Wilco tells fans not to waste $$$ on their Blu Ray

[Doug C]

This thread must be for Platinum members. I don't have HD or Blu-Ray.

Me neither.

[watchtower41]

Source: http://wilcoworld.net/news/index.php

 

 

I like it, and though I have no idea how this will turn out, I think the fellas are gonna be presently surprised on the upgrade. Love me some Blu Ray.

[imdwalrus]

In our recent email blast of 10/28 we discussed the impending release of the film "I Am Trying to Break Your Heart" on Blu Ray DVD. It's due out in mid-November. In expressing our reservations about it, conceptually, it appears from a handful of comments that we may have confused the message and a clarification may be in order. Please note that our comments were not in any way intended to be an indictment of the merits of Blu Ray as a technology. On the contrary, for many projects and with careful preparation it appears to be quite a valid (if slightly expensive) enhancement. That said, we'll reiterate that the band were not involved in any way in remastering or otherwise preparing the film for Blu Ray production. That combined with the facts that the film was shot in 16mm b&w and, to our knowledge, the audio was not remastered makes us continue to question whether the potential incremental increase in audio/video quality is worth the price for THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. For the time being, we're sticking with our caveat emptor.

 

When the new DVD is released, we're going to purchase several copies and ask for a select few volunteers among you, dear readers, to A/B the original DVD release with the Blu Ray to further the discussion. So look for information re: this in the coming weeks. This is one of those rare cases where we'd actually love to be proven wrong.

 

 

Source: http://wilcoworld.net/news/index.php

 

 

What they're not making clear in that statement is this:

 

Times are tough right now. We don't want to appear to be gouging our fans by releasing a slight upgrade to a project with our name on it. In other words: We don't want to George Lucas our fans.

[ction]

In other words: We don't want to George Lucas our fans.

 

In the Blu Ray version, Bennett shoots first.

[mountain bed]

Don't sit too close to your TV--it's all fun and games until one of Jay Bennett's dreadlocks pokes you in the eye.

That's some good stuff right there.

[Opuntia]

more news, Plexifilm is postponing the release until they can "show the band the differences between the HD and standard-definition versions"

 

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/11/03/plexi...nd-discourages/

 

By the band's recent comments concerning the 16mm B&W, they still don't seem to understand the point of blu-ray.

[Big Perm]

I own a blu ray player, love it - I own this movie on DVD - Love it

 

Not a worthy upgrade at all, some things are fine in SD - This doc is not about picture quality to me

[Three dollars and 63 cents]

This doc is not about picture quality to me

 

In some ways, I think it goes against the spirit of the movie to release it in a higher-quality format. Such a big part of it is about how Wilco didn't have the polished, radio-friendly, platinum-selling sound a big label wanted them to have. The grainy quality of the cinematography in the movie seems to match Wilco's "then we'll do it ourselves" spirit, and to touch it up seems to be overlooking that point.

[Sir Stewart]

In the Blu Ray version, Bennett shoots first.

 

LOL

[Spawn's dad]

I didn't see this over the weekend.

[Opuntia]

In some ways, I think it goes against the spirit of the movie to release it in a higher-quality format. Such a big part of it is about how Wilco didn't have the polished, radio-friendly, platinum-selling sound a big label wanted them to have. The grainy quality of the cinematography in the movie seems to match Wilco's "then we'll do it ourselves" spirit, and to touch it up seems to be overlooking that point.

 

That's where I think there's some confusion, that "grainy quality" will still be there on the blu-ray. I think once the studio has the showing for Wilco, the band will understand that the blu-ray version (if properly done) won't take anything away from the look and feel of the movie.

 

A seperate comment/question not about the above post...did Wilco commission the original movie or have some sort of artistic control over it's production, because I'm trying to figure out why they're making a point that they weren't involved in the blu-ray release. Shouldn't the director have the final say about the film's look and feel. If the band had some sort of control, then that's cool, if not....

[Spawn's dad]

I don't think it's that complicated. They have fans who are completists and they're saying that in this

case they don't think it's necessary that someone plunk down the change if they already own the movie.

Kind of nice of them, actually.

[GTR-Vibe]

You would have to be in a rock n' roll band busy touring to not understand that blu-ray is better than DVD. Neil Young seems to get it with the announcement and street date for his archives release. I have been replacing ALL of my DVD's from my personal collection with Blu-rays as soon as they are released. PLEASE hurry up and release the IATTBYH blu-ray!!! I can't stand watching grainy dvd's on my hi-def system.

[MattZ]

I wonder how much the band makes on each sale of the regular DVD and how much the band would make on each blu-ray sale. Especially if the blu-ray was made without their "input"?

[Jesusetc84]

You would have to be in a rock n' roll band busy touring to not understand that blu-ray is better than DVD. Neil Young seems to get it with the announcement and street date for his archives release. I have been replacing ALL of my DVD's from my personal collection with Blu-rays as soon as they are released. PLEASE hurry up and release the IATTBYH blu-ray!!! I can't stand watching grainy dvd's on my hi-def system.

 

Neil Young is being a total prick and elitist by releasing his archive stuff in a format that most don't own/ can't afford.

 

I'm pissed that he's not making the archives available to people like myself, who don't have blu-ray and won't for several years.

[barnyard pimp]

You don't have a DVD player at all?

[Jesusetc84]

You don't have a DVD player at all?

 

I have a playstation 2...that has a dvd player...other than that, not really.

 

I also like listening to music as I do things, not being stuck in front of my tv while I listen to music.

 

Of course, it'll be bootlegged, ripped, transfered or what not, so there's not too much to worry about, but I still find it irritating that Neil is so persistantly difficult about things like this.

