A question for film buffs, re: deterioration

[takearushfan]

Hm. Well I don't have a laserdisc player but I'd be interested in the region 4 DVD if it contains the theatrical release's aspect ratio. I didn't even know it was released theatrically anywhere. Unfortunately I have no clue how to track down a region 4 version of the DVD

[takearushfan]

Update:
I was able to track down a region 4 DVD of the film but it had close-ups of the box's description and it says 4:3 right on there :/

[mazinz]

Update:
I was able to track down a region 4 DVD of the film but it had close-ups of the box's description and it says 4:3 right on there :/

although their OAR is wrong (they think full frame was the proper ratio) this is where it showed the region 4 disc with a 1:78. You know what though since that disc is non-anamorphic technically though a widescreen pic it would be in 4:3 format

http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=9002


I transferred the LD a while back and added in the commentary as well, shoot me a PM if you want it

[manono]

although their OAR is wrong (they think full frame was the proper ratio) this is where it showed the region 4 disc with a 1:78.

They didn't state an OAR. 4:3 is the DAR (Display Aspect Ratio) and they got that correct. It's widescreen (1.78:1) 4:3. So's your Laserdisc. Did you reencode it for DVD as 16:9?

[mazinz]

although their OAR is wrong (they think full frame was the proper ratio) this is where it showed the region 4 disc with a 1:78.

They didn't state an OAR. 4:3 is the DAR (Display Aspect Ratio) and they got that correct. It's widescreen (1.78:1) 4:3. So's your Laserdisc. Did you reencode it for DVD as 16:9?

No they state this at the bottom:

" as this was a made for tv movie, the reg1/2 dvds feature the correct OAR"

And that is not correct since both of those dvds are pan/scan( (more so it looks like they made a dead center full frame picture rather than actual pan/scan). The reg 4 disc is actually much closer to what the film was shot in.. I went to sign up to the dvdcompare site many years back to show them it was wrong, but that forum submission part was closed for a number of months and I just gave up on it at that point

the disc I made is 1:75:1 in a 4:3 pic since I did not re-encode for anamorphic. To be honest I could care less about seeing black bars on my screen and despite with all the new tvs and such I still do not care if I see them

[takearushfan]

Hm. Under R1 it says:

Includes English closed-captions.

This is an error. I used to think the same was true as it's advertised that way, but this is another example of incorrect advertising. Using every DVD app known to man I verified that no Closed-Captions are anywhere to be found.

Also, what's up with:

...they do however, include different edits of the film, thus the R1 takes the lead for including the full version.

Yet it then goes on to list each version as being as full as the next

I'm sorry but I'm a bit confused by the various information you guys presented to me. So is it correct to say that the R4 version is the truest AR available? If so then I'm a second away from buying it. If not, please let me know where I'm wrong.

The LD version is also the only one with the commentary, right? Therefore, the R4 DVD would NOT contain it, correct?

BTW, is the commentary by Nicholas Meyer? Is it a decent/insightful commentary of mostly a bore?

(sorry for the rambling)

[jagabo]

IMDB says the negative AR is 1.37:1, the television ratio is 1.33:1, and the intended theatrical ratio is 1.78:1.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085404/technical

Since it was a USA made-for-tv movie, that suggests to me the movie was shot ~4:3 and that full film frame was originally broadcast on TV as 4:3. The 1.37:1 film was then cropped down to 16:9 for the international theatrical release. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the later VHS, laserdisc, and DVD releases were that 16:9 theatrical release (because that's what they had access to) further cropped down to 4:3.

[takearushfan]

I just woke up so forgive me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that it'd hardly be worth purchasing the R4 DVD, since it's been cropped down anyway?

[jagabo]

I don't know anything about the R4 DVD in particular. I'm just suggesting that some of the releases may be 4:3 crops of 16:9 crops of the original ~4:3 negatives.

[takearushfan]

Hm. Then I guess I'll hold off for now, unless someone that actually owns the R4 DVD can testify, which is highly unlikely.

