Night of the Living Dead (1968)

[emmet otter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yes, all those thousands of movies shot in flat 1.85 with the express intention of being seen in 1.85 no matter what's being exposed on the negative, it's a such a wrench to be able to watch them as intended.

I dont mind if it was shot in 1.85. Im cool with that. If its presented to us in matted 1.85, then this I dont like.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by emmet otter

I dont mind if it was shot in 1.85. Im cool with that. If its presented to us in matted 1.85, then this I dont like.

Sorry, that's what I meant by flat 1.85, as in "all the thousands of 1.85 movies shot with the express intention of being matted to widescreen".

I don't mean to sound like an arse but it's so strange how the human mind works, i.e. because people KNOW there's more information there than what they're seeing they simply can't abide the matted versions, be it the folks who crave open-matte 1.78 versions of Super 35/digital 2.35 movies or 4:3 versions of 1.85 movies. Either way: y'all are crazy.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by emmet otter

I dont mind if it was shot in 1.85. Im cool with that. If its presented to us in matted 1.85, then this I dont like.

All movies shot on 35mm film and intended for the 1.85 aspect ratio are shot with the full 1.37 frame exposed and then matted either on the print itself or by the projectionist. Every 1.85 movie is matted, except for rare exceptions like VistaVision films.

[dubious]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

All movies shot on 35mm film and intended for the 1.85 aspect ratio are shot with the full 1.37 frame exposed and then matted either on the print itself or by the projectionist. Every 1.85 movie is matted, except for rare exceptions like VistaVision films.

Some movies use different negative pulldowns. 3-perf Super 35mm is fairly common, results in a 1.78 negative. 2-perf 35mm (techniscope) produces a scope-like 2.35 negative with a spherical lens. Ultimately though, 3-perf for 1.85 would be hard matted back to a 4-perf 35mm prints for projection (in the days of film), obviously these formats are gaining popularity again with the digital projection age. 2-perf 2.35 would be converted to anamorphic 4-perf.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by dubious

Some movies use different negative pulldowns. 3-perf Super 35mm is fairly common, results in a 1.78 negative. 2-perf 35mm (techniscope) produces a scope-like 2.35 negative with a spherical lens. Ultimately though, 3-perf for 1.85 would be hard matted back to a 4-perf 35mm prints for projection (in the days of film), obviously these formats are gaining popularity again with the digital projection age. 2-perf 2.35 would be converted to anamorphic 4-perf.

Those are part of the very small number of exceptions. The vast majority of 35mm films, including NOTLD, were shot on 4-perf.

[dubious]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Those are part of the very small number of exceptions. The vast majority of 35mm films, including NOTLD, were shot on 4-perf.

Well you said All and mentioned VistaVision so you might as well list the other exceptions.

[ThisKid]

You know what? Make the home video release a 10 disc set with the film in-
-1.20:1
-1.33:1
-1.37:1
-1.66:1
-1.75:1
-1.85:1
-2.00:1
-2.20:1
-2.35:1
-2.40:1
-2.55:1
-2.76:1, and even
-4.00:1

Surely this will satisfy everyone in the world!

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by ThisKid

You know what? Make the home video release 4.00:1

Surely this will satisfy everyone in the world!

Fixed it for you.

I want an image like this or no buy.

[dubious]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

I want an image like this or no buy.

There was the limited Code Red DVD release in 2.35 a few years ago!

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by dubious

There was the limited Code Red DVD release in 2.35 a few years ago!

Not good enough. 2.35 is for babies. 4.00:1 is for the big boys. Romero told me so.

[dubious]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Not good enough. 2.35 is for babies. 4.00:1 is for the big boys. Romero told me so.

I thought 4.00 was reserved for luxury car commercials crammed between my cropped movie broadcasts?

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by dubious

I thought 4.00 was reserved for luxury car commercials crammed between my cropped movie broadcasts?

