Night Of The Living Dead (Umbrella)

[Shemp]

Night of the Living Dead Blu-ray

Don't get your hopes up that this release is any better than the UK Optimum and Network releases. I've done some comparisons and the transfer is identical to the heavily cropped Optimum blu ray. To get an idea of how badly cropped the Optimum release is, check out this page.

[Carcuss]

According to ezydvd.com.au, their release is in widescreen.
http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/814470
I own the Optimum UK version in 4:3. Any further info to confirm the aspect ratio?
Cheers,
Carcuss.

[Shemp]

No it's not in widescreen. It's 4:3 as is the documentary. No subs and the only audio track is DTS HD Master Audio 2.0. Hope this helps.

I'm unable to post screengrabs but as you can see in the comparison I linked to in the original post, the cropping is quite substantial in some shots. I compared the Elite DVD to the Umbrella blu ray in the scene where they are watching the television, and in one scene on the blu ray Ben is talking but you can only see him from the nose down. On the Elite DVD you can see his eyes in the same scene.

[Anamnesis]

Here is the coverart:

[blu-bren]

4:3 and dts 2.0..
no way..

bluray is has become dvd. they just shuffle them off now. who kknows if your getting top shelf pic and sound till some sap buys them.. i dont trust these small companys to get good transfers they just cheap out and still charge a whopping $43.90 for 'em.

[thetechnique]

[LordCrumb]

Originally Posted by blu-bren

4:3 and dts 2.0..
no way..

bluray is has become dvd. they just shuffle them off now. who kknows if your getting top shelf pic and sound till some sap buys them.. i dont trust these small companys to get good transfers they just cheap out and still charge a whopping $43.90 for 'em.

So your not an 'Original Aspect Ratio' fan... oh well, can't win em all!

[kobeson]

Yes, when a film is shot on 16mm film, and recorded in (I assume) mono - I don't think those specs on the Blu-Ray are surprising or disappointing at all.

[blu-bren]

No i bought a home theatre system and a widescreen tv for a reason..
that DVDs and Blurays always be in widescreen and have Dolby or DTS multichannel..

[thetechnique]

I thunk the transfer is great just spewing it's been zoomed in a bit. Otherwise great sound and pic quality. Oh well I've still got my elite millenium edition.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by thetechnique

I thunk the transfer is great just spewing it's been zoomed in a bit. Otherwise great sound and pic quality. Oh well I've still got my elite millenium edition.

Aside from the zoom issue it is a very nice blu. The movie was made in mono, and I wish a losslerss mono track was included, but stereo is more or less the same.

[kobeson]

Originally Posted by blu-bren

No i bought a home theatre system and a widescreen tv for a reason..
that DVDs and Blurays always be in widescreen and have Dolby or DTS multichannel..

Do you understand why some films are widescreen and some aren't? Maybe you should do some research, because not every film will be presented in widescreen. I take it you haven't seen many/any made prior to the 60's? In particular, prior to widescreen became standard in the 50's?

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by blu-bren

No i bought a home theatre system and a widescreen tv for a reason..
that DVDs and Blurays always be in widescreen and have Dolby or DTS multichannel..

Well then your a very silly man.

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by blu-bren

No i bought a home theatre system and a widescreen tv for a reason..

Yeah, far be it for a studio to release a film in the correct aspect ratio. I mean why release it the way the director filmed it and it was intended to be seen? It's not like that matters anyway. Just chop off the top and the bottom of the image to fit your screen, you won't miss anything oh except for maybe the heads of actors (see below). I suppose films lensed with a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 aspect ratio don't meet with your approval either because they don't completely fill the screen. Ah well, chop off the sides and get rid of the letterboxing.

Oh wait, I've got your solution. It's called:

A ZOOM BUTTON

Perhaps you should use it, whether on your TV or player if equipped. That way you can watch your films/TV how you want to and we can watch them how they are supposed to be seen, as originally intended.




As for audio if you want your two channel audio in a 7.1 mix I've got you covered too: Dolby Pro Logic IIx. I'm guessing though that judging from your setup pics you can't get IIx and you aren't running lossless audio. With that in mind, how can you be critical of a format (Blu-ray) when your own system is incapable of reproducing the full range of audio? I'm also guessing that based on your screen size in comparison to your receiver size you are running a 26" LG LCD. On a screen that size the increased resolution of Blu-ray will all but be lost at anything further than about 1-1.5 metres away from it so I'm wondering why this is of great concern to you?

[LordCrumb]

Oooooo fight fight fight!

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by KaiGusto

Oooooo fight fight fight!

I'm just saying it how I see it. It's kind of hard to stand there and say that studios are doing a lacklustre job releasing titles when 1) the gear you own doesn't even have the capabilities of reproducing the benefits of Blu-ray; and 2) you're wishing for the artistic intent of a film/show to be altered to fit your own needs even though it doesn't represent the views of creator of that particular piece.

