Zombie 2 delay info

Discussion in 'Euro Horror' started by Jimbo, Oct 30, 2003.

  1. CrumpsBro

    CrumpsBro Guest

    As someone who has worked with video mastering, I have to butt in here, even though I'm sure I'll regret it... ;)

    If SS is mastering ALIAWS from a FILM element, then any idiot would be able to tell if the film is scope or not, particularly if the film was shot in the 2-perf Techniscope process. In such a circumstance, I'd find it hard to believe that SS would create a 1.85 transfer from a 2.35 element. Why bother when they know the U.S. market prefers OAR transfers?

    That said, it is VERY common in Europe to re-frame 2.35 films to 1.85 or 1.78 for video transfers, as 16x9 TV sets are far more prevelant in Europe and the adjusted aspect ratio fills the frame of those TVs. So, if SS is using a VIDEO element obtained from the producer for its mastering source, then it is very possible that it would receive a 1.85/1.78 framed video source element.

    So, to me, the real question is, what element is SS using for its video transfer?

    If SS says that they supervised the transfer themselves from a film element, then I'll take their word for it that the movie is 1.85.
     
  2. What "better proof" is this, exactly? That you saw a poster reprint in a book that said it was scope (I doubt any poster actually said "Cinemascope," as that was a Fox process, AFAIK)? Well, other ads for the film said Panoramica, which indicates 1.85:1. Why are you advertisements somehow "better"? Because they tell you what you'd like to believe? Plus, I've yet to anyone actually say they've seen the film at 2.35:1. On the other hand, I have seen reports from multiple people who have seen it in a theatre and on video at 1.85:1. The films producers themselves say it is 1.85:1. Is your magical poster really "better" proof than all this?

    At best, the issue is unclear. Given such a lack of clarity, to literally demand that Shriek Show conform with what you believe to be true based on flimsy evidence is fairly absurd. Imagine you're a US video distribution company. You get a license to distribute a European film in the US. You speak with the film's producers, and they tell you that it's 1.85:1. You speak to various people who have seen the film, including a respected British genre expert, and they all tell you it should be 1.85:1. Then some random person on a random web forum demands that the film be presented at 2.35:1 because he happened to see something which might've indicated to him that that's the proper AR in a poster reprint in a book.

    Give me a break.

    You can't prove it was Techniscope, Tohoscope, Cinemascope, Shaw Scope, or any other process, because you have no proof at all.

    Your self-assuredness is entirely baseless.

    DJ
     
  3. Latency

    Latency Guest

    "longer than movie and transer is beautiful"

    I never thought I'd see Zombi 2 released on DVD with a "beatiful" transfer. Shame on you Anchor bay :)
     
  4. The Chaostar

    The Chaostar Johnny Hallyday forever

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Messages:
    4,291
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Hell-as
    I have been collecting film print and posters for years and I live from cinema for 18 years so I wouldn't exactly label me as a random person. And when I say I live from cinema I don't mean I sweep the floors of my local multiplex, nor that I write on the net or in a shitty local column.

    Quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And again... IF by ANY chance it is not, then it shouldn't be released as such. But I am sure it is unless someone RUBS THE FUCKIN' 1.85 FRAMED NEGATIVE ON MY FACE.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    That was a joke.


    The term "CINEMASCOPE" was used by a lot of film studios and the claim that ONLY fox used it is a bit funny. I have dozens of foreign posters to prove you that. The italians especially used thw scope format very often since it was cheaper for them! And why was that? Because of the invention of the 2perf technoscope system during the late 6os with which films like CAT O'NINE TAILS, DON'T TORTURE THE DUCKLING, DJANGO or ZOMBIE & THE BEYOND were shot.

    What they did was this:
    “Usually 35 mm film uses four perforation holes per frame. To create a widescreen image, what they did was to use only half of the frame at a time, and practically squeezed two frames on the space of one. It appealed to the Italians so much because suddenly you get twice the running length out of the same amount of film. Instead of 10.000 feet of film you only need 5.000, which can cut costs quite a bit. The problem with that is that you can’t make a contact print. You have to go through an optical process to create a regular film print from this sort of negative to convert it from the 2-perf format to a 4-perf fullframe format. Incidentally the 2-perf format is also the reason why many of Fulci’s film appear quite grainy, especially when blown up for fullframe presentations. If you look at it, what you see in a full frame presentation of a 2-perf film is about a third of the actual frame, which is less than what a 16 mm format can offer. It is a shockingly small area and that’s why they’re so grainy."
    (from dvd review's column on The Beyond - too bored to explain in my own words)

    CrumsBro, I don't want to sound like an ass but I have seen film prints of films that were originally shot in scope ratio , with a hard matted image at 1.85 (I even used to own a greek hard matted at 1.85 print of FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET that an Athenian cinema screenes now and then!!!!!!). I don't know why these things happend in Europe, but believe me they did.

