Night of the Living Dead Blu-ray Releases

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

I think especially in this case, it's just best to go with the full frame or "open matte" if some want to call it that. You get the most picture so it'll have the least complaints. So if a somewhat official domestic BD release does happen, that I'd say is the best thing to do.

But at the moment, yes, go with what you want. I have the 40th Anniversary Dimension DVD, so if nothing comes about soon I'll probably go with Happinet's BD and maybe Network's in addition to that.

Why would you want Network's disc if you have Happinet's disc already?

[jlk5844]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Why would you want Network's disc if you have Happinet's disc already?

Doesn't Network's have the complete uncropped frame? So slightly more image than Happinet's?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

Doesn't Network's have the complete uncropped frame? So slightly more image than Happinet's?

Yes, but the PQ is noticeably inferior. I am just trying to save you some money.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...less=1#auswahl

[jlk5844]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Yes, but the PQ is noticeably inferior. I am just trying to save you some money.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...less=1#auswahl

Thanks. I appreciate it. Yeah that is very minimal and pretty much negligible cropping, the Happinet only it is.

How would you rate the pq of the Happinet?

Is there any difference in audio between Happinet's and Network's? Both HD audio?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

Thanks. I appreciate it. Yeah that is very minimal and pretty much negligible cropping, the Happinet only it is.

How would you rate the pq of the Happinet?

Is there any difference in audio between Happinet's and Network's? Both HD audio?

I'd rate it 8/10. It's not just the cropping with the Network release, but the grain is nearly nonexistent. They are both LPCM mono tracks. I have the JP disc and it sounds fine to me.

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

I think especially in this case, it's just best to go with the full frame or "open matte" if some want to call it that. You get the most picture so it'll have the least complaints. ...

That's an odd way of looking at things...

But it's not an uncommon way of looking at things here at Blu-ray.com.

[jlk5844]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I'd rate it 8/10. It's not just the cropping with the Network release, but the grain is nearly nonexistent. They are both LPCM mono tracks. I have the JP disc and it sounds fine to me.

I meant the cropping for the Happinet, it's not a big deal at all. Thanks for your input.

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

That's an odd way of looking at things...

But it's not an uncommon way of looking at things here at Blu-ray.com.

Would you rather have less picture? In any case the full frame has the best composition overall.

The only thing better would be to include multiple aspect ratios on the disc to satisfy everyone, sort of like with Scream Factory's Vault of Horror. The usual reason for including multiple ratios isn't just for preference though, it's because there's no one aspect ratio that has the entire picture, a la Criterion's On the Waterfront and Twilight Time's Sexy Beast.

[Torrente]

The cropping is NOT negligible at all. It shows. In a lot of shots.
I so much prefer the Network framing that when I have to chose between my Happinet BD and my Network BD, I often chose the later. I'm glad I have both though'

Note that this release from Germany sports the same AR than the Network one

All those infos are in this thread anyway, we already talked about this endlessly.

[vidjunkie]

Originally Posted by Torrente

The cropping is NOT negligible at all. It shows. In a lot of shots.
I so much prefer the Network framing that when I have to chose between my Happinet BD and my Network BD, I often chose the later. I'm glad I have both though'

Note that this release from Germany sports the same AR than the Network one

All those infos are in this thread anyway, we already talked about this endlessly.

But the image quality is no where near the same correct? by the way this is still on our to do list lol, we are going to get the best damn image we can and add all extras complete on 1 disc, just like we did for NOTLD 1990.

[MomentsAgo]

Originally Posted by vidjunkie

But the image quality is no where near the same correct? by the way this is still on our to do list lol, we are going to get the best damn image we can and add all extras complete on 1 disc, just like we did for NOTLD 1990.

Oh man! That's going to be awesome!

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

The only thing better would be to include multiple aspect ratios on the disc to satisfy everyone.

Yeesh...