[mazinz]

Ok I am going to be clearing this up right now:

1: the imdb is notorious for having plenty of incorrect info. Despite it saying the film was shot 1:37:1 that info is wrong. You can also see it is much larger than the 1:37:1 ratio

2: takearushfan, the laserdisc commentary is very interesting and not boring in the slightest, in fact I wish it were longer.

3. The director made a mention about the aspect ratio and the fact that it would be a theatrical release in Europe and a tv film in the US. It was something like this that made him shoot it in a 1:75:1 since you could do minimal cropping for a tv airing

4. The comparison picture that I just made below will put it all to rest. The top pic is from the MGM dead center pan dvd. The bottom is from the 1:75:1 proper ratio laserdisc. You can see the US edition just zoomed in on that picture to create the 1:33:1 image for tv viewing

5. the US laserdisc and MGM dvd are both fully uncut. At the time the LD was released the vhs versions of the film were edited down

takearushfan, if you want a copy of the laserdisc transfer I made which includes the commentary ( for free) send me a PM. The commentary is ONLY available on the laserdisc version

I hope this closes the matter.

for a direct link to see the image in full size click below:
http://www.box.net/shared/static/4a7bb2ftnsyvu28azv5d.jpg

[Seeker47]

I have hundreds of retail DVDs made from VHS tapes which themselves were made from old worn out film.

As many long-time film buffs know, there are a whole lot of rare films -- many noteworthy for one reason or another, whether or not they are good films or of historic importance -- that have disappeared, or all but disappeared. In those cases, if they are ever to circulate again at all, you'd have to settle for whatever sources may happen to be available: an old 16mm. print some collector has, a work-print, a who-knows-from-where bootleg. The Criterion-type treatment is going to be the exception.

[jagabo]

Ok I am going to be clearing this up right now:

1: the imdb is notorious for having plenty of incorrect info.

I'll grant you that IMDB isn't always correct.

Despite it saying the film was shot 1:37:1 that info is wrong.

How do you know? Do you have the negatives? Do you have an off-air recording of the original USA TV broadcast?

3. The director made a mention about the aspect ratio and the fact that it would be a theatrical release in Europe and a tv film in the US. It was something like this that made him shoot it in a 1:75:1 since you could do minimal cropping for a tv airing

Are you sure he didn't mean he went with a 1.75:1 international release so he wouldn't lose too much of the 1.37:1 negative? Could you post his exact words?

4. The comparison picture that I just made below will put it all to rest. The top pic is from the MGM dead center pan dvd. The bottom is from the 1:75:1 proper ratio laserdisc. You can see the US edition just zoomed in on that picture to create the 1:33:1 image for tv viewing

Obviously, the MGM DVD release was made by cropping the ~16:9 international film print. That doesn't mean the negatives aren't 1.37:1 or that original USA TV broadcast wasn't of that larger 1.37:1 film frame.

I'm not saying IMDB is right. I have no direct information about how the movie was shot, how it was originally broadcast on TV, or what the directors full intent was. I'm just speculating about what may have happened given the information that's been presented.

[intracube]

4. The comparison picture that I just made below will put it all to rest. The top pic is from the MGM dead center pan dvd. The bottom is from the 1:75:1 proper ratio laserdisc. You can see the US edition just zoomed in on that picture to create the 1:33:1 image for tv viewing

Obviously, the MGM DVD release was made by cropping the ~16:9 international film print. That doesn't mean the negatives aren't 1.37:1 or that original USA TV broadcast wasn't of that larger 1.37:1 film frame.

It's possible the movie was filmed in a similar way to some mainstream movies; shot onto 1.37:1 negative but framed with the matted (cropped) 1.85:1/16:9 version in mind. There are several reasons why the MGM 4:3 version could have ended up like this:

- The stills that mazins posted looks like a VFX shot - sometimes VFX sequences in movies are only created at the theatrical ratio, but the rest of the movie might extend above and below the 16:9 image - you're probably aware of this Jagabo, but others might not be. I'd be interested to see a comparison of other (non VFX) shots in the movie.

