Sony To Remaster Jimi Hendrix Concert Footage In 3D

[Hardrock69]

Interesting. They are going to remaster a buncha Hendrix live concert stuff for a 3D blu-ray release.


Jimi Hendrix, Taylor Swift, 3D headline Sony's news conference | CES 2010 - CNET (http://ces.cnet.com/8301-31045_1-10427419-269.html)


LAS VEGAS--It wasn't a Sony exec that welcomed us to Sony's news conference Wednesday, but Jimi Hendrix--in 3D. Sony opened its CES 2010 news conference, as expected, by emphasizing 3D technology.

The Hendrix video is a demonstration of Sony's plan to remaster concert footage in 3D. He was quickly followed by CEO Sir Howard Stringer, who introduced country singer Taylor Swift. She performed one song live, but was also projected in 3D on the screen behind her. Sony says it plans a slew of live 3D performances just like this.

[Coyote]

Am I the only one who's had it up to here *puts hand on forehead* with the 3d craze?

[LoungeMachine]

Am I the only one who's had it up to here *puts hand on forehead* with the 3d craze?

wow!

It was like your hand was coming right out of the monitor as it slapped your forehead.

:gulp:

[Coyote]

wow!

It was like your hand was coming right out of the monitor as it slapped your forehead.

:gulp:

Weren't you supposed to be vacation?

[LoungeMachine]

Weren't you supposed to be vacation?

I was.

:gulp:

Now it's time to suit up.

We got work to do......

[chefcraig]

The problems with the majority of the Hendrix footage that was filmed back then isn't one of clarity, it's the work of the stoned cameramen themselves that makes everything so nebulous. Instead of focusing on Hendrix' fingers, you get unnervingly long shots of the guy's shoe (Far-out, man!). And when you do catch a glimpse of the man's hands, more often than not it's of his picking hand. Of course, this is followed by a long, slow crawl down his pants leg, right back to his shoe again. http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-ashamed-smileys-705.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/Free-Mad-Smileys/)

[kwame k]

Exactly, Craig......another thing is what does the sound board masters sound like?

Video footage of that scene/era is horrible, in comparison to say The Last Waltz...I know Scorsese directed and a bigger budget but......even at bargain basement prices and rookies shooting Jimi, the quality of the shot, as Craig said, sucks.

So will it be poorly shot footage in 3-D? How much CGI or fixing can they do to shitty footage?

Be interesting to see..........

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one who's had it up to here *puts hand on forehead* with the 3d craze?

Yes you are.

I've had it up to MUCH higher than your forehead with this "3D" shit.

And I haven't even seen any film - nor do I think I will - in "3D".

Wake me up when holograms are in fashion.

Cheers! :bottle:

[BITEYOASS]

Yes you are.

I've had it up to MUCH higher than your forehead with this "3D" shit.

And I haven't even seen any film - nor do I think I will - in "3D".

Wake me up when holograms are in fashion.

Cheers! :bottle:

That would be nice, psychedelic holograms! :rockin::happy45::stoned-smiley::eek:

[sadaist]

I don't know about all this remastered stuff with Hendrix. Works ok with artists like Michael Jackson. But my own favorite Hendrix recording is on a bootleg cassette I bought at a swap meet in 1983. The tape itself is probably something someone just bought in bulk at Radio Shack and xeroxed the label & glued it on. The best song is a live version of Johnny B. Goode. Static, sloppy, dirty, fuzzy, feedback, muffled, etc... Sounds like I am drunk/stoned & there hearing it live.

[UK ROCKER]

The song remains the same could be interesting.

+ Kiss would work well in 3D

[VanHalenFan5150]

This seems interesting, actually....

[Kristy]

The problems with the majority of the Hendrix footage that was filmed back then isn't one of clarity, it's the work of the stoned cameramen themselves that makes everything so nebulous.

The term "blu-ray" is a marketing gimmick. Anything shot before 2003-04 is pretty much worthless on blu-ray due to Kodak not developing their "third-generation technology" (or whatever) films with better clarity for plasma/HD televisions. Plus the archaic equipment that was used to record Hendrix at the time will hardly be of quality value. Now I know many of you are die-hard Hendrix fans but how I wish they stop grave robbing the man.

