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

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

There is no winning here. Even when Mr. Savini makes a comment, we get the typical "Source?" Someone posted the damn post, THAT'S the source.

So, now people have to either disappear into the good and overly blue night or they have to back-pedal or they have to take the even more predictable route, "I don't care what the filmmakers say, I want it the way it is on DVD." One can only reiterate the same points so many times - DVD and VHS used low-cons for their transfers - those are exactly what the name implies and the resulting image is far brighter than any theatrical print, because TVs in those days could not handle theatrical contrast in any way, shape, or form.

The one thing that is abundantly clear - well, there are many things that are abundantly clear - is that many people damned this transfer without having seen it. Many people slung mud at Twilight Time and its owners, and in a completely offensive manner. They are due an apology that will, of course, never be forthcoming. I'm sure there will be more information coming, too, and it will be amusing to read the posts that follow. I, for one, had no interest whatsoever in this film, but will now watch on Thursday just so I can chime in.

[psicon]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

Director approved after all.

Let's see some of you people go back and apologize now for the dozens upon dozens of outraged, ill-founded "Twilight Time sucks" posts that ended up trashing the company for something TOM SAVINI did himself.

Ridiculous, just like this thread.

nothing anywhere said Savini did it himself, just that he loved it.

So Savini likes it, that still doesn't make it right or O.K. IMO.

Has Twilight or Sony came out and said "O.K., the director approved it, it is what it is, no corrections needed, return if you want"?
Is it really over is what I'm asking. I still want an exchange, but realize I'm probably dreaming.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

Director approved after all.

Let's see some of you people go back and apologize now for the dozens upon dozens of outraged, ill-founded "Twilight Time sucks" posts that ended up trashing the company for something TOM SAVINI did himself.

Ridiculous, just like this thread.

Not very many people are saying Twilight Time themselves suck, at least I never did - they're just the middle man. This Sony-produced transfer, however, definitely does suck. It also makes me far less likely to pre-order future Sony-produced Twilight Time releases. What was once an assumed level of quality simply no longer exists. It's about as poor as a job one could do with this film. Savini didn't specifically approve of it in the sense that he was involved in its production either, he just recently watched it on his TV and wasn't bothered by it. That being said, it he had been personally involved in such an egregious change to the film it would still suck just as hard as it does now.

Honestly, it looks friggin' terrible.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by nateynate87

No where did it say he did it himself. He watched it and didn't have any complaints.

[antmumford]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

Director approved after all.

Let's see some of you people go back and apologize now for the dozens upon dozens of outraged, ill-founded "Twilight Time sucks" posts that ended up trashing the company for something TOM SAVINI did himself.

Ridiculous, just like this thread.

Tom Savini did it himself, where the hell did you get this info from?

On a side note, watching more of it now and anyone notice how bad the PQ is when the family come up from the cellar, there mis absolutely no detail at all, faces look waxy and lack any depth or clarity. Is this what DNR does? Genuine question as I'm not no technical wizard.

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

lol now TT deserves an apology. Bruce, did you ever apologize to the members of Blu-ray.com for saying nobody here knows anything about film?

Many here have no idea what goes into a film's prep, production or post. Want proof? Go back 50 or 100 pages and start reading.

It's reprehensible how wannabe armchair filmmakers basically accused TT of everything but murder in regards to this transfer while in fact TT's story/explanation hasn't changed one bit. They did everything they said they would in regards to delivery, and have a no questions asked refund policy.

Damn straight TT is owed an apology by many.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

lol now TT deserves an apology. Bruce, did you ever apologize to the members of Blu-ray.com for saying nobody here knows anything about film?

Yes, they do deserve an apology and you know it, I know it, and the man in the overly dark moon knows it. LOL indeed.

I'm sure whichever post you're referring to had some kind of context attached to it - what was the context?

[Ill_Be_Back]

Originally Posted by antmumford

Tom Savini did it himself, where the hell did you get this info from?

On a side note, watching more of it now and anyone notice how bad the PQ is when the family come up from the cellar, there mis absolutely no detail at all, faces look waxy and lack any depth or clarity. Is this what DNR does? Genuine question as I'm not no technical wizard.

Yes DNR tends to do that....

[Captain Mal]

[quote=Irongod2112;6549790]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Can any one speak about how good the HD version of NOLD90 available on Amazon is? If it's significantly better than upscaled DVD, I might consider having that as an alternative to the TTBD.

I bought this off Amazon to check out and even though it's the same as the DVD color and brightness wise it's HD video is WAY to pixelated even on a smaller 32 inch LCD. I wound up getting a refund from Amazon

Get the HDX version from Vudu if your internet speed is fast enough. Looks great. Not quite as much detail as the blu-ray, but better than the DVD.

