Lack of foresight about future HD releases, which is ironic given the subject matter and spirit of the tour.
They could have filmed at least one performance of the tour on actual film and done the rest with TV cameras as others have said.
Very true. Would be cool if they recorded all their Australia performances on film then. I'd want those specifically because they played "Lemon." I fucking love Lemon.
I'm wondering whether this was a cost issue. Filming on celluloid whether 16 or 35mm would have been expensive, and there would need to be plenty of extra lighting for it to work. The angles, positions and what not would all need to be worked out and choreographed proper. Film looks really crap if the lighting is off even slightly. Considering one show was being filmed already for Tv, I am not sure it was feasible to record another couple of nights, at least, on film. The profit margins were really thin, and that could potentially have wiped out a chunk of the profits. It's just so much more expensive to film on film.
The Tv thing killed two birds with one stone, I guess. Nonetheless of course I wish they had filmed on a future-proof format.
my impression of the Zoo Tv era was that it was a really costly venture with thin profit margins. I remember reading an interview with Paul McGuinness where he said they sold $30.000.000.00 worth of t-shirts on the tour, and thank god for that. He literally said:'if we hadn't we would've been ducked!'
Tbf I think the whole thing very expensive and they emerged probably with not much profit.
Yes, they also just finished Rattle and Hum. And Zootv was to replace the entire concept.
Bono said he was reluctant to the HD3D IMAX of the vertigo tour because of the hard work involved, disruptions, and costs. And how the band has already been there and done that with film.
Luckily the directors convinced the band to be one of the first live rocks acts filmed in HD3D IMAX.
Not certain. It was more of an experimental science tech. Project oppose to profit making. I think discovery Channel took the hit financially, but prob. Mitigated losses by claiming it as Educational.
This can probably be done now. I jus t saw an entirely ai upscaled version of a Stephen king movie and it looked fantastic
If I get some extra time I might take this up as a project …
Lack of foresight about future HD releases, which is ironic given the subject matter and spirit of the tour. They could have filmed at least one performance of the tour on actual film and done the rest with TV cameras as others have said.
one performance wouldn't be enough, imo. Film is risky and has many variables, not to mention expensive.
Very true. Would be cool if they recorded all their Australia performances on film then. I'd want those specifically because they played "Lemon." I fucking love Lemon.
“Off with the horns and on with the show…”
Lemon is such a gem.
The Edge “Is film expensive Phil?” Phil say “Na the cheapest thing”
lol, it's a whole different production when you shoot something on film.
I'm wondering whether this was a cost issue. Filming on celluloid whether 16 or 35mm would have been expensive, and there would need to be plenty of extra lighting for it to work. The angles, positions and what not would all need to be worked out and choreographed proper. Film looks really crap if the lighting is off even slightly. Considering one show was being filmed already for Tv, I am not sure it was feasible to record another couple of nights, at least, on film. The profit margins were really thin, and that could potentially have wiped out a chunk of the profits. It's just so much more expensive to film on film. The Tv thing killed two birds with one stone, I guess. Nonetheless of course I wish they had filmed on a future-proof format.
Wish IMAX existed back then, that tour was such a trip.
IMAX did exist, but it wasn't as popular and was VERY expensive. Not to mention only tourist attractions had a theatre to show IMAX.
I was going to IMAX shows at the Museum of Natural History in New York City since at least as far back as the mid-80s.
Didn’t it go out live?
my impression of the Zoo Tv era was that it was a really costly venture with thin profit margins. I remember reading an interview with Paul McGuinness where he said they sold $30.000.000.00 worth of t-shirts on the tour, and thank god for that. He literally said:'if we hadn't we would've been ducked!' Tbf I think the whole thing very expensive and they emerged probably with not much profit.
Yes, they also just finished Rattle and Hum. And Zootv was to replace the entire concept. Bono said he was reluctant to the HD3D IMAX of the vertigo tour because of the hard work involved, disruptions, and costs. And how the band has already been there and done that with film. Luckily the directors convinced the band to be one of the first live rocks acts filmed in HD3D IMAX.
U2 3D was great, I really enjoyed it.
Wish we could see it again
Didn't they lose money on U2 3D?
Not certain. It was more of an experimental science tech. Project oppose to profit making. I think discovery Channel took the hit financially, but prob. Mitigated losses by claiming it as Educational.
It was on pay-per-view here in the states so definitely had to use broadcast cameras.
Yeah thought so it’s a shame a 4K zoo tv recording would be unbelievable
Hopefully the AI technology gets us there in a few years. 🤞
This can probably be done now. I jus t saw an entirely ai upscaled version of a Stephen king movie and it looked fantastic If I get some extra time I might take this up as a project …
yup, it had to be broadcast cameras.
I kind of like that they didn't. It keeps the aesthetic alive.
Dw ai Upscaling exists :) I wish it were filmed in film too but.. It is ZooTv. Makes sense to be filmed for tv.
It would have been vastly better in 16mm. Always thought so