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

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

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.

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

What about the arguments that the 1.85:1 video versions out there contain information at the top and bottom that was clearly not meant to be exhibited? I think that needs to be addressed, because it could mean that the hard matte prints were struck improperly in the first place, showing unnecessary frame information. I trust you've seen screencaps from 1.85:1 video versions that show ragged edges and light distortion on the sides and top of the frame. The Roan Group LD definitely shows sporadic signs throughout that we're seeing unwanted information, both on the left side and along the upper letterbox. I'm just not sold on the notion that citing the 1.85:1 hard-matted prints as a definitive source for what was meant to be exhibited is such a great idea.

I'm starting to think that Lucas' belief that the film was composed for 1.66:1 but also 1.85:1 safe is incorrect, and that the 1.85:1 version was force-composed by ignoring the projection mask area and deliberately showing what wasn't part of the intended compositions. You say the 1.66:1 framing looks incorrect, but I feel the 1.85:1 looks incorrect. We may be at an impasse here, but I'd like to know how you feel about the possibility that the hard-matted 1.85:1 prints could be an afterthought on the part of the distributor that betrays Bava's initial 1.66:1 compositions.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by 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.

I've seen that image with the frame lines, but one need only glance at the left edge and upper left portion to see that we're getting unwanted screen information in the frame. If that's from a hard-matted print, the question still stands: Were the 1.85:1 prints framed accurately, or were they deliberately struck in such a way as to "pull back" from the intended 1.66:1 framing, thus exposing portions of the negative frame that weren't meant to be seen, just to satiate the regions who preferred/insisted on exhibiting 1.85:1 content rather than 1.66:1 content? This is important because it would serve to illustrate that the 1.85:1 hard-matted prints can't be used as a point of reference in comparison to the Arrow framing. There's always plenty of image on all edges of a film frame to be exposed that could corrupt the intended composition of a filmmaker's shots if the intended frame lines aren't adhered to. It's starting to look like that's what's happening with these 1.85:1 prints.

[Member-222782]

I, for one, am NOT driving myself crazy over any of this. Who cares what the intended framing was - the Arrow looks stunning. As long as the sprockets or whatever you call them aren't visible I'm happy. Some of these threads can be hazardous to one's health lol

[DR Herbert West]

Cinema74; Who cares what the intended framing was - the Arrow looks stunning.

It's really a shame that Arrow won't own up to, and correct their many framing errors. These mistakes are the only thing holding me back from calling them the best label.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

What about the arguments that the 1.85:1 video versions out there contain information at the top and bottom that was clearly not meant to be exhibited? I think that needs to be addressed, because it could mean that the hard matte prints were struck improperly in the first place, showing unnecessary frame information. I trust you've seen screencaps from 1.85:1 video versions that show ragged edges and light distortion on the sides and top of the frame. The Roan Group LD definitely shows sporadic signs throughout that we're seeing unwanted information, both on the left side and along the upper letterbox. I'm just not sold on the notion that citing the 1.85:1 hard-matted prints as a definitive source for what was meant to be exhibited is such a great idea.

I'm starting to think that Lucas' belief that the film was composed for 1.66:1 but also 1.85:1 safe is incorrect, and that the 1.85:1 version was force-composed by ignoring the projection mask area and deliberately showing what wasn't part of the intended compositions. You say the 1.66:1 framing looks incorrect, but I feel the 1.85:1 looks incorrect. We may be at an impasse here, but I'd like to know how you feel about the possibility that the hard-matted 1.85:1 prints could be an afterthought on the part of the distributor that betrays Bava's initial 1.66:1 compositions.

At this point, you're just speculating random scenarios. There's nothing indicating that the original prints were botched or anything of the sort.

The reason the home video versions are showing frayed edges is because it was from a hard-matted print and when the print is being projected, the frayed edges aren't visible due to a projector plate. The same can be said for every other film that was projected on film. There is no anomaly here with Blood and Black Lace.

You're making this much more complicated than it actually is. What I'm saying has been stated many times before, and if you don't understand what the issue is then I advise reading Pro-B's comments in the thread for the Arrow release or todmichel's posts on Latarnia.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

I've seen that image with the frame lines, but one need only glance at the left edge and upper left portion to see that we're getting unwanted screen information in the frame. If that's from a hard-matted print, the question still stands: Were the 1.85:1 prints framed accurately, or were they deliberately struck in such a way as to "pull back" from the intended 1.66:1 framing, thus exposing portions of the negative frame that weren't meant to be seen, just to satiate the regions who preferred/insisted on exhibiting 1.85:1 content rather than 1.66:1 content? This is important because it would serve to illustrate that the 1.85:1 hard-matted prints can't be used as a point of reference in comparison to the Arrow framing. There's always plenty of image on all edges of a film frame to be exposed that could corrupt the intended composition of a filmmaker's shots if the intended frame lines aren't adhered to. It's starting to look like that's what's happening with these 1.85:1 prints.

Is there? That's not my understanding. Every illustration or example I've seen of a 1.85:1 framing on 35 mm open matte has been nearly to the edge of the negative. Maybe I'm wrong though -- I'm no expert, for sure.

