Night of the Living Dead Blu-ray Releases

[budious]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pulldown

Most American films are shot on 4 perf 35mm which is gonna to be captured as 4:3 negative. If an anamorphic lens is used, cinemascope, then the vertical image will be stretched. In the case of 1.85, the remainder of the frame is just matted out. When you see an open matte frame, that means the intended widescreen framing matte has been removed.

Psycho had the option of filming color, but the studio did not want the blood red shower scene to be used if Hitchcock had taken that option. He chose to shoot on B&W because he felt keeping the shower scene was more important.

The recently released Moonrise Kingdom was filmed on 16mm.

[HonestJohn]

Originally Posted by Lemmy Lugosi

Well, the "Coke/Pepsi" zombie test results are in....

.....the Happinet release is THE release to get. I've owned the Forgotten Films version for a few months, and I was quite happy with it, overall, especially considering how expensive the Happinet version is most of the time.

Happinet's NOTLD is (was?) on sale at CDJapan, and I got it for about the same I paid for the FF release, give or take a couple bucks.

Time to sell the FF version on Amazon.

The Happinet release smokes the FF release. It contains the same great transfer (with that missing scene restored), it has the trailer, the Duane Jones interview, commentaries, and "One For The Fire". Oh, and it has a really sweet cover, and it's kinda exotic with the Japanese text, though there is just enough English for you to be able to see what's on the disc. The disc menu is in English, too.

Case closed.

Mine shipped yesterday and hoping for a safe trip from Japan to my doorstep. Almost paid for a more expensive shipping option but went with standard airmail as anything else would have negated the great price from CDJapan. I also have the FF version and look forward to comparing them both as well. I initially bought into the fact that the FF Release was much less cropped to not at all until those screencaps were posted. Looking forward to seeing One For The Fire again, it's been a long time....

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by retablo

Theaters aren't "set up" for widescreen... it's just a different plate used in the projector. It's not the same as a squeezed anamorphic print, but even all that needs is the correct lens to "unsqueeze" it.

Forgive me then, but I guess then you really have no idea what you're talking about Sorry.

If you just simply change the projector aperture plate when projecting a film, NOTHING about the image changes up on the screen: The image coming out of the lens remains the same. I don't know where this internet-repeated myth comes from

The plate is just a little metal frame that covers the edges of the image and sits between the film and the lens to prevent light spilling over the curtains, ceiling, floor. But it does not change the image projected on the screen. It's a hole. Empty air.

Setting up for widescreen:

[Show spoiler]This is what I mean with theaters were set up for widescreen:

In 1950 the DeciRoxy Theater is happily showing José Ferrer in Cyrano de Bergerac on the screen. The Theater is using a lens it had installed in 1931 (and a little plate!) to show a handsome Academy 1.37 15mm x 21mm film image on their awesome 10 x 13.7 meter 1.37 shaped screen. Theater is very happy.

Comes 1953 and everybody is switching to 3-D, Widescreen and Scope movies.

Every theater, like today, wants to show up the latest blockbusters, The Robe, How To Marry a Millionare, Hondo, White Christmas, A Star is Born, Dial M For Murder, The Caine Mutiny, and hundreds more to make money and stay in business.

Now the theater owner finds his theater is not equiped for the new formats. Other theaters are changing their screens and equipment or new theaters are being constructed and designed with those formats.

He decides aha! I'll just change the plate!

Guess what hapens when he projects Hondo with a 1.85 plate change? He suddenly has 2.6 meters of blank image covering the same image on his Academy screen! What are these.. black bars..??? His proud theater that boasted a 10 meter tall screen has now shrunk to 7.4 meters tall. He says: Scope promises it's bigger wider! and tries to project The Robe changing the plate again. Now he has severely squeezed people looking like Avatar and a great part of the image spilling on to the roof and floors and even outside to the curtains. He says, oh I'll just run a classic! Calls for a new copy of Gone With the Wind and projects it in Academy and to his horror there are some scenes that have been "letterboxed with the black bars" too (hard matted) so projectionists on Widescreen theaters could frame the film for widescreen properly. Horrors! He subsequently learns that some directors and studios will be hard matting their new film's prints so they have to be shown in widescreen only. Even Mary Poppins! All the big studios announce and make their commitment to producing movies in Widescreen.

What can he do?

He set ups his theater for Widescreen.

Which entails:

He buys and instals a new super wide screen of 10 x 25.5 meters (and probably a new set of curtains) because that's the purpose of widescreen: W I D E R. Bigger. So his 10 meter tall screen now is grown up as it's proper. That will cover the Scope magnetic movies and the standard widescreen movies too, and yes, the Academy ones that are rapidly becoming extinct, just as 4:3 TVs shows are now, if he wants to.

But not only that! Changing the screen wont change how anything is projected in his new screen. His old lens (probably 25 years old by now), is still projecting the same 10 x 13.7 image on his screen from 15mm x 21mm of film, and changing the plates still does nothing to help this, all it does is just still cover part of his screen making the image 7.4 meters tall and 13.7 meters wide for the new Widescreen movies, or spill the squished image of the Scope movies 2 meters outside his screen onto the floor and ceilings, being 12 meters high instead, and the Scope image width barely covers a little more than 15 meters of his new 25.5 meter wide screen.

