Blood And Black Lace (1964) (VCI Entertainment) - October 23, 2018

[Kakihara]

It's also my understanding that the colors on Arrow's release aren't as vibrant as they should be, is that correct?

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by Kakihara

It's also my understanding that the colors on Arrow's release aren't as vibrant as they should be, is that correct?

The colours on it are gorgeous, as is detail. I've only ever heard complaints about the framing.

[RossD]

I think JohnCarpenterFan has put the whole thing in the simplest, easiest to understand terms. For this release, most people seem to be arguing between if this film should be 1.66:1 vs 1.85:1. But the real issue seems to be, at either one of these ratios, the film is misframed (zoomed in too much). Both aspect ratios should have the same info side to side, with 1.66:1 having a bit more info on top and bottom. 1.66:1 certainly wouldn’t have LESS info on the sides than 1.85:1. So IF you except Arrow’s framing as CORRECT, that would mean the 1.85:1 (based on this framing) would have even less picture info on top and bottom.

In other words, anyone arguing the framing should have more info on the sides isn’t really arguing 1.66:1 vs 1.85:1 - they are arguing that the Arrow is misframed.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

That's because suggesting the original prints were botched is a ridiculous notion based on zero evidence of any kind, and Arrow mentioned nothing about "correcting" the framing and reinstating Bava's intended vision after it was completely messed up theatrically, so this speculation is unfounded and the only person suggesting the original prints were screwed up is you.

[Show spoiler]
It seems the ones that are in a state of denial are the ones who believe the framing on the Arrow is fine and are coming up with excuses trying to convince themselves and others that even the original prints were misframed. If you like the look of the Arrow, that's fine, you can like something without coming up with bizarre excuses to cover its apparent flaws.

If you are completely satisfied with the Arrow and are uninterested in any upcoming edition, then why bother devoting so much time to posting in this thread? At this point the only people who want another Blu-ray of this film are the ones who want to see a closer reproduction of how it was shown theatrically, regardless of if you feel the theatrical release was botched or not.

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

...this speculation is unfounded and the only person suggesting the original prints were screwed up is you.

Easy, guy. I'm not claiming to know anything for certain. Yes, I contemplated the idea that either the 1.85:1 hard-matted prints were improperly framed, or that the 1.85:1 video versions were improperly transferred from soft-matted prints (without proper masking), and was somewhat expository about it here. It's because several people, including Lucas, claimed that the German DVD was improperly framed due to incorrect (or no) projection masking. I realize everyone here is patently dismissive of Lucas' claims on the subject, but the man has been highly insistent that the Arrow framing is dead-on, and because he's been considered an authority on Bava for years. And you are...?

Your simple explanations were understandable from the start, but I remained skeptical due to your insistence on the entirety of the subject in the face of some highly regarded film restoration specialists' claims to the contrary. Yes, you're clearly informed about the Latarnia and likely the Criterion Forum dialogues, but have formulated definitive truths based on mostly anonymous online sources. What if someone of credibility had weighed in and insisted that every 1.85:1 video release (Roan/French LD, German DVD, etc.) is showing too much frame information, or that every 1.85:1 print ever struck was a recomposed afterthought from the distributor and showed excess image on all sides? I mean, we've got an abrasive Frenchman on Latarnia and some projectionists vs. Tim Lucas and the whole of Arrow.

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

It seems the ones that are in a state of denial are the ones who believe the framing on the Arrow is fine and are coming up with excuses trying to convince themselves and others that even the original prints were misframed.

Ya think? Take a look at that presentation (if you even can anymore, what with the framing and the influence of the "it's pink, look at those phone shots" camp). The Arrow is remarkable. Anyone who concerns themselves with things like accurate framing should look at it from every angle in the desperate hope that Tim and Arrow were somehow correct. Water's still wet, too.

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

If you are completely satisfied with the Arrow and are uninterested in any upcoming edition, then why bother devoting so much time to posting in this thread?

Because this shouldn't be some stomping grounds solely for those who are done asking questions about the Arrow framing. What would you do then? I suppose you could chime in sporadically by posting: "The sides are cropped, the sides are cropped".