[Dickieduvet]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Thanks Dickie for getting the answer directly from the man himself

You are more than welcome Sir!

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Not very many people are saying Twilight Time themselves suck, at least I never did - they're just the middle man. This Sony-produced transfer, however, definitely does suck. It also makes me far less likely to pre-order future Sony-produced Twilight Time releases. What was once an assumed level of quality simply no longer exists. It's about as poor as a job one could do with this film. Savini didn't specifically approve of it in the sense that he was involved in its production either, he just recently watched it on his TV and wasn't bothered by it. That being said, it he had been personally involved in such an egregious change to the film it would still suck just as hard as it does now.

Honestly, it looks friggin' terrible.

Not many people have said Twilight Time themselves suck. Have you not read the last, oh, 100 pages?

[BJQ1972]

That interview with Friedkin posted a couple of pages back is the biggest pile of crap I have ever seen. He might be denying he approved the changes To The French connection, but reading that he hasn't got a clue.

[benricci]

You guys are too funny sometimes.

Forum: "This looks awful - nothing like what the director, in his infinite wisdom, had in mind during production. His precise artistic vision has been desecrated. Kill Twilight Time!!"

Director: "Just watched it - looks great!"

Forum: "...idiot doesn't know what he's talking about... even though I have nothing to do with the film industry and wouldn't know the first thing about transferring 35mm elements if I had a gun to my head, I possess the knowledge of how this film should look on blu-ray. Everyone, heed my words!!!!"

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

It looks awful, Savini 70" Sharp TV approval or not. It is so divorced from the theatrical color timing, and so horrendously distracting (way, way too dark to the point of obliterating detail in the darkest areas) and color-shifted that I can't imagine anyone preferring it over the original.

Can we expect the same horrendous shift in color timing and brightness for Christine? Makes me not want to pre-order, honestly.

Just a little question: How old were you in 1990 when you apparently saw this film in a motion picture theater?

[Ill_Be_Back]

Originally Posted by benricci

You guys are too funny sometimes.

Forum: "This looks awful - nothing like what the director, in his infinite wisdom, had in mind during production. His precise artistic vision has been desecrated. Kill Twilight Time!!"

Director: "Just watched it - looks great!"

Forum: "...idiot doesn't know what he's talking about... even though I have nothing to do with the film industry and wouldn't know the first thing about transferring 35mm elements if I had a gun to my head, I possess the knowledge of how this film should look!!!!"

Post of the day.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

Not many people have said Twilight Time themselves suck. Have you not read the last, oh, 100 pages?

100 pages, are you kidding? Nobody is going to take the time to read 100 pages of any thread.

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by benricci

You guys are too funny sometimes.

Forum: "This looks awful - nothing like what the director, in his infinite wisdom, had in mind during production. His precise artistic vision has been desecrated. Kill Twilight Time!!"

Director: "Just watched it - looks great!"

Forum: "...idiot doesn't know what he's talking about... even though I have nothing to do with the film industry and wouldn't know the first thing about transferring 35mm elements if I had a gun to my head, I possess the knowledge of how this film should look on blu-ray. Everyone, heed my words!!!!"

The best one is the guy who said he "owned an actual work print" and it "matched the DVD" about 35 pages or so back.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

Just a little question: How old were you in 1990 when you apparently saw this film in a motion picture theater?

1990? 10.

That being said - I didn't see the film in the theater, however it could not be more clear this is completely divorced from the theatrical color timing. Are you honestly claiming that this is somehow more accurate to the original color grading? That's laughable. I wasn't even born when the Godfather was made but I sure as Hell am glad Robert Harris decided to stick as close as humanely possible to the original theatrical color timing when supervising the newest BD release.

During parts when the sun is blazing overhead the color timing and brightness levels have been shifted to represent a near-dusk level. In every other prior release of the film the sections in which it is clearly bright and sunny appear as bright and sunny. It looks as it previously did with an insane filter applied.

Also, it features such horrible black crush that enormous swaths of detail are lost in areas that in every previous release of the film the shadow detail was crystal clear.

I'm not even a true fan of the film (but I have ordered nearly every TT release so far as, up until this point, the quality of their releases and their Sony releases specifically have been spectacular), I don't think it's all that great of a film, but I'm just calling a spade a spade here. It looks flat out bad, sorry buddy. Sony flat out botched this transfer.

[xiaNaix]

Originally Posted by popeflick

The best one is the guy who said he "owned an actual work print" and it "matched the DVD" about 35 pages or so back.

The workprint has been out there for 20+ years in collector's circles. Most of the copies are sourced from VHS and look like shit but some are watchable. I've never seen one that was true DVD quality. It has some different shots and temporary music score.