Night of the Living Dead (1990) - Out of Print

[GaragePoet]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

Since you asked, here are some comparisons between the film and trailer found on the disc. The film is on the left and the trailer on the right. Click on the images for the uncompressed images. The captures may not be the exact same frame, between the two, but are close enough. The framing between the film and trailer is also slightly different.

appreciate that! still gotta say that i prefer the original coloring (from the trailer) to the new release...

i admit, i am certainly no self-professed videophile. i have purchased many blu-rays which received poor PQ ratings & have been perfectly happy w/ the upgrade from DVD. i'm sure my meager 42" display disguises many anomalies, but i don't have a keen eye for DNR, edge enhancement, aliasing, banding or many other hi-def imperfections that so many here are quick to point out... (i'm even pretty happy w/ the "Predator" UHE which many here think is an abomination)

this was the first time i have EVER watched a blu-ray & felt that it was a drastic change from the way it's looked before (increased detail aside, of course). all i'm saying is, if it's bad enough that even an easy-to-please BD novice like myself would take notice, it's definitely a problem that should be addressed one way or another...

[arcadeforest]

Originally Posted by GaragePoet

appreciate that! still gotta say that i prefer the original coloring (from the trailer) to the new release...

i admit, i am certainly no self-professed videophile. i have purchased many blu-rays which received poor PQ ratings & have been perfectly happy w/ the upgrade from DVD. i'm sure my meager 42" display disguises many anomalies, but i don't have a keen eye for DNR, edge enhancement, aliasing, banding or many other hi-def imperfections that so many here are quick to point out... (i'm even pretty happy w/ the "Predator" UHE which many here think is an abomination)

this was the first time i have EVER watched a blu-ray & felt that it was a drastic change from the way it's looked before (increased detail aside, of course). all i'm saying is, if it's bad enough that even an easy-to-please BD novice like myself would take notice, it's definitely a problem that should be addressed one way or another...

I'm the same way . . . and I often find myself being thankful for it.

[odriley]

Originally Posted by GaragePoet

appreciate that! still gotta say that i prefer the original coloring (from the trailer) to the new release...

i admit, i am certainly no self-professed videophile. i have purchased many blu-rays which received poor PQ ratings & have been perfectly happy w/ the upgrade from DVD. i'm sure my meager 42" display disguises many anomalies, but i don't have a keen eye for DNR, edge enhancement, aliasing, banding or many other hi-def imperfections that so many here are quick to point out... (i'm even pretty happy w/ the "Predator" UHE which many here think is an abomination)

this was the first time i have EVER watched a blu-ray & felt that it was a drastic change from the way it's looked before (increased detail aside, of course). all i'm saying is, if it's bad enough that even an easy-to-please BD novice like myself would take notice, it's definitely a problem that should be addressed one way or another...

Im the same way. Ive never been picky about video quality and ive never had an instance where I was pissed off about a transfer. Hell, i even own that first release of Deadly Spawn and never saw what was so horrible about it. Even subpar releases like Hills Have Eyes and Last House on the Left look decent to me. I mean they look rough but the colors pop on them at least. This was just way too much. If it bothers me, its gotta be bad. Didnt help that this is a movie I know inside and out.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

I will certainly fault Twilight Time for trying to sweep this under the rug last night by saying that color timing is subjecting and blah blah blah. They back-pedaled and borderline said that people were being silly, if not downright mad in how they were behaving over this release.

However, I can't fault them here for what happened to the film. They've really no reason to believe that any transfer they receive is different than what the source would provide. Their releases thus far have been pretty decent, and I believe them if they say that this is how the transfer they've been given looks. Furthermore, since Sony obviously wasn't planning on releasing NOTLD 90 on Blu-ray any time soon, who would have honestly thought that the studio would have made some changes to the color timing we've all been so very used to? Yes, Sony did this with Dracula, but that was a wide release by them. Why would they alter the transfer when they weren't planning on doing a wide release?

That's what really confuses me, because despite that mystery lingering in the air, it's still pretty clear to me that this WAS altered INTENTIONALLY.

Either way, I just hope that we really get to the bottom of this. I don't think the transfer is as awful as some people are making it out to be, as there's a bit of hyperbole that goes in any discussion like this. This does make the tint in LOTR FOTR seem pale in comparison, but I think the changes actually suited the film fairly well. Regardless, I'm not a fan of having anything that differs from the original presentation, so if Twilight Time find out something got messed up and they eventually offer replacement discs, I'll be all over that.

as I understood it, the whole Dracula debacle was Zoetrope's own mastering, not Sony's - right?

if the transfers alterations were okay by Sony standards, why is Twilight Time getting such slack over it? It's not TT's fault - they wishy washy attitude over this all is just weird - apparently the negativity isn't really phasing them. Hasn't a hidef airing of NOTLD been shown prior to this release? Did it also have the same alterations?

[ghostwhowalks]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

Since you asked, here are some comparisons between the film and trailer found on the disc.

What problem? I don't see any difference.

[Show spoiler]

[Joshinator1989]

DVD
DVD.jpg

Blu-ray
Blu-ray.jpg

VHS
VHS.jpg

Workprint
Workprint.jpg

[auz]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

If that is your YouTube video, which some of those screen shots have come from, then it is inaccurate. It might be a correct representation of what you are seeing, however other people on this site, who are known to have knowledge about HT and calibration, have already confirmed with other screen shots (which I trust far more than yours) that it doesn't look blue anywhere near to the same extend as your video. If you want to continue sticking to the story that your YouTube video is what it looks like, then imo it just makes you look like an amateur who doesn't understand the concept of calibration, because it certainly doesn't look like this, the scare campaign that is your video

the screenshots didn't come from the youtube video anyway. the screenshots come directly from the bluray and dvd.