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

At this point the only people who want another Blu-ray of this film are the ones who want to see a closer reproduction of how it was shown theatrically...

Do you think I'd be here, on the VCI BD thread, asking questions and considering different possibilities, if I wasn't interested in getting the most accurate representation of the director's vision as possible? If the VCI gets good reviews, even if they're not quite on par with the Arrow in terms of image quality, I'll definitely buy it for the alternate framing... especially after all this. If it has PQ like the WHAT THE PEEPER SAW BD, there could be a problem.

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

...regardless of if you feel the theatrical release was botched or not.

Again, I don't "believe" anything about the 1.85:1 prints OR the Arrow framing. It's just that you and a handful of hyper-insistent blowhards on Latarnia aren't considering the possibility that maybe Lucas and Arrow know something that others don't. I'm pretty sure this subject is hardly something you should see red (pink?) over.

P.S.: I'd like to see comparison caps between that French LD and the German DVD. You have those, JohnCarpenterFan? What do you have in terms of video releases of this film?

[CineSicko]

Oh, yeah, and how about leaving HELLRAISER III out of it for a change?

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Oh, yeah, and how about leaving HELLRAISER III out of it for a change?

It keeps getting brought up because it shows that you shouldn't always trust the experts. I'm at the point where if an expert is involved in a project, I'm likely to trust them less. Because if they do screw up, they might just double down on their screw-up to protect their reputation and the financial success of the project.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

It keeps getting brought up because it shows that you shouldn't always trust the experts. I'm at the point where if an expert is involved in a project, I'm likely to trust them less. Because if they do screw up, they might just double down on their screw-up to protect their reputation and the financial success of the project.

It's just that Arrow tends to do great work with only a few hiccups in their track record. There's a reason they're probably the most highly regarded cult video company in the world right now, and it's not just due to the high quality of their output, it's because their technical failures are few and very far between. Frankly, they probably dropped the ball of HELLRAISER III because it sucks, and it was probably released just to add more content to their box set.

As for them "doubling down on their screw-up", that's what I hope to find out. Common sense points to that very thing, given what we all know about matted movies, but I'm taking what is apparently a very unpopular attitude: I want to know for sure. Maybe I'll reach out to someone at Arrow, but not rudely like some of the apes at Latarnia.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

It's just that Arrow tends to do great work with only a few hiccups in their track record. There's a reason they're probably the most highly regarded cult video company in the world right now, and it's not just due to the high quality of their output, it's because their technical failures are few and very far between. Frankly, they probably dropped the ball of HELLRAISER III because it sucks, and it was probably released just to add more content to their box set.

As for them "doubling down on their screw-up", that's what I hope to find out. Common sense points to that very thing, given what we all know about matted movies, but I'm taking what is apparently a very unpopular attitude: I want to know for sure. Maybe I'll reach out to someone at Arrow, but not rudely like some of the apes at Latarnia.

I agree with you. Arrow is still one of my favorite labels, if not my favorite. And they usually knock it out of the park. And Hellraiser III I would have considered a fluke, but then they did it again on Creepshow 2. And didn't admit the error. I don't know, maybe it's just my general distrust of authority, but when someone tells me to believe them simply because they're an expert, I immediately start doubting what they say. If you can prove your case, show me. I love how Walt's colorist backed up the new framing for Opera with explanations and examples. I don't know who he is, but he gets my trust.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

Hellraiser III I would have considered a fluke, but then they did it again on Creepshow 2.

Also, HOUSE and HOUSE II, not to mention the stereo track on BRIDE of RE-ANIMATOR being mixed down to mono. There are very good reasons to not just trust what Arrow says.

[babybreese]

Originally Posted by JoeBuck

The colours on it are gorgeous, as is detail. I've only ever heard complaints about the framing.

Color timing is inconstant as well as the bad framing.
There was such a shitstorm when this was released....you must have missed it.