Anyways, check these out. I took a few of the Arrow caps on Caps-a-holic and cropped them down to 1.85:1. Some of them aren't too bad, I suppose, but that last one doesn't look right to me.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

Is there? That's not my understanding. Every illustration or example I've seen of a 1.85:1 framing on 35 mm open matte has been nearly to the edge of the negative. Maybe I'm wrong though -- I'm no expert, for sure.

Anyways, check these out. I took a few of the Arrow caps on Caps-a-holic and cropped them down to 1.85:1. Some of them aren't too bad, I suppose, but that last one doesn't look right to me.

Those look great, perhaps tellingly so. I'm tempted to drop the Arrow feature file into an editing program, crop the whole image to 1.85:1 and just watch it while examining the framing for issues. Those caps look compositionally functional to the point of being appealing-looking.

Regarding the last image, which you said didn't look right to you, that's part of a dolly shot that pushes in toward the fountain. I'd bet the entirety of the shot itself looks just fine in that ratio.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Those look great, perhaps tellingly so. I'm tempted to drop the Arrow feature file into an editing program, crop the whole image to 1.85:1 and just watch it while examining the framing for issues. Those caps look compositionally functional to the point of being appealing-looking.

Regarding the last image, which you said didn't look right to you, that's part of a dolly shot that pushes in toward the fountain. I'd bet the entirety of the shot itself looks just fine in that ratio.

You're right -- I forgot about that. It's been a while since I watched it. I'll be curious to hear your thoughts if you do crop the whole thing. Whatever they are though, I still think the framing is incorrect. But you have all the information you need now to make your own decision.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

Is there? That's not my understanding. Every illustration or example I've seen of a 1.85:1 framing on 35 mm open matte has been nearly to the edge of the negative. Maybe I'm wrong though -- I'm no expert, for sure.

Yes, typically there is negative room to spare and the intended image is hardly ever edge to edge, nor top to bottom.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Yes, typically there is negative room to spare and the intended image is hardly ever edge to edge, nor top to bottom.

But how much room approximately? I'm sure those illustrations weren't to scale, but I would expect you'd want to use as much of the negative as possible to maximize resolution.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

But how much room approximately? I'm sure those illustrations weren't to scale, but I would expect you'd want to use as much of the negative as possible to maximize resolution.

There's typically 16% of image information in a full aperture frame that is not used when a 1.85:1 frame is cut out of it, so with 1.66:1 it's somewhere near 13.5% of the image that is left behind.

I watched the Arrow BD again last night (I'm good on that movie for a while now), and again I have to say that it's a revelation in all departments. Here are my final thoughts on the subject (meaning it's to be my last post in this thread):

There are shots in which the framing does seem a bit tight (usually when the police inspector is questioning multiple characters at once), but none of it looks cramped to the point of being an issue. I also noticed that nearly every screen cap that was used as "damning evidence" against Arrow was taken from a shot in which the camera moves at some point, as a pan that reveals a portion of the supposedly compromised object/person in a given image. More than anything, I'm convinced that the 1.85:1 versions that were supposedly struck from hard-matted prints were not framed properly, and there are plenty of people out there who refuse to cite those versions as definitive sources of proper framing for the film.

Whatever the case concerning Arrow's framing, I have no complaints. I'm trudging forward with no further worries about whether they got it right or not, as I'm satisfied that it's not only "good enough", but that it's a simply remarkable presentation. If I'm missing a sliver of intended image on all four sides, I can live with that. If that makes me less of a cinema connoisseur than those who are still losing sleep over it, then so be it. I still find it very difficult to pay attention to the technical aspects of the Arrow disc while the movie is playing because I always get preoccupied by the narrative goings-on, which alone informs me that there's nothing distracting about the image.

[MifuneFan]

I'm pretty sure all the arguments about the framing and AR can be found in the original Arrow thread, and then some.

I personally believe the framing is off on the Arrow disc, and that the AR is also wrong. Tim Lucas (whom Arrow consulted) has contradicted himself on the aspect ratio, and is mostly just going by speculation, unlike some people who chimed in and actually screened the movie in France, and other places, and could say definitively that it was 1.85:1.

With that said, the Arrow disc still looks aesthetically pleasing and I can't really imagine the VCI disc looking better transfer-wise aside from possibly having better framing. Options are never a bad thing though, so one could get one or the other, or get both for a complete edition. It's just too bad this new one will very likely look like crap in comparison.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

There's typically 16% of image information in a full aperture frame that is not used when a 1.85:1 frame is cut out of it, so with 1.66:1 it's somewhere near 13.5% of the image that is left behind.

I'm calculating a 20% loss of image going from 1.33:1 to 1.66:1 with the same horizontal length, so that should represent the minimum possible amount of image lost. I wondered if perhaps you were talking horizontal length, but the length lost horizontally should be the same for 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 (unless you've uncovered evidence that they're framed differently). Am I missing something? (You don't need to answer if you're done with the topic -- see my last response.)