[Region_unlocked]

Originally Posted by Torrente

The cropping is NOT negligible at all. It shows. In a lot of shots.

I said this earlier in the thread, but I thought I'd expand on what I was talking about.
In the uncropped versions of the movie, in quite a few shots you can see something blocking out one of the corners of the frame. It shifts around the screen and gets bigger and smaller from shot to shot. At first I thought it was a shadow or something, but it seems to move with the camera, and when I went and looked back I noticed you can even see it in a few day shots like this one here.
NotLD lens shade 1.JPG
I ended up checking all of my DVD copies of the movie along with the version on YouTube (which all use the cropped version) and while I did notice that it's still there, it's in a far smaller capacity, leading me to believe that whatever that thing is (again my theory is that it's an improperly affixed lens shade for the camera itself) is on the original negative and that the crop was done to try and lessen it's presence as much as possible. So even though you are losing picture info with the crop it does seem like it was done for a reason.
Here's a couple more examples of it from later in the movie:

[Show spoiler]NotLD lens shade 2.JPG
NotLD lens shade 3.JPG

[Torrente]

Originally Posted by vidjunkie

But the image quality is no where near the same correct? by the way this is still on our to do list lol, we are going to get the best damn image we can and add all extras complete on 1 disc, just like we did for NOTLD 1990.

Yep!

And my beautiful cover art is still available too if you still need it (if you can remember I already did it, thinking this '68 version would be released earlier by your wonderful team)

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

Would you rather have less picture? In any case the full frame has the best composition overall.

The only thing better would be to include multiple aspect ratios on the disc to satisfy everyone, sort of like with Scream Factory's Vault of Horror. The usual reason for including multiple ratios isn't just for preference though, it's because there's no one aspect ratio that has the entire picture, a la Criterion's On the Waterfront and Twilight Time's Sexy Beast.

Yes, if that's the original intent. Composition can only be created for ONE aspect ratio. Everything else is a compromise and affects the intended composition.

Having "more picture" isn't always best just because it's on the negative. EVERY film shoots more on the neg than is intended to be seen.

And multiple ratios aren't the answer, because it's not up to the viewer to be "satisfied", it's up to them to accept and appreciate the art the way it was made, not the way they WANT it to be made. You don't get to choose what size the Mona Lisa is, or get to change the language in a book (although, however, there are some albums now released with stereo mixes that were originally mono). On the Waterfront was indeed framed for ONE aspect ratio - most likely 1.85:1, because it's smallest (height wise) and if indeed it was to be screened that way in some theaters, then all relevant info would have to be included in that frame. Everything else is a compromise. But there are too many compositions in NOTD that just don't work in 1.85 - too many heads cut off, etc. Perhaps I am wrong, but the film seems most likely shot with 1:66 in mind. But given the choice between a super tight 1.85 and an open matte 1.33, I prefer 1.33 for this film, for reasons said already.

[Robert Furmanek]

1.37:1 as a compositional aspect ratio was pretty much abandoned by the summer of 1953. Within three years, it was obsolete in theaters.

By the time NOTLD was released, the number of theaters and drive-ins equipped to run in the standard ratio was miniscule. Romero and his DP would have composed the film to look its best in the majority of theaters.

Sloppy repertory bookings and early home video releases mean nothing so far as how the film was originally intended to be seen.

The reason the cropping is tight for the film is because none of these transfers are showing the full image on the 35mm negative. They've all been zoomed-in and/or manipulated.

In short, it's composed for 1.85:1.

More info and documentation on the transition to widescreen can be found here:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-fir...-of-widescreen

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wi...-documentation

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Robert Furmanek

1.37:1 as a compositional aspect ratio was pretty much abandoned by the summer of 1953. Within three years, it was obsolete in theaters.

By the time NOTLD was released, the number of theaters and drive-ins equipped to run in the standard ratio was miniscule. Romero and his DP would have composed the film to look its best in the majority of theaters.

