Night of the Living Dead (1968)

[2-perf]

Night of the Living Dead was clearly composed for 1.37:1.

[tommynorcal]

Crossing my fingers I get tickets for this tomorrow

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Yes, all these excuses from people on here are ridiculous.

1.85:1 was the US standard since the early/mid 50's. You mean to tell me that a group of people who put the effort into making a film in 1968 didn't know the basics about how films were shown at the time? Common practice back then was to shoot in academy and then mask theatrical prints to the correct ratio, while showing it on TV in the fullscreen ratio. There's existence of prints that confirm this and we have confirmation from those who work on the film that this was the case.

George A. Romero's preferred ratio in general seems to be 1.37:1 or thereabouts, this doesn't mean that this is the OAR although it could be the IAR. He's said he prefers the 1.37:1 versions of his films including The Dark Half which was released in 1993 but the OAR is still 1.85:1.

None of the 4:3 versions out there have the correct framing, they are all off in one way or another. The version that seems the most competently composed is the widescreen print and it even has more information at the top/bottom and sides in places than the quasi-open matte releases. All Blu-rays (even the Happinet disc) have horrible framing.

Why someone would object to more than one ratio being included is beyond me since all three (1.85:1, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1) are valid ratios.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by 2-perf

Night of the Living Dead was clearly composed for 1.37:1.

[Show spoiler]

That is a bad example as it's already been explained that all 4:3 versions on Blu-ray/DVD are cropped from what a true open matte presentation would be.

Here's the same shot from a widescreen print. Keep in mind that the camera is moving and stops half a second later so the spaces at each side are evened out.

There's nothing clear about your example because the composition looks terrible going by that shot alone and is not how it would look in 4:3 if the 1.85:1 version were matted from it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by 2-perf

Night of the Living Dead was clearly composed for 1.37:1.

[Show spoiler]

That looks like a grab from the most recently remastered version which was zoomed in quite substantially at times.

I'd still love to see a multi-aspect release, but if Romero insists on 1.37 only then I'm not gonna turn it down, obvs.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

Actually some TV movies from the 80s and 90s were shot with the thought that they may screen in theaters internationally. It's not very common but it's happened.

That said 4:3 NOTLD is fine by me.

The fact that some TV moves may screen theatrically goes further back than that. Don Siegel's The Killers was one of the first, in 1964. That said, since you can only compose for one ratio, and the medium is/was television, that's how the film is shot and composed. You can matte ANYTHING and screen it theatrically, but that doesn't mean its correct.

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Yes, all these excuses from people on here are ridiculous.

1.85:1 was the US standard since the early/mid 50's. You mean to tell me that a group of people who put the effort into making a film in 1968 didn't know the basics about how films were shown at the time? Common practice back then was to shoot in academy and then mask theatrical prints to the correct ratio, while showing it on TV in the fullscreen ratio. There's existence of prints that confirm this and we have confirmation from those who work on the film that this was the case.

George A. Romero's preferred ratio in general seems to be 1.37:1 or thereabouts, this doesn't mean that this is the OAR although it could be the IAR. He's said he prefers the 1.37:1 versions of his films including The Dark Half which was released in 1993 but the OAR is still 1.85:1.

Why someone would object to more than one ratio being included is beyond me since all three (1.85:1, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1) are valid ratios.

La Belle Noises was made in 1991 and OAR is 1.33. Son of Saul was made last year and OAR is 1.33. And even though both are foreign productions, they obviously knew they would screen internationally. So yeah, it happens.

Why would someone object? For the same reason we don't have 3 aspect ratios for every other film. Because once ONE is valid, and only ONE was the AR that was shot and composed for.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Why would someone object? For the same reason we don't have 3 aspect ratios for every other film. Because once ONE is valid, and only ONE was the AR that was shot and composed for.

So which one is valid in this case, the one that was originally displayed theatrically or the one that the director prefers?

[VideoPhonic]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

When filmmakers aren't thinking widescreen, they don't leave headroom. You can compose for matted widescreen and protect for academy but not the other way around.

The fact that the negative is at 1.37:1 does not mean it was framed for that. Most movies are soft-matted, the whole frame exposed for tv showings.

The titles are clearly blocked for matting.

And it was filmed in 1967, not 1957! Romero must have been aware of the fact that everything was shown matted by then and to be aware means he must have composed accordingly. He may prefer it at academy (wouldn't be the only one) but I truly doubt he composed on purpose so it couldn't be shown theatrically. NOTLD would have never been shown on TV back then. It would have been deemed too scary and this is no case where cutting a few scenes would do the trick.

Also, as we can now seen on blu-ray, 1.37:1 does show quite a bit more than 1.33:1. The 4x3 transfers floating around do not show all horizontal image.

Ok sure. Though I'd disagree with the blanket statement that all filmmakers composing for 1:37 never leave headroom.

I'm also aware of how matting for widescreen works. That said plenty (if not most really) of soft matted widescreen movies have visible equipment in the frame, or hard mattes on opticals and or/titles that make their way into the open matte TV/video versions because those versions, while "protected", are an afterthought. NOTLD has none of that, which would mean that it's REALLY protected for academy, more than most flat widescreen movies. And yes you're right the titles do allow for 1.85:1 but those were added at the very end of post production. These suggest some discrepancies, which I would say are due to the nature of NOTLD's VERY independent production.

Obviously I don't know Romero's exact intentions (and I never said he intended for it to be on TV and not theatrical, I was just referencing his TV background), I just believe that the unique circumstances of the production suggest that you can't compare it to your average late '60s studio production.