[ghostwhowalks]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

... and when your label is all about the presentation of the film--and has the price tag to prove it--then there's little excuse for that.

THIS!

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by ghostwhowalks

THIS!

Wrong thread.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ghostwhowalks

THIS!

so wait I'm confused now, was the DVD actually brighter than what was shown in the theater - I saw it in the theater, but I don't remember it being THAT dark (or blue)? If I were Savini, I'd throw in my two cents and royally acost Sony and it's hidef tech team for what they did ...

[ghostwhowalks]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

Wrong thread.

lol, yeah. I deemed it worthy to be reposted here though!

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

I think your response is laughable. So TT needs to call every living director and/or cinematographer that's still alive for the films they're releasing -- then send them a copy of the HD master sitting in the vaults at Sony or Fox -- then ask them how accurate it is before they release it?

Some of you guys are just being ridiculous. TT said what they needed to -- either the transfer is bad, or it's the way it's supposed to look. It's either going to be CORRECTED or it's going to remain the way it is. Sony produced the transfer and their track record, in general, has been excellent -- why would TT doubt the validity of the source to begin with?

No matter what happens, seems obvious that you can get your money back if you don't like it. They responded that they'll find out on Monday what's going on. My god, what more do you want them to do? This is the kind of thing that drives labels like this away from releasing product. Then you'll have nothing to complain about -- literally.

To add to this, it wouldn't matter WHO Twilight Time called - they have nothing to do with the transfers other than authoring. They can call directors, they can call cinematographers, they can call the man in the moon - so what? Sony does the transfer, and if they don't feel like calling these people then that's their business, although I've been told they're pretty good about calling people who worked on films should they be alive.

Here's my guess - for all the hand-wringing and screaming and all, how many people will actually return their disc for a refund. Not just say they will, but actually DO it. If anyone has, do let us know, won't you? My further guess is that SAE will get VERY few back.

[thephantomcat]

This house..... is clean.

[HyperRealist]

Originally Posted by plissken99

These are just some crappy screen grabs I took with my iPhone 4S camera from my seating position in the theater room, taken on a 147in projection screen with a JVC RS40 projector, compared with the HDX version found on Vudu. This is an effort to prove the screen grabs do not exaggerate whats happening.

BD


VUDU


BD


VUDU


BD


VUDU


http://www.avsforum.com/t/1396578/tw...#post_22450450

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

get off my high horse? I don't have a high horse, i have a low horse - it is very difficult for people of my age to get on a high horse and then to get off it. don has no business commenting on anything or alarming mr. Savini without having seen the disc. If he has the disc, which you stated he did, then how hard would it be for him to insert it into a player and watch it? Seems the logical thing to do, no?

lol.

[retablo]

Bottom line is, it's not TT's fault if there's an issue with the disc.

From a consumer standpoint- yes, it's their responsibility. But they only used a master provided to them by the studio. So it's the studios fault, not TT's.

Blue, released by Criterion, is misframed throughout, but they only used a master provided by Mk2 in Europe. Many complained, but nothing was "fixed", since they had no control over getting a correct master made.

[Tybo28]

Originally Posted by retablo

Bottom line is, it's not TT's fault if there's an issue with the disc.

From a consumer standpoint- yes, it's their responsibility. But they only used a master provided to them by the studio. So it's the studios fault, not TT's.

Blue, released by Criterion, is misframed throughout, but they only used a master provided by Mk2 in Europe. Many complained, but nothing was "fixed", since they had no control over getting a correct master made.

Yea, I mean, why should a distributor know ANYTHING about the film they're distributing in limited editions, geared towards hardcore fans at 30$ a pop. Could have saved themselves from this hysteria by recognizing the transfer they were putting on the disc looked totally different than it has on any other format for 22 years. Maybe an inquiry, I don't know, BEFORE selling 3000 of them? might have been a stress reliever for everyone involved.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by phantasm25

good news. twilight time has just brought in Ted A. Bohus [the writer of the deadly spawn] to go back to the original camera negative and transfer the film correctly this time. details of the replacement program will be available in a timely manor.

That's good news. I bought 2 copies, so I'm going to send 1 back for replacement and keep the other 1, so I've got 2 different interpretations of the film.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by retablo

Bottom line is, it's not TT's fault if there's an issue with the disc.

From a consumer standpoint- yes, it's their responsibility. But they only used a master provided to them by the studio. So it's the studios fault, not TT's.

Blue, released by Criterion, is misframed throughout, but they only used a master provided by Mk2 in Europe. Many complained, but nothing was "fixed", since they had no control over getting a correct master made.

And the recent Children of Paradise, which reviews indicate is abysmal. Yet barely any of the vitriol over that release has been directed at Criterion, but rather Pathe, the company that did the restoration.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Tybo28

Yea, I mean, why should a distributor know ANYTHING about the film they're distributing in limited editions, geared towards hardcore fans at 30$ a pop. Could have saved themselves from this hysteria by recognizing the transfer they were putting on the disc looked totally different than it has on any other format for 22 years. Maybe an inquiry, I don't know, BEFORE selling 3000 of them? might have been a stress reliever for everyone involved.

Agreed, but they are just the middle man. TT isn't an authority on the color timings of films, nor should they be. They aren't creatives. They are passing along a product they paid for the rights to sell. Now, yes, that product should come to them correctly... And there's where the fault lies.

If Wal-Mart gets a batch of bad product, they don't know it's bad until customers complain, same as here. They issue refunds and get reimbursed from the original manufacturer. But it's not Wal-Marts fault. Hopefully the studio will rectify the situation, but that would be a huge deal- fixed master, then all new replication of 3000 discs- or however many titles they choose to "fix". Not saying its impossible, just improbable.