vocals, and most of the guitar parts.

Whether or not this reflects a different “cut” or “take” is up to your definitions of the words.

 

He is actually referring to the video, not audio. He is saying there are subtle differences, or edits , in the new 4k version as compared to the older film/dvd version, which is making it a "much superior viewing experience". I see the exact same video as before, just super cleaned up with the newer 4K process. We were debating that and looking for further opinions....

 

Ah. Understood, my mistake.

I don’t see any new edits either, but will check again.

 

I did, he says he did... hahaha , It's all up to you now!!

 

Yes, Sony HDVS analogue HD video! Have a look at Toto at Montreux in 1991- make sure you crank the resolution up to 1080p!

There's some good information on the system and this Toto recording on this Reddit thread. There's also links to more old HD recordings there.
A video from 1991 recorded in 1080 HD looks like it was recorded yesterday. : videos

To your other question, yes if something was filmed on 35mm film, it could be scanned to 4K and have the frame rate interpolated up to 60 fps, but it looks quite discombobulating - if you saw any of The Hobbit films at 48 fps screenings you'll understand why. Material lit and produced "for film" looks odd at higher frame rates, mostly because of the way our brains have been conditioned.

A form this technology called VidFIRE has been used quite a lot in the restoration of black and white episodes of Doctor Who originally made and broadcast on 50i videotape but only preserved on 25i 16mm film, restoring the 50i "TV look". These days motion interploation is built into a lot of TVs, including my father in law's - it can't be turned off and it drives me bonkers.

Back to The Who...can we get some good looking versions of Pete's Chinese Eyes music videos? That'd be nice.

 

It actually brings up an interesting topic- so much of the way that I hear music (and see video) is tied to the technology associated with it. When you improve on the quality of the technology tied to the media, it’s initially jarring, as if my mind can’t place it correctly. I noticed this in film media about 8 years ago when the refresh rates on TVs were improved, and it made movies and shows look like cheap behind-the-scenes outtakes. Here, it doesn’t look cheap or anything (quite the contrary), but it’s still initially off putting, in the best way possible. With The Who clips in 4K, I can almost see condensation on John’s mustache, and the knob settings on Pete’s Hiwatt amps. Feels strangely intimate.

 

It sounds like the same TKAA version to me.

 

Day=Made

 

Truly astounding transfers, they look like they could've been filmed yesterday!

 

Yes, the audio is probably the same but the video is a new cut.