    Now, I have Belgian and Spanish posters of Lizard that state "CINEMASCOPE" (yes, "CINEMASCOPE) - the spanish one actually advertises a 70mm print. The spanish used to do that - I have posters of CAT O NINE TAILS that also advertized a 70mm print!

    That's where I base my hypothesis that Lizard must have been originally shot in Scope ratio.

    Catch you later.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2003
  5. The Chaostar

    The Chaostar Johnny Hallyday forever

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Messages:
    4,291
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Hell-as
    From the same BEYOND column

    "...The biggest challenge in the undertaking was to find out who exactly owned the film at the time. “It’s a real problem,” Jerry Martinez points out. “You talk to someone you think owns the movie and he tells you, ‘I don’t own it, Joe Bloggs owns it.’ So you go to see Joe, who tells you, “No, I don’t own it, Bob across the street owns it...” there you hear “I think Tom has the rights...” and eventually you talk to Tom and he goes, “What? I own that movie? I’ve never even heard of it.” Since these films are transferred so many times, usually many original elements are damaged or lost altogether. ..."

    I don't trust the words of italian producers. After that segment, do I sound absurd?

    But then again... IF the proper ratio IS 1.85 then SS better release it that way. But after all these things I mentioned above, I find that hard to believe.

    Morning time. Gotta go to bed!
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2003
  6. In the United States, at least, "Cinemascope" is a registered trademark of 20th Century Fox.

    Why do you keep explaining the Techniscope process to me? I understand the process quite well, thank you, and haven't once questioned how the process works in this thread. Anyway, the cheapness of 2-perf Techniscope doesn't prove that A Lizard in a Woman's Skin was shot in 2.35:1. Innumerable Italian films were shot at 1.66:1-1.85:1. Explaining the Techniscope process to me over and over again won't shed any light on this conversation.

    A pretty weak basis in comparison to those who base their opinion of the film's correct AR on the film itself. And, again, you ignore the fact that the film was advertised elsewhere as being 1.85:1.

    Gosh, some Italian producers are idiots? Wow, then I guess you're a much more reliable source for information about a film you've apparently never seen than the people who own its original elements. So, yes, you do sound absurd. You may as well be giving me some quote about how some director was clueless and use it prove that no director knows what the AR of his film should be. And do you really think no 1970s European horror/exploitation poster has ever had incorrect information?

    DJ
     
  7. The Chaostar

    The Chaostar Johnny Hallyday forever

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Messages:
    4,291
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Hell-as
    Gosh, you think so? Wow, my friend, I'm afraid you're wrong. I'm not. I am just stating my opinion. And who has the ORIGINAL elements by the way? You think SS has them? What elements do they have? You seem to be pretty sure they have the original elements. Why's that?

    As far as the people who have seen the film and "believe" that the ratio is 1.85, well I have heard many stories lke that for films that have proven to be shot in Scope ratio. It is easy sometimes to get mixed up - especially when the projection conditions are mediocre.

    However you are right about "cinemascope" being a Fox trademark in the U.S. - but that never prevented any Italian or Spanish studio... As for your "And do you really think no 1970s European horror/exploitation poster has ever had incorrect information?" comment, well, if you advertise a film as a 'scope" film when it isn't that would ne disasterous for it's commercial success, right? At least that's what I think.

    Look DJ, this is not a 15yo fan talking. My eyes have seen may things in this business - that's why I doubt the "proofs" that Lizard is not a scope film and cling to the "proofs" that confirm it is indeed one.

    But then again... IF the proper ratio IS 1.85 then blablabla.

    Now, let's keep our strengths for another argument for two replies more and we will just repeat ourselfs.
     
  8. Just to be clear, I don't know if Shriek Show themselves actually has any elements. I do presume, however, that the film's producers have the elements. And, according to the gentleman in charge at Shriek Show, those producers have informed him that the film is 1.85:1.

    DJ
     

Share This Page