- The full height 1.37:1 movie is sitting in a vault somewhere, but the people who made the 4:3 version were either lazy, or couldn't get access to the original negative to do a proper full-screen transfer, so took the already matted 1.75:1 version to make this fullscreen version (your point, I think).

[jagabo]

- The full height 1.37:1 movie is sitting in a vault somewhere, but the people who made the 4:3 version were either lazy, or couldn't get access to the original negative to do a proper full-screen transfer, so took the already matted 1.75:1 version to make this fullscreen version (your point, I think).

Yes, I'm suggesting that's a possibility.

[mazinz]

- The full height 1.37:1 movie is sitting in a vault somewhere, but the people who made the 4:3 version were either lazy, or couldn't get access to the original negative to do a proper full-screen transfer, so took the already matted 1.75:1 version to make this fullscreen version (your point, I think).

Yes, I'm suggesting that's a possibility.

ok what I can supply either later tonight or at worst by tommorrow night:

another compare pic of a regular no f/x footage for the LD and mgm disc AND in addition I also have a dvd of the original ABC film debue (thanks to a buddy who does work at ABC) so we can see if what Intracube mentioned has merit for this film and we can also see just how the film was actually broadcast on US television. It will end up being a triple shot compare pic as I am now very curious myself

Jagabo,
the LD was transferred several years back. I am pretty sure he migt have mentioned speaking about it towards the beginning of the film. I would have to give the commentary another listen top give an exact wording or at the very least up the portion of the audio

[takearushfan]

Okay, I'll be checking my inbox to see when a new post is made

[mazinz]

ok it does appear the film was shot in a 1:37:1 ratio. Matted to 1:75:1 for Europe (and used for the SE Image laserdisc in the US) and horribly dead center zoomed for creation of the region 1 MGM dvd.

the ABC version provides the most picture of all (though missing some of it slightly on the right side only), while the laserdisc gains the right but obviously mattes off some of the top and bottom. I was also curious about the effects shot and it turns out that too was shot in the same manner as the rest of the film's regular footage.

So to help out takearushfan, I would gladly tell you that the closest you are going to get to the full picture would be either getting the ABC tv version or getting that region 4 disc. However I cannot verify if the region 2 disc by Eurovideo is using the same transfer as the MGM disc or if theirs is actually similar to how it was originally broadcast.


the pics are sort of big so direct links to them are also provided
http://www.box.net/shared/static/76nu52dgf495yc53dlgr.jpg








http://www.box.net/shared/static/88nfyj8ig2cjhyq9vfpk.jpg

[jagabo]

Nice work! I lost my copy of this film (probably an Xvid AVI) in a hard drive crash a few years ago. I don't know which version it was.

[mazinz]

Nice work! I lost my copy of this film (probably an Xvid AVI) in a hard drive crash a few years ago. I don't know which version it was.

Thanks, I think it can finally now be put to rest
More than likely it might have been a rip of the MGM dvd, but for those completist (like myself) I can offer the original ABC tv airing with full commercials and the full news conference about the film that took place after it aired on the second night as well as the LD which incs the commentary track

[jagabo]

Thanks for the offer mazinz. But I've seen the movie a few times (when it was first broadcast on TV, then again a few years ago). I doubt I'd watch it again.

By the way, be sure to check out the British equivalent if you haven't seen it already, Threads:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/

Or in a similar vain, Survivors (biological rather than nuclear):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072572/

[mazinz]

Thanks for the offer mazinz. But I've seen the movie a few times (when it was first broadcast on TV, then again a few years ago). I doubt I'd watch it again.

By the way, be sure to check out the British equivalent if you haven't seen it already, Threads:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/

Or in a similar vain, Survivors (biological rather than nuclear):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072572/

Yes I do own the rare US vhs for threads and I am pretty sure I have the UK dvd for the film.