Originally Posted by CineSicko

There are shots in which the framing does seem a bit tight (usually when the police inspector is questioning multiple characters at once), but none of it looks cramped to the point of being an issue. I also noticed that nearly every screen cap that was used as "damning evidence" against Arrow was taken from a shot in which the camera moves at some point, as a pan that reveals a portion of the supposedly compromised object/person in a given image. More than anything, I'm convinced that the 1.85:1 versions that were supposedly struck from hard-matted prints were not framed properly, and there are plenty of people out there who refuse to cite those versions as definitive sources of proper framing for the film.

My personal evaluation is that even if those 1.85:1 versions aren't correct, it still doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Whatever the case concerning Arrow's framing, I have no complaints. I'm trudging forward with no further worries about whether they got it right or not, as I'm satisfied that it's not only "good enough", but that it's a simply remarkable presentation. If I'm missing a sliver of intended image on all four sides, I can live with that. If that makes me less of a cinema connoisseur than those who are still losing sleep over it, then so be it. I still find it very difficult to pay attention to the technical aspects of the Arrow disc while the movie is playing because I always get preoccupied by the narrative goings-on, which alone informs me that there's nothing distracting about the image.

And ultimately, this is where we totally agree. I'd still like to see a properly framed version, but only if the picture quality is in the ballpark of the Arrow release. I still have my hopes up for VCI. I thought their release of Bird with the Crystal Plumage was serviceable, especially given the inflated prices for the Blue Underground disc at the time. But even if no further versions of Blood and Black Lace are ever released, I'll be happy with Arrow's.

[darkness2918]

I ordered the Arrow version today. It looks fine to me & I get to add another Arrow release to my collection.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

I ordered the Arrow version today. It looks fine to me & I get to add another Arrow release to my collection.

You will be blown away by the image quality. I rarely use the word "breathtaking", but it applies here. I literally gasped when I saw the first shot on the Arrow release, it was that detailed and dimensional.

[babybreese]

I find some of the color timing in certain scenes to be suspect ( skin tones run hot to pink, objects appear different shades depending on the shot ),
I feel it's inconsistent at best. Sometimes it does look beautiful, breathtaking.
It's from the OCN and the quality of the transfer & encode are top notch.

The mis framing is clearly a huge error, but only obviously crops or cramps frames here and there.
Some scenes play out without interference.

Arrow got CITY OF THE DEAD and put out a decent Blu with someone else's master, and changed the framing.
Maybe they could try the same with B & BL, and open up Arrow's transfer to the proper ratio?

It's been almost 50 years since man walked on the Moon.
50 years ....this is actually feasible

[RossD]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Even if it was supposed to be in 1.66:1, then the framing on the Arrow would still be incorrect. It should have more information on the top and bottom not less on the sides.

Right. This seems to be the bottom line. Why would framing at 1:66:1 result in less info on the sides?

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by RossD

Right. This seems to be the bottom line. Why would framing at 1:66:1 result in less info on the sides?

It's one of two things:
1. Arrow erroneously cropped it horizontally, possibly because of their stabilization methods
2. The 1.85:1 versions on video are improperly framed, showing more information than intended (which is what Arrow claims). Of course, the very mention of that notion seems to send many people into a state of denial and subsequent hostility.

[babybreese]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

It's one of two things:
1. Arrow erroneously cropped it horizontally, possibly because of their stabilization methods

Nope. They listened to Lucas and got screwed.

Originally Posted by CineSicko

It's one of two things:
2. The 1.85:1 versions on video are improperly framed, showing more information than intended (which is what Arrow claims). Of course, the very mention of that notion seems to send many people into a state of denial and subsequent hostility.

The extra info endlessly referenced like some smoking gun amounts a C hair on the right and 2 C hairs on the left where the soundtrack lies.
It's semantics and a smoke show by people trying to backpedal or people who really do not understand what they are talking about.

The 1.85 image on the German DVD is complete, with a tiny bit of extra information visible that was not meant to be seen.
Fact remains these teeny slivers do not affect the image ratio, they are extraneous to the discussion.
But it keeps coming back up, over and over, when they have nothing to do with-the discussion, except exposing the clueless.

For years the best we had was VCI's DVD, 1.66 and clearly cropped.
When Lucas 1st saw the German DVD he creamed his jeans, and wrote a multi page article about seeing the film as intended 1.85.
He later mentioned how Joe Dante confirmed to him US prints were 1.85.

These days he professes he has no desire to eb the video watchdog anymore, and will now write about absolutely anything anybody will pay him to write about. Or research and record a commentary on just about anything.

It's interesting Dante could expose Lucas's foolishness here, but remains silent. Tim seems to believe his own BS, and has betrayed his beloved Bava's masterpiece, not to mention film fans worldwide.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

It's one of two things:
1. Arrow erroneously cropped it horizontally, possibly because of their stabilization methods
2. The 1.85:1 versions on video are improperly framed, showing more information than intended (which is what Arrow claims). Of course, the very mention of that notion seems to send many people into a state of denial and subsequent hostility.

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.

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.