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

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

The "original theatrical prints" of the film were in 1.66:1, prior to the 1.85:1 prints that were struck. That's already been established. See post #649 here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...255677&page=33 Have you seen any of those prints?

As for the 1.66:1 compositions on Arrow's release looking constricted, as opposed to Bava's other films, I've always felt that the bulk of his output was filled with shots that were tightly composed to the point that they looked a bit constrained. Whenever I think of Bava's approach to frame composition, I always recall shots from his films (not only this one) as being very tightly composed, including his later films that were intended strictly for 1.85:1 exhibition. I didn't see anything in regard to composition in Arrow's disc that looked unlike Bava's typical shooting style.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this movie or Bava's intended A.R.. It could be that his intended ratio for the film was 1.85:1 and the 1.66:1 ratio that the film debuted in was a compromise of his vision. However, I have faith in those involved in the release and am sure that they took great care to deliver the truest representation of Bava's film, not only because they all respect it but because they didn't want to rile fans of the movie and its director.

To answer your question, I've never seen a print of Blood and Black Lace in 1.66:1 and according to those who have handled the film in France, it was 1.85:1 there too where they were one of the European production companies.

There has already been a lengthy discussion over on Latarnia with comments from experts who know the film intimately confirming Lucas, White and the others at Arrow were mistaken and explaining why. They have provided details supporting the 1.85:1 ratio, Arrow haven't and their "facts" can easily be disproven, especially when you look at more objective information posted by other experts such as Bob Furmanek.

At this point, regardless of whether the aspect ratio is 1.66 or 1.85, the Arrow framing isn't correct. That much is completely certain. If the film was intended to be seen in 1.66:1 then Arrow's is still misframed.

[Shingster]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The distributor has not commented on the framing, just like the distributor didn't comment on the framing for several other titles where Arrow obviously botched the framing, including Hellraiser III where the framing on the Arrow was proven incorrect by the director.

This is a very odd thing to post when you know very well that Arrow DID comment on the framing of Hellraiser III - It wasn't the comment any of us wanted or agreed with, but they did at least "officially" address it (or manage it, however you want to look at it), which is more than can be said about the other releases with questionable framing decisions.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

To answer your question, I've never seen a print of Blood and Black Lace in 1.66:1 and according to those who have handled the film in France, it was 1.85:1 there too where they were one of the European production companies.

There has already been a lengthy discussion over on Latarnia with comments from experts who know the film intimately confirming Lucas, White and the others at Arrow were mistaken and explaining why. They have provided details supporting the 1.85:1 ratio, Arrow haven't and their "facts" can easily be disproven, especially when you look at more objective information posted by other experts such as Bob Furmanek.

At this point, regardless of whether the aspect ratio is 1.66 or 1.85, the Arrow framing isn't correct. That much is completely certain. If the film was intended to be seen in 1.66:1 then Arrow's is still misframed.

I'll take a look at that Latarnia discussion. This is very troubling. My insistent claims that the Arrow disc is beyond criticism are beginning to crumble, and it's starting to look like I'll be stuffing my face with a heaping amount of crow. What's worse is that if the Arrow disc is essentially pan-and-scanned from 1.85:1, we'll all be at the mercy of VCI (of all companies) to serve up an improved transfer, which is in itself upsetting. I'll be looking deeply into the matter.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Shingster

This is a very odd thing to post when you know very well that Arrow DID comment on the framing of Hellraiser III - It wasn't the comment any of us wanted or agreed with, but they did at least "officially" address it (or manage it, however you want to look at it), which is more than can be said about the other releases with questionable framing decisions.

I meant the company that released the film originally/owns the rights, not Arrow who I know did comment on it. Poor choice of words.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

I must know more about this. If you're right in stating that the Arrow's 1.66:1 being trimmed out of a 1.85:1 frame is wholly incorrect then yes, it's obviously compromised. I'll look into it more deeply and see if there's any additional info to unearth that has yet to be posted in this and other related threads. Assuming it's true that Lucas and the folks at Arrow knowingly discarded valuable frame information, what reason would they have for doing so? Why would Lucas, a self-designated expert on Bava, opt to butcher the image for that release? If all they were given to work with was 1.85:1 materials, why wouldn't they just release that with a disclaimer concerning the issue, or just hoping that no one cried too loudly about not having the initial 1.66:1 framing? It doesn't make sense.

Like I said, I'll do some digging and will report back here if there's any evidence to support either argument. If the Arrow disc is indeed a botch job, it won't sit well with me, that's for sure.