I saw the first season of the new version of the Survivors and enjoyed it a lot. It was around that time that I learned of the original. I need to get my hands on it

[takearushfan]

Okay. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about other regions/tracking down various versions of films, here's one for ya...
How about "The Vault of Horror"? The DVD I own really does look so bad that even though it wasn't necessarily a VHS rip, it might as well be. Both the A/V are terrible. The only reason I purchased the R2 version is because the US version is terribly edited, while the R2 version is completely uncensored. However, the US version looked and sounded incredible. It's a shame that they butchered it, leaving consumers with no other option than the terrible quality of the R2 release.

[Seeker47]

Okay. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about other regions/tracking down various versions of films, here's one for ya...
How about "The Vault of Horror"? The DVD I own really does look so bad that even though it wasn't necessarily a VHS rip, it might as well be. Both the A/V are terrible. The only reason I purchased the R2 version is because the US version is terribly edited, while the R2 version is completely uncensored. However, the US version looked and sounded incredible. It's a shame that they butchered it, leaving consumers with no other option than the terrible quality of the R2 release.

I see this title turn up fairly regularly on some U.S. cable / Sat movie channel(s). Can't recall which ones at the moment, but presumably this is the U.S. version ? (I'm talking about the premium subscription channels, not the edited-with-commercials variety.) Given the vintage of that film, how badly could they have censored it ? I don't remember that film particularly, but it would be very tame next to the HOSTEL type junk that is being made nowadays. OTOH, I recall how badly they hacked up the original version of AND SOON THE DARKNESS, to the point where if you wanted to see the whole film you had to go looking for a bootleg. But still relatively tame, compared to what is being made in that genre now.

[takearushfan]

You're right in that the actual content that was censored was nowhere near that Hostel-like crap.The problem is both that they edited it at all and how it was edited.
The first segment contains a shot where a man is being held upside-down with a tap in his neck, shuddering each time the tap is used to poor blood from his jugular into glasses. It actually is a rather sick depiction. The shot is edited by displaying a still-frame and, as if that wasn't bad enough, the still frame is sort of "painted". There's black ink sloppily removing the tap from the frame. It looks just plain awful.
The second segment is cut in two places. In one part the woman in the story looses her mind and impales a hammer into her husband's head. You see the man with the hammer in his bloody head as he falls down the stairs. This part was replaced with a still-frame of her holding the hammer before she slams it down. The shot of his head is removed too of course. The other edit is when they show how she put each of his body parts into different jars. The edited version completely removes when the camera pans down to a shelf containing a jar labeled "Odds and ends".
The last segment contains a shot where a man's hands are cut off with a paper-cutter. The shot of his hands dropping to the floor is removed and the frame mattes-out the bloody stumps of his arms.
It's really bad. If you want to know just how bad, look up the film on Amazon.com. The Midnite Double-Feature with Tales from the Crypt is the release I'm talking about.

[aedipuss]

this one?



silly british

[takearushfan]

this one?


[Attachment 7973 - Click to enlarge]

silly british

Yep, that's the one. Is that the same transfer as I have? It looks cleaner, but it might just be because it's smaller.

[aedipuss]

that's actual video size. it's been a long time but i seem to recall it was british tv capture.

[Seeker47]

WHO would have done WHICH censorial edits ?

In the U.S., films are and were hacked to bits for these reasons:
1) To get a lower contents rating (usually from "R" down to "PG-13"), ever since the advent of these ratings.
2) Broadcast standards, if not shown on premium cable -- or sometimes even then.
3) Reduction of running time to fit in more commercials. (Probably not relevant here.)
4) Airplane editions of films remove anything and everything someone might find objectionable. Also not relevant here.

In the U.K., they had that period of political persecution of the so-called "video nasties" that lasted for several years. Or maybe it never ended ?

[jagabo]

In the U.K., they had that period of political persecution of the so-called "video nasties" that lasted for several years. Or maybe it never ended ?

It never ended. Though it's not as bad as it used to be. The USA censors are more concerned about nudity. The UK censors are more concerned about violence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2002/mar/13/filmcensorship.seanclarke