I don''t think the film could be properly framed at 1.66 not matter how you do it.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by babybreese

Color timing is inconstant as well as the bad framing.
There was such a shitstorm when this was released....you must have missed it.

I don''t think the film could be properly framed at 1.66 not matter how you do it.

I caught several comments about the framing issues when the disc first came out, but I hadn't looked into it much as I was too impressed with the disc to care. I'm surprised that I'm fascinated by the subject now. As for the color timing, I recall people freaking out about the pre-release screen caps being "too pink", but quickly disregarded them when others posted more accurate caps of the image that didn't look pink at all. Now that I've seen all the caps of the red phone looking different from scene to scene I'm still not convinced that it's a problem, and I'm not convinced that Arrow is to blame as the discrepancies may have been source-related. Additionally, I just don't see a problem with the color when watching the disc.

Regarding the framing, the one thing that bothers me the most about the situation is that neither Lucas or the guys at Arrow who supervised the transfer have provided a thorough explanation of how they arrived at the decision to go 1.66:1. They've addressed it several times, but at no point did anyone bother to provide visual aids explaining the mechanics of their decision. Considering the level of fervor with which they've been attacked, you'd think someone involved would have offered up an extensive breakdown of what they claim was Bava's intended framing of the film, complete with diagrams illustrating how the 1.66:1 ratio was culled from the open aperture frame. The fact that they didn't is largely what fueled the initial attacks on their discs, coupled with the comparisons between their framing and the 1.85:1 video versions. It's definitely not too late for either Lucas or someone at Arrow to provide what they deem to be highly detailed evidence for their case, so hopefully someone (me, perhaps?) can coax them into making the effort.

[CineSicko]

I just reached out to James White at Arrow, who supervised the transfer, requesting a detailed explanation of the Arrow disc's framing. I did so through the Arrow "Contact Us" option, so one of several things will happen: 1. It will never reach him. 2. He'll see it and opt to ignore it, having dealt with this issue far too long and often. 3. He'll respond with a less than satisfactory answer. 4. He'll finally shed some light on the topic that we haven't read elsewhere, whether it puts the Arrow disc in a good light or not.

I'll report back immediately if I get a response.

[Mr. Thomsen]

This whole debate could have been laid to rest, had they just offered screenshots from the full aperture scanning. It would quickly settle whether Arrow zoomed in too much, as some say, or whether the older transfers showed too much due to being prepared for televisions in a period where a certain amount of overscan was standard, as others suspect.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

This whole debate could have been laid to rest, had they just offered screenshots from the full aperture scanning. It would quickly settle whether Arrow zoomed in too much, as some say, or whether the older transfers showed too much due to being prepared for televisions in a period where a certain amount of overscan was standard, as others suspect.

Just one still would be all that's needed. The fact that they have provided nothing but talk (e.g. "I stand by this transfer 100%, now leave me alone", "We had access to the negative so why would it be excessively cropped", etc.) raises some red flags. Could it be that releasing images of the full aperture would have revealed that they cut far too much out of the frame for some inexplicable reason? Maybe I'll reach out to VCI and see if they're working off the same materials and can provide screenshots. Chances are that they're dealing with a 1.85:1 hard-matted print, but I'll see what they say, if anything.

[babybreese]

Arrow's official line is they relied on their Bava expert.

That really is the ultimate smoking gun, if there was any concrete reason to frame this way, they would have provided it.
All Arrow had was Lucas's word.

[Akijama]

Extras:

- New 2018 2K Restoration from Original Film Materials in widescreen / 1.85:1 aspect ratio!
- 2018 Commentary by Kat Ellinger, Editor-in-Chief and author, Diabolique Magazine
- 2018 Commentary by film historian and David Del Valle & director/writer, C Courtney Joyner
- Video Interview with Mary Dawne Arden
- Archival video interview with star, Cameron Mitchell, with David Del Valle
- Original American Theatrical Trailer, plus Italian, German and French trailers
- Bonus Trailers of other Bava films
- Extensive Photo Gallery
- Alternate original Italian or original US theatrical main titles
- Languages: Original Italian, English, French
- Subtitles: English & Spanish
- Bonus Isolated Music Score by composer Carlo Rustichelli
- Video Comparison: American Version Cuts / Euro Uncut
- 2-Sided Coverwrap with Alternate Cover art]

[bgart13]

I’m starting to think this is how Arrow worked a deal out with VCI during that delay.