He has to measure and buy two new lenses too of two different focal lengths than the one he used for Academy 1.37 movies, as that lens is not the correct size for widescreen.

Now, and only now, his two new lenses will make the correct image size show on the screen: The new 1.85 Widescreen movies will fill the height of his 10 meter screen x 18.5 meters from 11mm x 21mm of film, and the new 2.55 wide Scope films will fit properly in his 10 meter tall screen instead of spilling all over and outside and being cropped 20% and their image will be 25.5 meters wide from 18mm x 23mm of film giving him again the best show in town.

Theater owner is now happy. His theater is now set up for widescreen.

So you see changing the plates accomplishes nothing (something that someone like Kubrick knew better than me) it doesn't magically transform the formats from one size to another.

A couple years later Fox stops making magnetics prints but he practically doesn't have to do anything and he closes his curtains 2 meters more to get a 2.35 image. (Many years later new management put an obnoxious red glowing No Smoking sign there or later a green Exit one. ). After a few more years pass, since he's not getting movies in Academy format to show at one point he sells off the lens he once used for Academy. Commercial theaters constructed after the Widescreen switchover in the 50's buy only lenses appropriate for their widescreens. In the end 1.37 projection dies out and is almost like an extinct species preserved in a zoo.

I've read that Kubrick found that by 1975 most theaters in France and Germany weren't set up even for 1.66 anymore. (the plates thing is mentioned again as a fix in that anecdote but as you can see, that wouldn't have helped with the problem.)

So that's what I mean with theaters being set up for playing widescreen movies, not 10, 20 or 50 year old movies of a format that wasn't current, not being used for any mayor production, and bringing the mojo.. Like I said as years went by it became more difficult to find theaters equiped to play old formats, that in the fast moving world of Cinema box office, were in a sense dead or obsolete for theaters. Most of those movies ended on yes, 1.33 TV or TV video versions. When was Dracula or Gone With The Wind playing in the 60's or 70's (on tv or on specially made widescreen 70mm blow ups!)

[#Darren]

Very good info - thanks :-)

Originally Posted by bgart13

I swore I wouldn't post anymore in this thread, but since it was lost in the Great Crash of 2012, I'm posting this again. Courtesy of Bob Furmanek, via HTF:

[#Darren]

I understand, shooting in B&W is an artistic decision made for a lot of great films in the color era. And in the early years of color maybe a financial decision. Same for 16mm (mainly financial..).

But it's extremely rare to find someone shooting Academy Ratio in the late 60's.

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

See THE ARTIST.

Joking aside, often films will be shot against the norms of the period they film in.

PSYCHO shot in B&W despite existing in a time of color. Rob Zombie shot Halloween 2 in 16mm despite most movies shooting 35mm or even digitally now. It's all about the intended look.

NOTLD was likely shot B&W for budgetary reasons and it's possible they shot 4:3 with an intent to matte it theatrically but that's not entirely clear. It seemed appropriately framed at 1.33:1 though it doesn't necessary look "inappropriate" when cropped for 1.66:1 or 1.78:1 either.

The answer is "who knows?" I'm sure many theaters projected it at different ratios. 1.33:1 - 1.85:1

[CHEЯNOБLY!]

I know it has probably been discussed ad nauseum, but I don't feel like searching through 41pgs...

Is the US release the best version of the original NOTLD so far? Reviews looked good.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by CHEЯNOБLY!

I know it has probably been discussed ad nauseum, but I don't feel like searching through 41pgs...

Is the US release the best version of the original NOTLD so far? Reviews looked good.

No, Japanese.

[Eidolon]

Originally Posted by #Darren

But it's extremely rare to find someone shooting Academy Ratio in the late 60's.

Not in the world of bargain basement fleatpit cinema. Think of the likes of Russ Meyer and H. G. Lewis.
Too many people only understand the mainstream approach, and really dont understand that 'the rules and the norm' mean nothing to films made under these circumstances. It was simply a case of make it anyway you can. B&W or 4:3 honestly shouldn't surprise anybody with a bit of fleatpit cinema knowledge. Heck, we still get the odd one through the 90's, such as Little Otik, Blair Witch Project or Soft For Digging were shot and projected 4:3.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by CHEЯNOБLY!

I know it has probably been discussed ad nauseum, but I don't feel like searching through 41pgs...

Is the US release the best version of the original NOTLD so far? Reviews looked good.

As said, Japanese. Was initially expensive, but is now available for a great price at CDJapan's website. I ordered mine a few days ago, and came to $23 and change after shipping.

[#Darren]

Yes, good points, I am aware that some films shot on the "super cheap" were screened like that, in small town halls etc.

