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

[Sundance]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

How it appears on your display is down to your display and your pair of eyes but when someone grabs a frame from the BD, assuming they did it properly, that's exactly what is on the disc.

Slightly off-topic but...

It is also possible to (accidentally) add a color profile information on the images (for example my Photoshop seems to add one for jpg images unless you specifically remove it every time you save an image) which will make the image appear differently on certain equipment/software.

I doubt many know but Firefox seems to display the images based on this color profile information (unless you disable the option) and because of this the exact same image can look different on Firefox and IE (IE ignoring the color profile would show the image how it is supposed to be on a computer monitor).

[HyperRealist]

take off the tin foil hat. there wasn't a conspiracy to fake the screenshots. that's the way they look on your uncalibrated PC when they are real small surrounded by a light background.

[mzupeman]

Director of photography was involved and Savini loves it. Im good.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by kinkyqueen

Did everyone who did not notice all the 'darkness' and 'Smurfs' see it on a Panasonic plasma?

I got a Panasonic plasma and did not see it. Who's with me?

Right here. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that there are two groups of people who have seen this disc offering their opinion of it: people who have seen it on high end calibrated sets, and people who haven't.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

just people denying they ever bashed

That would seem to be an easy thing to refute for specific people, if you're so concerned about it.

The site does have quote function.

[kingsoprano718]

Originally Posted by antmumford

Hear hear, Savini may not mind the new look but that doesn't mean its acceptable.

I could have just manipulated my version to have blood splatter on the screen everytime a zombie gets shot or something and show it to Tom, he says "I like it" and now everyone should be watching my butchered version. That's not right, so why is this?

Not singling you out specifically but how DARE anyone take someone elses art that they created and they try to say they know what is best for it. If Savini is fine with it its done. You (not you specifically) can sit there and whine and throw out what you would have done and then act like Savini has no right to his own opinion on his OWN FILM! Same goes for Star Wars and everything else. With French Connection I agreed with the change because one of the participating film makers came out and said he hated what they did to it.

If Romero comes out and says he hates it then we have a solid debate to rage about. As of now its done and over with. Just because you bought it and love it does NOT mean you have any say what happens to it.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

That would seem to be an easy thing to refute for specific people, if you're so concerned about it.

The site does have quote function.

It's all here - I don't have to do anything - unless people are going back and editing their posts, which I wouldn't put past certain people. Do you deny that there were many people here bashing Twilight Time - repeatedly? Yes or no?

[Whirlygig]

I can't believe all the little snickering comments here and there people are making again which call the validity and usefulness of the frame grabs many have provided into question. How can there be that many vocal, active members of a hi-def video forum that do not understand display calibration and its effect on viewing frame grabs, and that it's not the frame grabs that are "wrong", it's the mechanism by which they are viewing them?

I bet everyone understands if someone posts an MP3 (or WAV) clip of some music, and you listen to it on tinny computer laptop speakers, it's not the MP3's fault that it sounds tinny. And that if they played it back through a properly adjusted full sound system it would sound better, and yet there is nothing different about the file.

The idea that a substandard product will retain collector value in the face of widespread consumer disapproval is misguided. Use the music analogy again. The new, wonderful format called the compact disc has been invented. An album readily available in acceptable quality on cassette tape and LP has just been remastered for first-ever, limited edition CD release! Only someone has added significant hiss (or perhaps drastically altered the bass level) for the entire first half of the album, either intentionally or by some horrible mistake. Do you like listening to hiss and distortion? Most will not, and will write the new release off as awful. Most music collectors won't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole, except for a select few completists who just have to have it all. This equation would be different if there were no other way whatsoever to hear the music -- if it were the only version ever released -- but that's not the case here. I'm more apt to think it could make the DVD version worth more. The only difference in this analogy is that a CD player can't also play a cassette tape like a Blu-ray can a DVD (and with upscaling, no less), so with music people might buy the CD anyway because they own no cassette player; everyone with a Blu-ray player has a DVD player.

The collector market has shrunk from "hi-def collectors with an interest in the film" to "NOTLD/TT/Blu-ray completists". That's a far smaller market...I'm not sure there are 3,000 of them.

Personally I don't feel this disc is all that expensive, and if I were buying it for collector value I'd have bought two, which I didn't, and haven't for any TT release. I just didn't want to be sitting around one day thinking "I wish I could watch the NOTLD90 Blu-ray" and go looking for it to discover it would cost me hundreds of dollars to do so (as happened with Fright Night). So I figured I should buy it now while I had the chance. With all that said, I imagine I'll be keeping it, but in no way am I expecting it to skyrocket in value. If anybody out there wants to trade their Fright Night for this, call me!

Also, how can they say they are "sold out"...if some have already returned theirs? Will they be destroying those, or what?

[HyperRealist]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

That would seem to be an easy thing to refute for specific people, if you're so concerned about it.

The site does have quote function.

maybe we should apologize to Twilight Time for buying every one of their releases

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by AndrewFM

Okay, just because this disc is being "offered for sale" at inflated prices, I see no evidence of anyone biting. So it's not being "sold" at $70.

A simple Ended Item search shows over ten copies sold at that point since Sunday. Not sure what you're seeing but eBay is brisk it seems at that price.