Advocating for the discarding of 25% of a frame just because it doesn't fit your current TV is just as bad as some of the public complaining about "black bars" when DVD came out. And this is coming from the person who started a thread wanting to know which Blu-ray releases had DNR on them. So massacring an image and losing a quarter of it is OK, but applying some DNR is not?! It just seems to me to be some unusual standards to which blu-bren thinks studios should be held:

DNR: Bad. Should not be applied as it ruins the image.
Cropping aspect ratios: Good. Releases should be made to fill a 16:9 screen, apparently does not ruin the frame even though can result in up to 25% loss of image
Sound mix: Mix every audio track to minimum 5.1 regardless of original audio

Where's the consistency in that argument? Advocating that studios stay out of interfering with a release by not adding DNR only to say it's cool to chop a quarter of the image off. With all due respect you can't have it both ways. Either releases are presented as intended by the director or studios have free reign to do what they wish to a release and there have been plenty of instances where studios have had exactly that and it has not turned out well (Predator UHE, Patton etc).

[LordCrumb]

Hey I'm all in agreement!

[blu-bren]

if i saw the pictures of my stuff they say 32" tv.
and zoom? zoom? jesus no way that warped the picture.
i am plenty satisfied at this time with DD and DTS(via digital audio output) as long as they are multi channel.
then thats just me.



although i am thinking of getting a Bluray Home theater system as long as it reproduces DD-TrueHD and DTS-MA and PCM 5.1 uncompressed..

Originally Posted by atexp80

Yeah, far be it for a studio to release a film in the correct aspect ratio. I mean why release it the way the director filmed it and it was intended to be seen? It's not like that matters anyway. Just chop off the top and the bottom of the image to fit your screen, you won't miss anything oh except for maybe the heads of actors (see below). I suppose films lensed with a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 aspect ratio don't meet with your approval either because they don't completely fill the screen. Ah well, chop off the sides and get rid of the letterboxing.

Oh wait, I've got your solution. It's called:

A ZOOM BUTTON

Perhaps you should use it, whether on your TV or player if equipped. That way you can watch your films/TV how you want to and we can watch them how they are supposed to be seen, as originally intended.




As for audio if you want your two channel audio in a 7.1 mix I've got you covered too: Dolby Pro Logic IIx. I'm guessing though that judging from your setup pics you can't get IIx and you aren't running lossless audio. With that in mind, how can you be critical of a format (Blu-ray) when your own system is incapable of reproducing the full range of audio? I'm also guessing that based on your screen size in comparison to your receiver size you are running a 26" LG LCD. On a screen that size the increased resolution of Blu-ray will all but be lost at anything further than about 1-1.5 metres away from it so I'm wondering why this is of great concern to you?

[LordCrumb]

Zoom does not 'warp' the image, it simply zooms in on it. televisions usually have several different 'zoom' functions, and if you scroll through them, you will find one that will keep the correct proportions, yet fill your 32" television, and you will no longer need to worry about OAR issues.

[wildhoney66]

i agree 100% when it comes to widescreen, that's how i prefer to watch films myself. i think it was introduced either in (1954) or (1955) around there.

honestly i think it was a stupid idea. cause now everything has to be widescreen. even tv shows nowadays! really what's the point on that?

movies i can see. but tv shows? anyways, i can't recall what "Night of the living dead' is actually shot in. it's just a damn shame that George A. Romero' doesn't see a dime in these great releases. cause he's been trying to get the rights for

it for years according to my brother, who's talked to the right people that were involved in the film. it also pisses me off that the deleted scenes/ or outtakes were destroyed by a flood years ago. they were in someone's basement. i

assume George Romero's. & as for "Silent Night Deadly Night' on dvd they have since re-released those. so you must have the 1st pressing. if i'm not

mistaken. & i admit i may be. but as for widescreen goes, you won't hear me say a bad thing about it cause i will NEVER understand why anyone prefers to watch a film full screen or as some call it pan & Scan. some films aren't

that bad if ya watch it that way. but if ya watch say a film like "The Prisoner on 2nd Avenue" with "Jack Lemmon" you get dizzy just watching it cause he

at some point paces back & forth & i was getting dizzy watching it one time.

also if you watch the film "Grease' i got the same thing. this is on the pan & scan versions only. & if you want another example. the masterpiece film. "it's a mad mad mad mad world' watching that full screen is a SIN!

here's an example why ya MUST watch it widescreen. it one scene where the gang is talking near the start of the film. you see all of them bickering at the side of the road. near the start of the film. in the pan & scan you just

see half of the group & hear the group that you can't seen. hence it cuts off characters out of the picture! so in short Widescreen is a MUST for that film.