I just revisited the thread and saw a comment from someone saying it was confirmed that Arrow had full access to the entire negative area via MichaelB on criterionforum.

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Nothing happened. The film is framed exactly as Bava intended, as confirmed by Tim Lucas (who was a consultant on the framing and grading).

Arrow's restoration team had access to a scan of the entire camera negative area, and I can assure you that they knew what they were doing.

I don't have the time to rake through the whole thread, but the information posted there is absolutely damning, it iincludes contradicting quotes from Lucas and White along with technical information from Bob Furmanek and Joe Dante.I think there's zero chance the Arrow aspect ratio/framing debacle isn't a complete botchjob.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I just revisited the thread and saw a comment from someone saying it was confirmed that Arrow had full access to the entire negative area via MichaelB on criterionforum.



I don't have the time to rake through the whole thread, but the information posted there is absolutely damning, it iincludes contradicting quotes from Lucas and White along with technical information from Bob Furmanek and Joe Dante.I think there's zero chance the Arrow aspect ratio/framing debacle isn't a complete botchjob.

Looking forward to reading it all. I'm at work right now, but I can't wait to feast my eyes on it. If Arrow had the entire negative frame to work with, and they served up a zoomed-in and highly compromised framing of it, I'll be very confused about their decision to do so, to say the least. What an odd situation.

[Shingster]

What can you say? They were/are 100% confident they got it right. It's one of those situations were as a fan you just have to throw your arms into the air and wonder what the hell they were thinking.

Providing that specific 1.66:1 framing wouldn't have been a problem if they had just hedged their bets and provided a 1.85:1 version as well. That's what I will never get my head around, how could they be so confident that they got it right? I do wonder if they would make the same decisions were they to release it today though.

[cakefactory]

I don't have a clue how the restoration process works. Would they have isolated that little cropped area before getting to work on color correction, etc meaning anyone that wanted to use the same scan in a different AR would then have to redo all the work? Or would they have restored the entire visible image before cropping it down, meaning it would be a simple matter for a 1.85 version to be released? Or could it be either one?

[CineSicko]

Having just read most of the Latarnia thread on the subject, and some other threads in which the ratio was debated, it's not looking very good for the Arrow release. Until/unless someone can provide evidence that the 1.66:1 version was in fact cut out of the 1.85:1 version for its initial theatrical distribution, which would indeed be a revolutionary (not to mention bizarre) process, I'll have no choice but to change my initial assumptions about the disc and assume that blunders were made concerning the framing prior to release. That said, unless the VCI release is "properly" framed and has image quality that is comparable to the Arrow (highly unlikely), the Arrow will remain my go-to disc as the image quality is absolutely stunning.

I'm not done with my research, though. If I find anything online that suggests the Arrow framing is correct, which is to say information about European movies from the '60s being cropped on the sides to attain a 1.66:1 ratio instead of reinstating vertical information in the frame not evident in the 1.85:1 ratio, I'll post it here. Chances are that such information doesn't exist, though, as that process sounds ridiculous. As of right now, I'm leaning toward the notion that the pillarboxing on the Arrow disc is erroneous in nature. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

[CineSicko]

Does anyone know what camera was used to film this movie? I mean, are we positive that the inherent A.R. of the negative frame was 1.33:1 or 1.37:1? I know that Super 16 has a native A.R. of 1.66:1, and there were numerous camera companies that came and went in the '60s. If anyone knows (and I mean KNOWS) the technical specs of the camera used, or even just the make and model, please post it here. That info could answer some questions.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Does anyone know what camera was used to film this movie? I mean, are we positive that the inherent A.R. of the negative frame was 1.33:1 or 1.37:1? I know that Super 16 has a native A.R. of 1.66:1, and there were numerous camera companies that came and went in the '60s. If anyone knows (and I mean KNOWS) the technical specs of the camera used, or even just the make and model, please post it here. That info could answer some questions.

Not sure about the camera, but IMDb says it was 35 mm film with a spherical cinematographic process.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

Not sure about the camera, but IMDb says it was 35 mm film with a spherical cinematographic process.

Yeah, I saw that. Thanks for posting it, though.

I'm driving myself crazy trying to make sense of this matter. I found this quote from James White (Arrow Video Restoration Supervisor) in the CriterionForum thread that makes me want to revert to my initial belief that the Arrow framing is somehow accurate:

"I can state with 100% confidence that the scans we received from Bologna were open-gate with all surrounding framelines and sprocket areas visible, which is how we scan for all the films we do. As with any full restoration project where we use an outside lab for any part of the process, we have specific guidelines as to how we have elements scanned, and only instruct the full feature scan to proceed once we've approved the initial tests we ask for in advance.