I think a lot of the ratio debate on NOTLD is due to home video 1.33:1 versions being zoomed and cropped. When looking at a print of NOTLD in academy ratio (I realize I've been using academy/1.37 and 1.33 interchangeably, that's my mistake) it really does feel like you'd lose (at least somewhat) valuable information if cropped to widescreen. I can assume with proper framing, this new restoration will show that.

[Vixen of the Night]

Here is an actual widescreen print of the movie, and it's actually well framed at 1.85:1.

Night of the Living Dead (1968) rare widescreen print! - YouTube

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Vixen of the Night

Here is an actual widescreen print of the movie, and it's actually well framed at 1.85:1.

Night of the Living Dead (1968) rare widescreen print! - YouTube

And according to Archive, this is an international theatrical print which looks to have been cropped from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 after the fact.

After having a skim through the theatrical print and directly comparing it to the Happinet master on another monitor, I've noticed that the matted print contains mostly the same centre information as the Happinet but adds more information at the sides essentially making the new master a cropped version of the already matted theatrical widescreen ratio.

Comparing it with some of the caps from the UK Network disc, I suspect that Network may have used a full 1.66:1 theatrical print but then incorrectly cropped it thinking that it would get them the original framing.

What's interesting is that it looks like some of the shots in the titles have used the full open matte framing which is very strange.

Hopefully the people restoring this have done their research properly and we wont end up with a Blood and Black Lace situation like we did with Arrow.

[emmet otter]

I WILL NOT BUY THIS IF IT DOESNT INCLUDE A TUNA FISH SANDWICH REDUBBED AUDIO TRACK.......IN 7.1

On a serious note. 1.33 all the way man

[GasmaskAvenger]

That's why all three possible aspect ratios should be put on the 4K remaster blu-ray.

Make everybody happy and leave it up to the viewers to decide which framing they prefer.

Some purists will prefer full frame, I would prefer 1.85 to remain consistent with Dawn and Day's aspect ratio (Land was framed in 2.35 so no need to include that too) and those who want an in-between can go for 1.66.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I've noticed that the matted print contains mostly the same centre information as the Happinet but adds more information at the sides essentially making the new master a cropped version of the already matted theatrical widescreen ratio.

Yes, this appeared to be the case at the time, it's like it's been matted down and then had the sides chopped off. IIRC that's the Weinstein restoration done by Don May, I remember him posting about it on some forum or another (maybe bloody disgusting?) but I'm not sure we ever got a rationale as to why the framing was so darned zoomed in...though May also said that Romero was perfectly fine with it, again IIRC.

[dallywhitty]

Johnny had the keys!

[Val Lewton]

I find it kind of comical that those arguing against the Academy ratio are using Hollywood norms of the time as a reason. This wasn't a Hollywood picture, it was the furthest thing from traditional Hollywood picture. This is a regional film shot in Pittsburgh by guys that did industrial films and local television commercials. This was also self financed with the added help of local butchers and bakers. They made their movie first, and tried to find distribution later, which they had a difficult time doing. You can't compare regional films like this with what was coming out from studio financed films at the time.

Aside from that argument about what was or was not the norm at the time(B&W films in 1968 weren't the norm either), Romero has stated 1:37 is the intended ratio over and over again. Not just his "preferred" ratio, but his intended. It's how the film was framed when shooting. This is common knowledge, and I'm kind of surprised to see so many people arguing otherwise.

From Night of the Living Dead: Behind the Scenes of the Most Terrifying Zombie Movie Ever:

The filmmakers had decided early on to lens their picture in black and white and "full frame" Academy aspect ratio, one of the last films to utilize that format.

Romero goes into further detail about his choice including the fact that he wanted to replicate the aesthetic of news reels at the time. Again, this is stuff that's been said over and over again regarding this movie and it's OAR.

That international print is pretty awful, btw. Comparison to the Elite DVD for reference:

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by VideoPhonic

I think a lot of the ratio debate on NOTLD is due to home video 1.33:1 versions being zoomed and cropped. When looking at a print of NOTLD in academy ratio (I realize I've been using academy/1.37 and 1.33 interchangeably, that's my mistake)

Yes I wish people would stop referring to Academy as 1.33 . Any transfer of 1.37 made in 1.33 is already 4% off from the get go.

Understandable when 4:3 1.33 TVs and video were the only format, let's say oh 15 years ago..

But today's transfers, with 1080 x 1920 pixels wide 1.78 displays, Academy (1.375) should be the full 1.37 1080 x 1485 wide as there's still 435 pixels of black space left on the video frame

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Val Lewton

That international print is pretty awful, btw. Comparison to the Elite DVD for reference:

Looking at those images it seems that the framing is off in that "international print" (correct terminology should be in that "widescreen matting") and it appears they should have used a common top instead of dead center matting (similar to what happened with The Curse of Frankenstein)

NOTLDmatting.jpg

[Val Lewton]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Looking at those images it seems that the framing is off in that "international print" (correct terminology should be in that "widescreen matting") and it appearst they should have used a common top instead of dead center matting (similar to what happened with The Curse of Frankenstein)

Regardless of how poorly it was matted, it shouldn't be matted to 1:85 period. It's OAR is 1:37. So were most of Romero's movies up until Dawn:

There's Always Vanilla - 1:37
Season of the Witch - 1:37
The Crazies - 1:66
Martin - 1:37

[emmet otter]

Myself speaking, in any movie for that matter if its "matted" 1.85, then give me full frame (1.33, 1.35, 1.37 whatever). If its true "unmatted" 1.85 than i'll accept it. I don't care how it was presented in the theaters. If im losing image in any way, I prefer not to have it this way. Sometimes sadly, we dont have a choice

[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.