Originally Posted by Eidolon

Not in the world of bargain basement fleatpit cinema. Think of the likes of Russ Meyer and H. G. Lewis.
Too many people only understand the mainstream approach, and really dont understand that 'the rules and the norm' mean nothing to films made under these circumstances. It was simply a case of make it anyway you can. B&W or 4:3 honestly shouldn't surprise anybody with a bit of fleatpit cinema knowledge. Heck, we still get the odd one through the 90's, such as Little Otik, Blair Witch Project or Soft For Digging were shot and projected 4:3.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by budious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pulldown

Most American films are shot on 4 perf 35mm which is gonna to be captured as 4:3 negative. If an anamorphic lens is used, cinemascope, then the vertical image will be stretched. In the case of 1.85, the remainder of the frame is just matted out. When you see an open matte frame, that means the intended widescreen framing matte has been removed.

Psycho had the option of filming color, but the studio did not want the blood red shower scene to be used if Hitchcock had taken that option. He chose to shoot on B&W because he felt keeping the shower scene was more important.

The recently released Moonrise Kingdom was filmed on 16mm.

Re: PSYCHO -- that's my point. They chose to shoot B&W for stylistic reasons -- despite having the capability of shooting in color. Hitchcock also wanted to do it on a budget similar to his TV series.

[Atari Charles]

I like all the information here and the information regained after the Hard Drive Crash of 2012.

As for the article, just wondering, can we trust the Aspect Ratio of 1.85:1 as being accurate and not just a default due to theatres of the time showing films in this aspect ratio and it just being printed that way in the newspaper? Secondly, as this was a default for most studios at the time, George Romero may have wanted the film shown in 4:3 but instead the film was shown in 1.85:1, thoughts?

I'd still like the hear it from the horses mouth aka the Romero.

Unfortunately the closest thing we will ever hear from Romero is my goofy 2 page screenplay dialogue between Romero, Dimension and his new girlfriend as contained in my free download below.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Atari Charles

I like all the information here and the information regained after the Hard Drive Crash of 2012.

As for the article, just wondering, can we trust the Aspect Ratio of 1.85:1 as being accurate and not just a default due to theatres of the time showing films in this aspect ratio and it just being printed that way in the newspaper? Secondly, as this was a default for most studios at the time, George Romero may have wanted the film shown in 4:3 but instead the film was shown in 1.85:1, thoughts?

I'd still like the hear it from the horses mouth aka the Romero.

Unfortunately the closest thing we will ever hear from Romero is my goofy 2 page screenplay dialogue between Romero, Dimension and his new girlfriend as contained in my free download below.

Romero approved 2 different DVD transfers, correct? Both in 1.33:1. That should answer your question.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by retablo

Romero approved 2 different DVD transfers, correct? Both in 1.33:1. That should answer your question.

And a Laserdisc.

[mzupeman]

I think this was discussed before, but that probably had more to do with collecting a paycheck than anything else.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

I think this was discussed before, but that probably had more to do with collecting a paycheck than anything else.

Sure, but if it was truly his intent for this to be shown in widescreen, how much effort would it have taken for him to say (at any point in the movie's home video history), "Hey [insert video company here], this is supposed to be in widescreen."

Which makes me think either A) He doesn't really give a shit one way or another, or at least not nearly as much as obsessive fans do (a very real possibility) or B) He's fine with it being shown in full frame, because that's how they made it since they really didn't know any better, and probably weren't thinking it would become the classic it has.

[budious]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

Re: PSYCHO -- that's my point. They chose to shoot B&W for stylistic reasons -- despite having the capability of shooting in color. Hitchcock also wanted to do it on a budget similar to his TV series.

Doesn't sound like stylistic reasons to me, sounds like oppressive studio bigwigs tampering with production, and offering an ultimatum that the only option to keep the script intact is to NOT shoot in color.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Eidolon

Not in the world of bargain basement fleatpit cinema. Think of the likes of Russ Meyer and H. G. Lewis.
Too many people only understand the mainstream approach, and really dont understand that 'the rules and the norm' mean nothing to films made under these circumstances. It was simply a case of make it anyway you can. B&W or 4:3 honestly shouldn't surprise anybody with a bit of fleatpit cinema knowledge. Heck, we still get the odd one through the 90's, such as Little Otik, Blair Witch Project or Soft For Digging were shot and projected 4:3.

Blair Witch wasn't projected in 35mm "4:3" (Academy), otherwise it would have been cropped to widescreen in theaters. It was projected in 1.85 with a windowboxed image on the print and the curtains closed more (or the image showing pillarboxed on screen)

To show a movie in 35mm "4:3" (Academy, sound) and not in Scope or 1.85 the cinema has to own 3 lenses instead of 2. And to project a movie in 35mm "4:3" (Silent) the cinema has to own 4 lenses instead of 2. And to project a movie in 1.66 a cinema has to own 5 lenses instead of 2. And so forth.

[OrchidClub]

I think it's safe to say that NOTLD's intended ratio is 1.33. Romero also prefers this ratio for Martin, and cropping it to 1.85 cuts off some of the special effects at the bottom of the screen

[benricci]

Originally Posted by OrchidClub

I think it's safe to say...

Yeah, but this is the internet. You could say grass is green and you'd get 12 different arguments as to why it's not. With charts.