When we scan the entire film frame this isn't only to retain as much image area as possible. Having the surrounding framelines is also key for any stabilisation work we may need to do.

If I had applied a 1.66:1 mask to a scan already cropped for academy, the composition would look significantly imbalanced and cropping would be severe."

Additionally, the guys at Latarnia who are absolutely convinced that Arrow's framing is compromised seem to refute the notion that the 1.85:1 video versions were transferred without the correct projection masks, resulting in a good amount of screen information on the sides (and even on the top and bottom) that wasn't intended to be seen during exhibition, and which was not part of Bava's shot design. Bearing that in mind, it would seem that comparing the Arrow image with any of the 1.85:1 versions on video is basically a moot point.

In any case, I think I'm satisfied that the Arrow disc is just fine, and that it's not missing any pertinent or intended screen information... and no, this isn't a conclusion that I came to because I own the BD, but rather because it would seem that those arguing for Arrow's release have more in the way of irrefutable evidence (not to mention confirmed expertise) on the subject than those who argue against it. It's nice to be back where I was before.

Besides, as I stated previously, the framing on the Arrow just looks proper to me, whereas the Roan LD framing looked odd in many shots.

[rdodolak]

Here's a link to the Blu-ray.com profile.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Yeah, I saw that. Thanks for posting it, though.

I'm driving myself crazy trying to make sense of this matter. I found this quote from James White (Arrow Video Restoration Supervisor) in the CriterionForum thread that makes me want to revert to my initial belief that the Arrow framing is somehow accurate:

"I can state with 100% confidence that the scans we received from Bologna were open-gate with all surrounding framelines and sprocket areas visible, which is how we scan for all the films we do. As with any full restoration project where we use an outside lab for any part of the process, we have specific guidelines as to how we have elements scanned, and only instruct the full feature scan to proceed once we've approved the initial tests we ask for in advance.

When we scan the entire film frame this isn't only to retain as much image area as possible. Having the surrounding framelines is also key for any stabilisation work we may need to do.

If I had applied a 1.66:1 mask to a scan already cropped for academy, the composition would look significantly imbalanced and cropping would be severe."

Additionally, the guys at Latarnia who are absolutely convinced that Arrow's framing is compromised seem to refute the notion that the 1.85:1 video versions were transferred without the correct projection masks, resulting in a good amount of screen information on the sides (and even on the top and bottom) that wasn't intended to be seen during exhibition, and which was not part of Bava's shot design. Bearing that in mind, it would seem that comparing the Arrow image with any of the 1.85:1 versions on video is basically a moot point.

In any case, I think I'm satisfied that the Arrow disc is just fine, and that it's not missing any pertinent or intended screen information... and no, this isn't a conclusion that I came to because I own the BD, but rather because it would seem that those arguing for Arrow's release have more in the way of irrefutable evidence (not to mention confirmed expertise) on the subject than those who argue against it. It's nice to be back where I was before.

Besides, as I stated previously, the framing on the Arrow just looks proper to me, whereas the Roan LD framing looked odd in many shots.

I haven't read over the conversation on Laternia (or at least not recently), but I'm not seeing how your James White quote applies to the issue at hand. He's talking about the original scan, not the final transfer on disc, right? I mean, the original scan to the framelines will include the information seen on the 1.85:1 releases. It's there on the negative. So the question is how far in from the framelines do you crop the image? Even assuming the 1.85:1 releases are at the framelines, look at how much image is lost on the sides. Seems excessive to me. If you find information that a 1.66:1 is normally framed differently on the sides, then yeah, you'd have a point, but otherwise, I think the Arrow is clearly too tight. As to Mr. White, well, here's what he said about Hellraiser III, and we know how that turned out.

http://arrowvideodeck.blogspot.com/2...storation.html

I don't know why you're placing so much trust in Arrow when they've clearly messed up the framing in the past without admitting to it.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Yeah, I saw that. Thanks for posting it, though.

I'm driving myself crazy trying to make sense of this matter. I found this quote from James White (Arrow Video Restoration Supervisor) in the CriterionForum thread that makes me want to revert to my initial belief that the Arrow framing is somehow accurate:

"I can state with 100% confidence that the scans we received from Bologna were open-gate with all surrounding framelines and sprocket areas visible, which is how we scan for all the films we do. As with any full restoration project where we use an outside lab for any part of the process, we have specific guidelines as to how we have elements scanned, and only instruct the full feature scan to proceed once we've approved the initial tests we ask for in advance.

