After reading all the posts about the CS Blues screening in Brooklyn, NY:

I have purchased several copies of the bootleg CS Blues DVD and each copy has been worse than the last -- washed-out color (looks like its in B&W but supposedly it had a blue tint to begin with), wobbly shots that blur (fuzz?) in & out, warbly audio, etc. I have seen many newer releases from various companies that are supposedly close-to-first-generation copies, with enhanced soud (some even advertise 5.1 Dolby Surround Sound), and so on but my trust level is, um, rather low.

So, my question is, has anyone purchased a copy of decent of a CS Blues DVD that is actually watchable? If so, can you give me/recommend any names of sellers and/or names of manufacturers (like 4 Reel) who may have decent copies of this DVD?

I would greatly appreciate any help you may be able to offer. Thanks!!!

Greetings from the Jersey Shore.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-19 14:02 by misterfrias.

I have the 4 Reel version, Big C.S. Blues, and it's watchable, but barely. Actually, some parts are pretty decent looking, such as Bobby Keys and Keith throwing the TV out the hotel window, but other parts, especially the performance footage, is downright horrid. The problem is the film was shot in 16mm to begin with, and that alone lessens the picture quality. Since it was never officially released the versions that have surfaced are obviously not the best prints. They must be copies of copies, at least second, third, fourth generation from the master, if not more. Plus, I don't think Robert Frank's vision was to make a clean and professional looking Gimme Shelter-type film to begin with. I think that blue-ish tint and the overall look of the film was done on purpose. This all adds up to a film that is not the easiest on the eyes to watch. 4 Reel's Big version is supposedly the best, they claim it's completely remastered, which it may be, but I seriously doubt they had a true master print to work from. If you start with something that looks like crap to begin with, your only going to be able to do so much with it, especially if it's 16mm and was shot as raw and haphazardly as CS blues was. I don't think a completely "watchable" version of this film is available at this time, and considering the factors I've mentioned, it's unlikely there ever will be, unless the Stones authorize an official release. Even then it still probably won't look as good as most films do because of how it was originally shot.

Does anybody here know how the film was bootlegged and became available like it is?

Why does it matter if something was shot in 16mm? Was the equipment usually of poor quality? I would've though a 16mm negative should have plenty of resolution for a HD digital scan before the film grain becomes an issue. My reading has suggested that the resolution available on a 35mm negative exceeds 14 megapixels.

Thanks, boogie1969. I realize that even a first-generation copy will not be Hollywood-quality. I just want a copy that I can actually sit through. Maybe the 4 Reel version is as good as it gets.



Studiorambo, from what I have heard, the fim is actually a compilation of clips from handheld 16mm cameras. From wikipedia:

"The film was shot cinéma vérité, with several cameras with plenty of film left lying around for anyone in the entourage to pick up and start shooting. This allowed the film's audience to witness backstage parties, drug use (Mick Jagger is seen snorting cocaine backstage), roadie antics, and the Stones with their defenses down."

So, I think boogie1969 is stating that even the best copy of the film will look like a home movie.

Greetings from the Jersey Shore.

Quote
studiorambo
... a 16mm negative should have plenty of resolution for a HD digital scan before the film grain becomes an issue.

That is correct. I guess the problem is that the original negative probably never (?) has been through such scanning prosess. If a lossy copy has, that means a dramatic drop in quality from the original. The source is afterall analogue.

I can't believe this. The worst copy should be the best to watch. That's the mood for CS blues. That' s the mood after Nellcote.
If I want to watch something "watchable" I watch some Lord of the rings thing.

Yannis, you apparently missed my problem. I would like to buy/see a copy of CS Blues that is as close to the film being screened in Brooklyn (see the thread posted by Beast several days ago).

You cannot seriously be suggesting a fourth- or fifth-generation copy of CS Blues would be "the best [version] to watch"?

Greetings from the Jersey Shore.

It is an unusually candid exposure of one of the superstar bands of the day. You won't see Girls Aloud allowing such unfettered, unedited access!

But to be fair, CSB is not a great film.

Quote

Why does it matter if something was shot in 16mm? Was the equipment usually of poor quality? I would've though a 16mm negative should have plenty of resolution for a HD digital scan before the film grain becomes an issue. My reading has suggested that the resolution available on a 35mm negative exceeds 14 megapixels.

I'm not saying that 16mm can't look good, but the way CS Blues was filmed makes it look pretty rough to begin with, and it being 16mm is part of that. I have no idea how well it could be cleaned up, but especially from a master print, they seem to be able to do miracles these days. I remember seeing a documentary in the special features of The Who's The Kids Are Alright DVD that showed how they fixed the problems in that film, and when they did side by side comparisons of the original with the remaster, the improvement was amazing. I'm sure something similar could be done with CS Blues, but I doubt it would come out looking like The Wizard of Oz or some other beautiful looking film because it wasn't meant to be like that to start with, and again, the 16mm is part of it. Robert Frank chose 16mm on purpose, he was going for a certain look and feel. That's all I was trying to say.

I agree with the poster who said that CS Blues is supposed to have that mood, that's why Frank shot it the way he did. But there are segments of the film that are so bad I cannot tell what the hell is going on, and what good is that?

And it's not that great a film, as Father Ted said. There are too many long scenes of random groupies/hangers-on who seem to just babble on about God knows what because their dialogues are given no context. It's very boring when none of the Stones are on screen. And the low-quality really detracts from it when the picture gets so bad you can't tell what's going on. It's still a must see/have for any true Stones fan though. I don't regret paying 25.00 for my copy of it, I'd been wanting to see it since the early 80's when I was thirteen and first read about it in various books. I finally got it 25 years later when I was 37-38.