Sloppy repertory bookings and early home video releases mean nothing so far as how the film was originally intended to be seen.

The reason the cropping is tight for the film is because none of these transfers are showing the full image on the 35mm negative. They've all been zoomed-in and/or manipulated.

In short, it's composed for 1.85:1.

More info and documentation on the transition to widescreen can be found here:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-fir...-of-widescreen

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wi...-documentation

I don't doubt your expertise and respect all you do (I'm not a Jeff Wells 'boxy is better" guy), but I stand by what I perceive to be my opinion in this case - unless every single film print (both 16 and 35) that I've screened over the last 30 years has been "zoomed". Even the 40th anniversary DVD with commentary by Romero was 1.33:1 (which was recycled from the 1990s Elite Laserdisc, also 1.33:1.) Seems like if the OAR was wrong Romero would've spoken up about it then. I personally don't believe seeing lights and stands visible at the edge of frames were ever meant to be any wider, which would put them even further into frame if indeed the full frame versions I've seen were "zoomed in." If that's the case, then my comment about the super tight cropping would still stand, based on matting those same full frame prints.

Perhaps I am wrong, which I very well could be. But from every print I've screened and seen, the open matte compositions looks better at least in those iterations.

[Torrente]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

there are too many compositions in NOTD that just don't work in 1.85 - too many heads cut off, etc. Perhaps I am wrong, but the film seems most likely shot with 1:66 in mind. But given the choice between a super tight 1.85 and an open matte 1.33, I prefer 1.33 for this film, for reasons said already.

My thought exactly!

[#Darren]

Is there some sort of conspiracy here? Hasn't someone asked Romero about this on facebook or something?

[joltman]

Originally Posted by Robert Furmanek

1.37:1 as a compositional aspect ratio was pretty much abandoned by the summer of 1953. Within three years, it was obsolete in theaters.

By the time NOTLD was released, the number of theaters and drive-ins equipped to run in the standard ratio was miniscule. Romero and his DP would have composed the film to look its best in the majority of theaters.

Sloppy repertory bookings and early home video releases mean nothing so far as how the film was originally intended to be seen.

The reason the cropping is tight for the film is because none of these transfers are showing the full image on the 35mm negative. They've all been zoomed-in and/or manipulated.

In short, it's composed for 1.85:1.

More info and documentation on the transition to widescreen can be found here:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-fir...-of-widescreen

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wi...-documentation

Another thing to keep in mind is Romero and co. started working on TV commercials, so they may have used 4:3 because it's what they were used to.

[Region_unlocked]

Originally Posted by Robert Furmanek

1.37:1 as a compositional aspect ratio was pretty much abandoned by the summer of 1953. Within three years, it was obsolete in theaters.

By the time NOTLD was released, the number of theaters and drive-ins equipped to run in the standard ratio was miniscule. Romero and his DP would have composed the film to look its best in the majority of theaters.

Sloppy repertory bookings and early home video releases mean nothing so far as how the film was originally intended to be seen.

The reason the cropping is tight for the film is because none of these transfers are showing the full image on the 35mm negative. They've all been zoomed-in and/or manipulated.

In short, it's composed for 1.85:1.

More info and documentation on the transition to widescreen can be found here:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-fir...-of-widescreen

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wi...-documentation

Romero actually served as his own DP on NotLD. Also NotLD was an independent movie, keeping up with cinematic standards of the day was the least of the their concerns, most movies were shot in color by 1968 too, but Romero didn't care about the popular way of doing things at the time, he just filmed it how he could. 1.37:1 was obsolete as a theatrical aspect ratio by the late 50's but it was still used in the TV world untill like maybe 15 years ago, Romero mostly took jobs doing TV commercials before (and I believe during the production of) NotLD, it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to think that he'd just stick with what he knew and frame the movie in full frame as if it were for TV (he may have even used the same equipment he used for the commercials on NotLD too, IDK about that though, I haven't listened to the commentary for a while).