When we scan the entire film frame this isn't only to retain as much image area as possible. Having the surrounding framelines is also key for any stabilisation work we may need to do.

If I had applied a 1.66:1 mask to a scan already cropped for academy, the composition would look significantly imbalanced and cropping would be severe."

Additionally, the guys at Latarnia who are absolutely convinced that Arrow's framing is compromised seem to refute the notion that the 1.85:1 video versions were transferred without the correct projection masks, resulting in a good amount of screen information on the sides (and even on the top and bottom) that wasn't intended to be seen during exhibition, and which was not part of Bava's shot design. Bearing that in mind, it would seem that comparing the Arrow image with any of the 1.85:1 versions on video is basically a moot point.

In any case, I think I'm satisfied that the Arrow disc is just fine, and that it's not missing any pertinent or intended screen information... and no, this isn't a conclusion that I came to because I own the BD, but rather because it would seem that those arguing for Arrow's release have more in the way of irrefutable evidence (not to mention confirmed expertise) on the subject than those who argue against it. It's nice to be back where I was before.

Besides, as I stated previously, the framing on the Arrow just looks proper to me, whereas the Roan LD framing looked odd in many shots.

That would hold some weight only if those video masters weren't from prints, but they are. They have already been matted for theatrical exhibition unlike a negative or something like an IP.

There's a mountain of undeniable evidence proving that Arrow's framing is flat-out incorrect. Even by looking at certain scenes you should see how severe the cropping is. There's a shot where a man looks at an officer on the far right of the screen and the officer is completely cropped out and in a previous shot half of the officer's body is missing.

It may not bother some but the evidence is damning and Arrow don't have a leg to stand on other than frivolous and vague statements accusing other releases of being wrong like they did with Hellraiser III.

For example:

"If I had applied a 1.66:1 mask to a scan already cropped for academy, the composition would look significantly imbalanced and cropping would be severe."

What does that statement have to do with anything? Either Tim Lucas or White confirmed that the film was soft-matted so cropping to Academy then matting for 1.66:1 doesn't make sense and just seems like convoluted nonsense used to dissuade critics who don't know what those terms actually mean.

That statement by White is very similar to his statement regarding Hellraiser III, which was confirmed wrong and was fixed for a German Blu-ray after consulting with the director.

"Our aim is always to right the wrongs on previous releases and produce a definitive version of the film that is faithful to the original. So whilst it has been suggested that our framing might be a bit off balance, we made the decision to present as much image area as was possible without displaying anything that shouldn’t be visible in the frame. If we were to ‘correct’ for this by shifting the entire picture in one direction, a greater percentage of the image would have had to have been unnecessarily zoomed and cropped. As this is something that would have certainly disappointed more people than allowing for more image area than on previous editions, we decided to maintain the framing as it’s presented on our disc."

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

That would hold some weight only if those video masters weren't from prints, but they are. They have already been matted for theatrical exhibition unlike a negative or something like an IP.

There's a mountain of undeniable evidence proving that Arrow's framing is flat-out incorrect. Even by looking at certain scenes you should see how severe the cropping is. There's a shot where a man looks at an officer on the far right of the screen and the officer is completely cropped out and in a previous shot half of the officer's body is missing.

It may not bother some but the evidence is damning and Arrow don't have a leg to stand on other than frivolous and vague statements accusing other releases of being wrong like they did with Hellraiser III.

For example:

"If I had applied a 1.66:1 mask to a scan already cropped for academy, the composition would look significantly imbalanced and cropping would be severe."

What does that statement have to do with anything? Either Tim Lucas or White confirmed that the film was soft-matted so cropping to Academy then matting for 1.66:1 doesn't make sense and just seems like convoluted nonsense used to dissuade critics who don't know what those terms actually mean.

That statement by White is very similar to his statement regarding Hellraiser III, which was confirmed wrong and was fixed for a German Blu-ray after consulting with the director.

"Our aim is always to right the wrongs on previous releases and produce a definitive version of the film that is faithful to the original. So whilst it has been suggested that our framing might be a bit off balance, we made the decision to present as much image area as was possible without displaying anything that shouldn’t be visible in the frame. If we were to ‘correct’ for this by shifting the entire picture in one direction, a greater percentage of the image would have had to have been unnecessarily zoomed and cropped. As this is something that would have certainly disappointed more people than allowing for more image area than on previous editions, we decided to maintain the framing as it’s presented on our disc."