[FlyBry]

Originally Posted by AndrewFM

And what argument is that? most of them will see it on TV or on the DVD, same as always

I was just saying that I hope both versions, in the future, are readily available for people to choose which they like better. Revisionist or Theatrical. I hope this doesn't become the way the film is released from now on.

[AndrewFM]

Originally Posted by popeflick

A simple Ended Item search shows over ten copies sold at that point since Sunday. Not sure what you're seeing but eBay is brisk it seems at that price.

I stand corrected.

[The Real Horror]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

I'm being a drama queen. I'm not even a serf compared to some of the drama queens in this thread.

Like Nate Boss just bashed Twilight Time and this release, eh? How about you take it up with him? He is a professional reviewer. You have not even seen this - soooooo?

[iamsometal]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Right here. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that there are two groups of people who have seen this disc offering their opinion of it: people who have seen it on high end calibrated sets, and people who haven't.

I watched mine on my Panasonic 60" ST50, which I calibrated with the AVS HD 709 disc. After prepping with D-Nice's slides and starting with his reference settings as a base (since he hasn't posted settings for the 60" and 65"), I corrected the brightness, contrast, gamma and color for my specific viewing environment using the AVS HD 709 test patterns.

And the disc is most dark to the point of obscuring a significant amount of detail, and there is without a doubt a distracting blue filter over much of the film.

[Bad Sandwich]

Originally Posted by sperezmore

Well, there's two choices:

Film look before 2010: Keep the DVD or buy it cheap from amazon
Film look after 2010: Keep the blu-ray from TT or buy it for tons of money on Ebay.

Me? Already return the blu-ray for a refund and keep my DVD copy

Regards,

Third option (Pre-2010 look): Purchase the HD/HDX stream from VUDU, either for a discount via the disc-to-digital program through Wal-Mart or directly off the VUDU site. DVD/pre-2010 color grading in 1080p goodness. I believe it's already been mentioned in the thread but just reiterating...

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by Whirlygig

The idea that a substandard product will retain collector value in the face of widespread consumer disapproval is misguided.

I think you're giving the average consumer a bit too much credit. Pre-orders for this disc were selling on eBay for $70 BEFORE the damn thing stopped being available at SAE. People who paid that sort of cash could have popped over to SAE and had it at half the price.

This demonstrates that there are plenty of well off impulse buyers out there who are happy to spend $70 on a supposed Blu-ray from an eBay seller. For all they knew it was a bootleg the eBay seller has made himself.

These buyers don't even have the most basic level of information, that even Google would provide. It's not like they'd have to browse forums or anything. So what I'm saying is, if you expect this group of consumers to stop buying, or stop pushing up the price, because of the colour thing, you're going to be surprised.

[Whirlygig]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

What I don't see is the people who bashed and now deny they did, which you indicate has happend. Again, if that's happened, it would seem to be an easy thing to show. And edited posts are clearly marked on the site, if someone went back hours or days later to alter.

I don't recall seeing many (or any) of those either, and I've been keeping up for a few days now. I will say that I am amazed by how nasty some people got on facebook -- there go the old claims that nastiness is a side-effect of internet anonymity; on FB you can see their names and where they live!

[jak]

My wife and I watched the film last night. I was surprised when she remarked the movie looked blue.She knew nothing about the discussions concerning the pq. We watched it on a 60" Samsung led tv that has been calibrated. I figured the whole blue color problem was just exagerated,but it was really noticeable. I've spent the last 28 years working in quality control in the photofinishing business. Color has been my profession. This film is screaming blue/magenta. I found the pq was a real bummer,yet life goes on. I understand the frustration though. We paid top dollar and it's reasonable to expect a decent transfer. So many scenes just didn't have a natural look. I understand those that have buyers remorse. I doubt I will ever watch my copy again. I will just stick it on the shelf. It's disappointing but not earth shattering.

[BJQ1972]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Right here. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that there are two groups of people who have seen this disc offering their opinion of it: people who have seen it on high end calibrated sets, and people who haven't.

I've got a Samsung PS51D6900 plasma - not quite high end, but well reviewed and a decent picture. It's not calibrated but I have set it up using Spears And Munsil.

I have just had a very quick scan through the disc, to form my own opinion - always a good idea I think.

The blu-ray is neither overly dark on my set up, nor tinted blue. It all looks very naturally lit to me. In particular the scene where Patricia Tallman is looking to her right as a bald zombie is standing behind her looks nothing like the pictures posted.

I believe that many of the screen caps and photos on this thread have been doctored in an attempt to discredit TT. Quite frankly what some people have been posting here is an absolute disgrace.

[Whirlygig]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

These buyers don't even have the most basic level of information, that even Google would provide. It's not like they'd have to browse forums or anything. So what I'm saying is, if you expect this group of consumers to stop buying, or stop pushing up the price, because of the colour thing, you're going to be surprised.

I hear that, but I believe time will equalize much of that. It's going to have some value in the short term while this all settles out, but in the long run I'm going to be surprised if copies continue demanding much more than its initial price, or anywhere near the other sold-out TT titles. Especially after the 3-year contract when someone else releases it. If I end up being wrong about that, it may be time to sell my copy, assuming nobody takes me up on trading Fright Night for it.