Romero said "If it's good enough for Napoleon, it's good enough for me"

Case closed.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by HDvision

Widescreen or bust.

Some european director's did 4/3 films years after 1953 as an artistic choice.

Here's a link to 1969 documentation saying it's 1.85:1 (offline but might come back later) posted by Bob Furmanek on another site.

https://static.hometheaterforum.com/...ivingDead.jpeg

Night is an american movie made for american showings. There were no theaters, or drive-in, at this point, who could show movies in 1.37:1, it was shown theatrically 1.85:1 as were all exploitation and studios movies then (except for cinemascope films of course). All DVDs and Blu-rays are cropped to death on all four sides. WIDESCREEN. OR BUST.

This statement in itself is ridiculous, and shows no knowledge of HOW films are played theatrically. Since theaters routinely shows older films on revival (before home video days), theaters could very well still show 1.37 films. And they still can today, all it takes it switching the aperture plates out.

The idea that they couldn't to perpetuate some inane NOTLD argument is way misinformed.

[kidglov3s]

For reference this is the page of Box Office listing NOTLD's aspect ratio as 1.85:1, in the 10/21/68 issue.



http://www2.boxoffice.com/the_vault/...=81#page_start

[Val Lewton]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

The idea that they couldn't to perpetuate some inane NOTLD argument is way misinformed.

Usually when debates about aspect ratio occur, the director and/or the cinematographer have passed away. In this case Romero(who did both) is still very much alive and sharp as a tack. How people can claim that he's incorrect is mind blowing. Especially, as I pointed out in my last post, he continued making movies in 1:37 after NIGHT.

If people want to screw around with aspect ratios they might as well have fun with it, like Code Red did. Release it in 2:35:1, add some "lollipop covermation", and dedicate it to Al Adamson.

[starman15317]

It would be fantastic if Criterion released this. I'm sure that this restoration will screen here in Pittsburgh at some point.

[Supermartyoh]

Originally Posted by dubious

There was the limited Code Red DVD release in 2.35 a few years ago!

Is that shit real? Looks like some bad photoshop bootleg job.

Since its a PD title, surprisingly there's not many "bootlegs" aside from one I saw originating from a certain country. It was a Chinese "copy" of the Jap Happinet blu ray and one of the "engrish" sentences were something along the lines of "Now, she is her husband a dead man"

[Val Lewton]

Originally Posted by Supermartyoh

Is that shit real? Looks like some bad photoshop bootleg job.

Oh yeah, that's real. Code Red has a wicked sense of humor and actually released this as a gag. That cover is a take on the original I DRINK YOUR BLOOD/I EAT YOUR SKIN double bill, btw:

[twozbar]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

For reference this is the page of Box Office listing NOTLD's aspect ratio as 1.85:1, in the 10/21/68 issue.



http://www2.boxoffice.com/the_vault/...=81#page_start

The Box Office listing gives second billing to Russel Streiner over Duane Jones, which TV Guide and other television directory listings subsequently repeated for more than a decade afterward, often completely leaving out Jones' name.

In reality, Russ Streiner isn't even credited in the film as an actor, only as producer.

[twozbar]

Originally Posted by Val Lewton

Usually when debates about aspect ratio occur, the director and/or the cinematographer have passed away. In this case Romero(who did both) is still very much alive and sharp as a tack. How people can claim that he's incorrect is mind blowing. Especially, as I pointed out in my last post, he continued making movies in 1:37 after NIGHT.

Regardless of the director's stated preference, which some are even claiming is a faulty memory, the original camera negative proves what you're stating as being correct. I don't know how anyone can ascertain anything about the aspect ratio of this film without having examined the actual 35mm negative, which only a handful of people have done up until this time.

And not only is it still possible to speak with the director/cinematographer of this film, but also those who cut/conformed the original negative, as well as the animator who created the opening credits and closing animated still montage--those who should know better than anyone what was intended.

Just curious, but how does the framing of the opening title sequence look when matted?