[BITEYOASS]

The term "blu-ray" is a marketing gimmick. Anything shot before 2003-04 is pretty much worthless on blu-ray due to Kodak not developing their "third-generation technology" (or whatever) films with better clarity for plasma/HD televisions. Plus the archaic equipment that was used to record Hendrix at the time will hardly be of quality value. Now I know many of you are die-hard Hendrix fans but how I wish they stop grave robbing the man.

Blu-ray only works for nature shows and NASA documentaries IMO.

[chefcraig]

The term "blu-ray" is a marketing gimmick. Anything shot before 2003-04 is pretty much worthless on blu-ray due to Kodak not developing their "third-generation technology" (or whatever) films with better clarity for plasma/HD televisions. Plus the archaic equipment that was used to record Hendrix at the time will hardly be of quality value. Now I know many of you are die-hard Hendrix fans but how I wish they stop grave robbing the man.

While I agree that attempting to spiff up material that is dubious in nature to begin with is a rather fruitless task, at this point in time I'd hardly call the process "grave-robbing". No, despite what Myth Busters have to say on the subject, you can not theoretically polish a turd. Yet I see absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of displaying the man's talent and skills to a new audience. For example, look at the Led Zeppelin DVD. The majority of that footage was available for years (to collectors) via crummy, poorly executed and distributed bootlegs. By putting the footage into the hands of responsible curators, it was transcended into an artifact that delighted both hard core fans and new comers alike, and solidly reestablished the band not as riff slinging, hedonistic dorks, but as the gifted musicians they truly were.

Is the process exploitative? That depends solely upon the end result. If the project results in a lovingly fashioned record of the man's genius, then no. If it turns out to be yet another of the lamentable pieces of "product" questionably put forth over the years (Wanna buy a Hendrix "inspired" piano (http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/gibson-launches-jimi-hendrix-piano-221720)?), then obviously not. In the meantime, judgement can not be passed until the product is in our hands, and clips from it wind up on Youtube.

[ZahZoo]

The term "blu-ray" is a marketing gimmick. Anything shot before 2003-04 is pretty much worthless on blu-ray due to Kodak not developing their "third-generation technology" (or whatever) films with better clarity for plasma/HD televisions. Plus the archaic equipment that was used to record Hendrix at the time will hardly be of quality value. Now I know many of you are die-hard Hendrix fans but how I wish they stop grave robbing the man.

Not to go totally tech-geek but there's more than gimmicks and fancy names involved.

Standard DVD players use a 650 nm (nanometer) red laser. Blu-Ray uses a 440 nm Blue-violet laser to read the optical discs. The narrower beam of the laser allows for a significantly higher data transfer rate. Also changed the optical disc algorithms too. You can go up to about 100GB on a standard disc today.

The conversion process for even converting from old film to standard DVD digital imaging has come a long way. In simple terms they take the original film and convert to a pure digital format. Then there's all kinds computer enhancements that can clean up the original images and pack the pixel rates up to a HD range without losing the integrity of the original image.

Clearly there's more work involved taking analog film and converting to HD than taking an original HD sourced recording... but it's very feasible to produce a quality upgrade.

A good example... the original Star Wars movie was filmed in 1975/76... that was only 5 years after Jimi's passing. They've been able to convert that to modern HD quality no problem. Not that far of a technology leap from the original film of Hendrix.

[ZahZoo]

While I agree that attempting to spiff up material that is dubious in nature to begin with is a rather fruitless task, at this point in time I'd hardly call the process "grave-robbing". No, despite what Myth Busters have to say on the subject, you can not theoretically polish a turd. Yet I see absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of displaying the man's talent and skills to a new audience. For example, look at the Led Zeppelin DVD. The majority of that footage was available for years (to collectors) via crummy, poorly executed and distributed bootlegs. By putting the footage into the hands of responsible curators, it was transcended into an artifact that delighted both hard core fans and new comers alike, and solidly reestablished the band not as riff slinging, hedonistic dorks, but as the gifted musicians they truly were.