[barnyard pimp]

Yeah, I'm frustrated by the lack of 'audio' release, but the fact that he finally seems excited about the technology behind the package he's aiming to release is (I think?) a good sign... of course, I subscribe to the same "believe it when I see it" policy as most Neil fans who have been waiting for the Archives for 10, 15, 20 years...

 

He IS making it available on 'normal' DVD as well as Blu-Ray, though, so at least he compromised there. And I'm sure it will all end up online in mp3 form and I'm also sure he won't give a shit.

[futureage1]

I usually never post just lurk but had to get involved with this discussion since I am a video editor and in case anyone from the Wilco camp reads this thread. Let me just say that film be it 16mm or 35mm is superior to HD still to this day. There are now some HD cameras available that give almost as good of image quality as 35mm but those cameras are made by Panavision and are for very high budget movies. Watch Zodiac for an example of that camera.

 

16mm has a resolution of about 2k lines of resolution and 35mm has about 4k lines of resolution so even at 1080P the highest standard for video now, you are still only getting half the resolution compared to the theater and a screening from an actual release print. So releasing IATTBYH on Blu Ray would make sense. It's too bad it is such a poorly shot documentary to begin with and is actually notorious for that in filmmaking circles. I sometimes think Tweedy must have heard that which is why he shelved the VIC show Jones shot a couple years back. The clips on the website made sense why they did not choose to release that. Jones is one great photographer but not cinematographer.So I would think in fact that you most likely would just see a lot more grain and more out of focus shots than you probably noticed on DVD.

 

Now the other advantage of Blu Ray is uncompressed audio and the band is right it was recorded only in stereo but was still compressed to Dolby Digital 2.0 for the DVD, which is like turning a WAV file into a MP3 so to have uncompressed audio would actually be the biggest upgrade and advantage which the band should care about. I am totally with Wilco on the cost of Blu Rays being a complete rip off because it is. Sony charges so much for the technology which is why the discs are so high but in fact it is just as easy to make a Blu Ray disc as a DVD just different encoding techniques. So if Plexi Film really wants people to purchase this title twice they should price it the same as the 2 disc DVD just like Criterion is doing for their Blu Ray releases.

 

So I applaud Wilco for looking out for it's fans which is why this has been my favorite band since 96. The price should be the same especially for this release because Wilco is right and other than uncompressed audio the differences will be small. A lot of super 16mm looks great. Watch 28 Weeks Later to see good super 16. Sam Jones just shot this documentary very badly so nothing can be done about that. I just think a Blu Ray priced the same would be a release Wilco could get behind and it would be nice if Plexi Film did not try to gauge Wilco fans. No reason for this disc to be higher priced since I seriously doubt Criterion is taking a loss releasing their Blu Ray discs at the same price as the DVD. Sorry for the long post. I would like to see this released just not get ripped off on the Blu Ray. Hope my explanation clears the situation up a bit.

[mfwahl]

Thanks for that. That's the first explanation that makes sense to me.

[cryptique]

Yes, very interesting ... thanks, futureage1!

[MattZ]

I don't know much about filmmaking, but I'd be interested in learning more about why it's so well accepted that Sam Jones shot a poor film. And what it means to be a good photographer but bad cinematographer? I thought they were the same thing. (Shows how little I know).

[Guest Jules]

from wikipedia

 

Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a sensitive medium, such as a film, or an electronic sensor. Light patterns reflected or emitted from objects activate a sensitive chemical or electronic sensor during a timed exposure, usually through a photographic lens in a device known as a camera that also stores the resulting information chemically or electronically. Photography has many uses for business, science, art and pleasure.

 

The discipline of making lighting and camera choices when recording photographic images for the cinema is dealt with under Cinematography

[MattZ]

from wikipedia

 

Yeah, I looked there before posting. I am not sure I get it. Is the critique that it is generally accepted in film circles that Jones set up great shots, but didn't light them well? Or used bad cameras?

[futureage1]

Yeah, I looked there before posting. I am not sure I get it. Is the critique that it is generally accepted in film circles that Jones set up great shots, but didn't light them well? Or used bad cameras?

 

Basically Jones poorly framed and setup the shots. His handheld moves are really bad news. The focus is off for quite a bit of the film too. He also was shooting in low light situations and almost the entire film is slightly underexposed, which is why it is so grainy. Generally you would slightly overexpose if possible to alleviate some of the grain. The framing in the interviews in the film is also horrible. Just watch Jeff explaining being dropped in the hotel room. It is really important what he is saying but there is Jones unable to frame him well and checking focus the whole time and always reframing the shot. Drawing attention to the camera instead of the subject is a big no no in documentary for obvious reasons.

 

Jones is actually a very famous still photographer in his own right long before making the doc. I know it was his first film but notice it was also his last released? If you don't count the unreleased Vic Show. I know he has gone back to still photography and a friend told me he did all the period photography for the George Clooney movie Leatherheads so he is still working high profile photo gigs. I thought it was generally known here too that critique of the Wilco documentary, which is all Jones not the band.

 

I much prefer the Burn To Shine guys DVDs for Wilco. Just watch a performance from Sunken Treasure and then watch one from IATTBYH and you will see the difference. Those guys know how to shoot handheld. Jones unfortunately should have used a tripod. Jones just did not understand cinematography at all. Still photography is much easier than motion picture. I like his photos for YHF and love the poster for IATTBYH just think the actual film is shot bad but am still glad it was made and will buy the Blu Ray, even with Wilco's warning. And all this is my opinion, but it has been the major critique of the film since the beginning.

 

*Also the camera Jones used was great. In fact it was much higher quality than the Burn to Shine guys who shoot on video. But even with less expensive cameras their work looks much better.