Where did you read that a 1.85:1 print was used? I was under the impression that the materials Arrow's scan derived from were open matte. If there's evidence out there that they were using a 1.85:1 print, then yes, you're right about the horizontal cropping being incorrect. If you know where that information has been presented, please direct me to it. Otherwise, it would seem that the 1.85:1 versions I've seen are showing too much screen information on all sides, which has been stated by various people online, and that the Arrow could be framed accurately, as White and Lucas claim.

[CineSicko]

Another thing: If they did use a 1.85:1 print that was transferred in soft matte, meaning that it was up to projectionists to apply the proper projection mask for theatrical distribution, there may be enough significant vertical information in the inherent frame to allow for the initial 1.66:1 framing that Bava reportedly wanted, not to mention a wealth of unnecessary horizontal information that was to be cropped out by the projection mask as well. Just a theory/hope.

The most frustrating thing about this is that Lucas and White are fully aware of the controversy surrounding their framing, so if their framing decisions are correct they should be offering up some kind of visual aids to support that. Would that really be so hard for them to do? The fact that they haven't is largely what is casting doubt over the legitimacy of their release's framing.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Where did you read that a 1.85:1 print was used? I was under the impression that the materials Arrow's scan derived from were open matte. If there's evidence out there that they were using a 1.85:1 print, then yes, you're right about the horizontal cropping being incorrect. If you know where that information has been presented, please direct me to it. Otherwise, it would seem that the 1.85:1 versions I've seen are showing too much screen information on all sides, which has been stated by various people online, and that the Arrow could be framed accurately, as White and Lucas claim.

I don't know if I'm doing a bad job explaining this or if you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying, so I'll try to explain it clearly in bullet points.

*Arrow didn't use a print, they scanned the original negative.

*The actual prints were hard-matted to 1.85:1, this is how it was presented theatrically. (see https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...37&postcount=8)

*The original negative that Arrow scanned was open-matte which means it wasn't matted for theatrical exhibition like a print. Prints are a better frame of reference than elements which aren't framed to be projected.

*A Laserdisc used a print (which was hard-matted to 1.85:1 which which had been shown in theaters for its initial release) and they scanned the entire image area, which had already been matted compared to the open-matte negative.

*The Laserdisc has the same image area as several other DVD releases, some of which also used prints, albeit different prints.

*These masters from prints match up extremely closely framing-wise, showing much more horizontal information than the Arrow.

*If the film was composed and shot for 1.66:1 then it wouldn't be missing any image information compared to a 1.85:1 matte.

*The prints have significantly more horizontal information than the Arrow and slightly more vertical information too. If the Arrow was correct and the film was supposed to be seen in 1.66:1 then it would be similar horizontally but have more image on the top and bottom.

*The Arrow isn't correct and this has been proven, as Pro-B said in another thread, it's a matter of people not understanding the evidence.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Another thing: If they did use a 1.85:1 print that was transferred in soft matte, meaning that it was up to projectionists to apply the proper projection mask for theatrical distribution, there may be enough significant vertical information in the inherent frame to allow for the initial 1.66:1 framing that Bava reportedly wanted, not to mention a wealth of unnecessary horizontal information that was to be cropped out by the projection mask as well. Just a theory/hope.

The most frustrating thing about this is that Lucas and White are fully aware of the controversy surrounding their framing, so if their framing decisions are correct they should be offering up some kind of visual aids to support that. Would that really be so hard for them to do? The fact that they haven't is largely what is casting doubt over the legitimacy of their release's framing.

Arrow didn't use a print though, they used the open-matte negative and extracted a 1.66:1 image from it. Other releases used prints that were already hard-matted to 1.85:1 meaning that the 1.85:1 image was printed onto film with black bars on the top and bottom making it impossible to show areas of the image that wasn't meant to be shown.

[Rockercub]

Here's the comparison from the other thread of the 1.85:1 releases to Arrow's 1.66:1.



Even if you think the outer 1.85:1 framing is showing extra information on the sides, do you think it's showing this much extra information on the sides? Also, if Arrow has the correct 1.66:1 framing (red), do you think the inner corresponding 1.85:1 framing (green) looks correct? Because that would be what was seen theatrically when shown in 1.85:1. Looks pretty tight to me. Along with all the evidence presented by JohnCarpenterFan, I don't see how you can conclude that Arrow got it right.