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

[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.