[todmichel]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Thank you for clearing that up. I have done an about-face regarding my interest in the forthcoming VCI BD. If it contains more side information in the image, I'll pick it up. It's probably my favorite Bava effort.

Dear CineSicko - First, don't get me wrong, this is not a criticism in any way, but I really think that the best way to judge the original 1.85 version and the cropped 1.66 version from Arrow is to have both on hand and make a "de visu" comparizon. I have both the Arrow BR and a DVD from Spain which uses the same master than the German Anolis DVD, and apart from the better quality of the image in BR (of course), the Spanish DVD - it also has an English soundtrack - is by far the better, visually.
Some words of presentation, perhaps. I was born in 1940, lived in Paris, and for thirty years (1952 to 1982 - when I got my first TV set à 42 !) I watched movies EXCLUSIVELY in theaters.
I was the foreign correspondent for Famous Monsters of Filmland, and later co-created and collaborated to a number of magazines dealing with Fantasy, Horror, and SF movies.
When "Blood and Black Lace" was released in France, I worked for the litttle pressbook of the film, so I was able to watch it some weeks before the release. And I'm absolutely sure that it was shown in 1.85. Later, in following weeks, years, decades, I saw the movie again in various theaters (this was possible in a town like Paris, where even silents were shown in theaters !) and it was always shown in widescreen, much larger than the 1.66 used by Arrow.
Later, I worked for the Mangue-Pistache company when they decided to release the movie in laserdisc (I also wrote the text on the back-cover) and there again, it was a 1.85 print.
When Anolis of Germany decided to release the same movie on DVD, they of course respected (more or less) the 1.85 aperture. And at this period, Tim Lucas of Video Watchdog was extatic, arguing that the movie was shown "for the first time" in the correct ratio, etc. If you don't believe me you can consult this old issue of HIS OWN magazine ! Even if he said exactly the contrary when the Arrow BluRay came, a decade later.
I also contributed to the Latarnia Forum, and you can find some of the captures I sent to the forums. I can't talk for other persons, but ANY of these screen caps were taken from a scene, or a moment of a scene, when the camera was static. And in these static shots you can easily watch the cropping made by Arrow. My pseudo on Latarnia was Todmichel.
I was banned from the Classic Horror Films Forums some years ago when I also criticized the British BluRay of Terence Fisher's DRACULA, a movie that I know since its release in Paris in February 1959, and argued that the balance of colors was wrong, and in no way similar to the original Technicolor prints. I was insulted by some who (apparently) never watched the movie in a theater (or saw a "restored" print made with another color process, much later), so I answered of the same manner, and got banned. Anybody and his dog know, by now, that I was right.
Prior to this I also criticized the old DVD issued by Warners (in America) of the first gothic Hammers, from "The Curse of Frankenstein" to "Hound of the Baskervilles". Originally shown in 1.66 in England, France, et. they were shown in 1.85 in US theaters (the reverse of "Blood and Black Lace" !), so parts of the image were missing above and below.
And so on.
You must also take in consideration that I'm from another period, and when I was a moviegoer, I only watched a movie, and my eyes were on the screen and only on the screen for 80 to 90 minutes. No drinks (except perhaps during the intermission), certainly no popcorn, no discussions of any sort - I was alone 95% of the time - and no visit to the toilets... So, it's not too astonishing that I can still remember very well the striking blue of the eyes of Peter Cushing in "The Curse of Frankenstein" (the scene of the resurrection of the dog), so, if I watch a video where his eyes are green, or brown, I can tell immediately that something is wrong.
And in the case of Arrow's BR... totally wrong ! Have a good day, my friend.

[MifuneFan]

Wow sounds like a good edition (on paper)

[javy]

I love my Arrow blu-ray.