Odd question...

Like everyone else in the known universe, I have a copy of Night of
the Living Dead on DVD. All of 99¢, not too bad a print/transfer,
great little movie.

But I read that the original theatrical version was in a widescreen
format - 1.85, specifically, and that it's only 1.33 from the 16mm
prints and subsequent video transfers. I've never seen it in
widescreen, and I'm not finding any copies of it in that apsect ratio,
so I'm starting to wonder if the film might have been shot full-frame,
even though it was shot on 35mm, and the "1.85" info isn't accurate.
It doesn't look like the 1.33 frame should be cropped to 1.85, bor
does it seem like there's a lot of missing information on the edges of
the frame, or for that matter any obvious artifacts of a pan n' scan
transfer.

Anybody know the real story?

--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary

Steven

On Oct 17, 11:44 am, "Steven J. Weller" <az....RemoveThis@lafn.org> wrote:
> Like everyone else in the known universe, I have a copy of Night of
> the Living Dead on DVD.  All of 99¢, not too bad a print/transfer,
> great little movie.
>
> But I read that the original theatrical version was in a widescreen
> format - 1.85, specifically, and that it's only 1.33 from the 16mm
> prints and subsequent video transfers.  I've never seen it in
> widescreen, and I'm not finding any copies of it in that apsect ratio,
> so I'm starting to wonder if the film might have been shot full-frame,
> even though it was shot on 35mm, and the "1.85" info isn't accurate.
> It doesn't look like the 1.33 frame should be cropped to 1.85, bor
> does it seem like there's a lot of missing information on the edges of
> the frame, or for that matter any obvious artifacts of a pan n' scan
> transfer.
>
> Anybody know the real story?
>
> --
> Life Continues, Despite
> Evidence to the Contrary
>
> Steven

I don't know the answer, Steven, but it's good to "see" you again.

Aloha,

--Ron