Is the process exploitative? That depends solely upon the end result. If the project results in a lovingly fashioned record of the man's genius, then no. If it turns out to be yet another of the lamentable pieces of "product" questionably put forth over the years (Wanna buy a Hendrix "inspired" piano (http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/gibson-launches-jimi-hendrix-piano-221720)?), then obviously not. In the meantime, judgement can not be passed until the product is in our hands, and clips from it wind up on Youtube.

Exactly... I don't see any of this as grave-robbing nor exploitive in any way.

It's no different than repackaging classic Bogart movies like Casa Blanca or John Wayne westerns into modern formats for people to enjoy their art?

Why should Hendrix's artistry be left to grainy 8mm or 16mm film on VCR tapes just because he's dead and someone doesn't like his adopted sister to make a buck over his deadbeat brother.

It should be shared in the best format possible... Same thing with Classic Van Halen which Hendrix has out-shared and out-lived 10:1... Pathetic... given those jackasses are still around...

[Terry]

The problems with the majority of the Hendrix footage that was filmed back then isn't one of clarity, it's the work of the stoned cameramen themselves that makes everything so nebulous. Instead of focusing on Hendrix' fingers, you get unnervingly long shots of the guy's shoe (Far-out, man!). And when you do catch a glimpse of the man's hands, more often than not it's of his picking hand. Of course, this is followed by a long, slow crawl down his pants leg, right back to his shoe again. http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-ashamed-smileys-705.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/Free-Mad-Smileys/)


Jimi Plays Berkely is sometimes maddening to watch for those very reasons. Shots of Hendrix's back, super-duper close ups of his face, shots of the stage lights...fuckin' christ!!

[Kristy]

Exactly... I don't see any of this as grave-robbing nor exploitative in any way.

I do Simply because something has been "hidden" for years doesn't automatically necessitate is going to be any good. And the problem with Hendrix's case is that there has been so much mediocre crap released in in name over the years (most of it turning out to be not really him) without regard that Jimi himself ever wanted this material to be heard. Even that Zep footage was poorly shot without consequence as to it resurfacing some 25 plus years later. Sure Zep capitalized on it but why make a gateway for EVERY piece of footage no matter who or where it was shot when more than 20 minutes is seeing the top of some guy's head or the camera panning to the drummer when Jimi is playing a solo?

I suppose die hard fans won't complain as they try to have a glimpse into the flamboyant life that was Hendrix but then again, everybody has their own memory or interpretation of someone who left a mark or influence on them. To me, Hendrix sounds good on warm summer nights or times when you just want to hear a guitar player manipulate his instrument to such creative levels when compared to all the shit that is out there today. So personally, I don't care for some lost footage as I do listening to one of his bona-fide CD's while stuck in traffic or you just want to forget about all your troubles for a while.

[ZahZoo]

I get your point Kristy... appears you perfer the purist angle of leave it to the official releases rather than tarnish the legacy with sub-par cutting room floor stuff. Fair enough... I can respect that.

I guess my angle is something quite magical occurred during such a brief period... 66-70. Almost all of Jimi's prior work was mediocre, nothing note-worthy and mostly quite forgetable... Then a trip to London, add two unremarkable mid-level guys and BAM!! The whole music world magically exploded.

For people like me... It's facinating to hear/see every facet of this short-lived flash of brilliance. As a guitar player it's an amazing short journey!! I can't get enough of it...

[GAR]

It's not really "3D" unless the camera output is stereoscopic.

To rerender a monoscopic print into 3D, the computer has to introduce spatiality, then virtually refocus the image into left and right outputs, then refiltered with blue and red biases.

No matter what, rerendered 2D films can't take away their vantagepoint perspective: they are STUCK with that - and that can manipulated only so far without visual distortion.

If Janie wants more money, just put out a box-set of all Hendrix footage on DVD and quit steppin' on the legacy.

[Hardrock69]

Shut up Garfuckle.

Go find the CEO of Sony and tell HIM it is impossible. OR, relating to the Avatar thread, go tell George Lucas he can't do it.

You are hardly an expert on ANYTHING, though your particular brand of mental illness compels you to try to convince everyone you know everything about everything, when in reality you little to nothing about anything.