Dark Sky Films

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
Jeffrey Allen Rydell	Dark Sky Films	Lead	[-]
(12/30/07 2:11 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Anybody else feel their transfers are kinda crap? HORROR OF PARTY BEACH is needlessly matted - this ain't a widescreen film, if only out of basic negligence in the original photography. I haven't watched CURSE OF THE LIVING CORPSE yet, but apparently that fares even worse. Their transfers of BLOOD OF THE VAMPIRE and SLAUGHTER OF THE VAMPIRES are over-matted, the compression is crap on WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? and COUNT DRACULA (and I'm convinced COUNT isn't a full-frame transfer at all, but a side-crop). I hear bad things about EATEN ALIVE (compression), THE LAST HUNTER (cropped), and HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER (interlaced), as well. Of all their releases I've seen, only CREATION OF THE HUMANOIDS/WAR BETWEEN THE PLANETS looked exceptional, and THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE the only home run (oops, except for the audio) - and that's down to Don May (who only supervised the video). - Jeff
dhtreptow		#1	[-]
(12/30/07 3:24 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I feel like they have bested Image and AB on a couple occasions. There TCM is great-looking, their ASYLUM is way better than the Image DVD, they also released much-improved DVDs of TRILOGY OF TERROR, SPIDER BABY, DEVIL'S RAIN, and EATEN ALIVE. On the whole I'm fairly enthusiastic about them. I wish their DVD of COUNT DRACULA had the woman searching for her stolen infant, but it's much nicer-looking that the Kinowelt and Spanish imports.
Jeffrey Allen Rydell		#2	[-]
(12/30/07 4:23 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	dhtreptow wrote: I feel like they have bested Image and AB on a couple occasions. There TCM is great-looking, their ASYLUM is way better than the Image DVD, they also released much-improved DVDs of TRILOGY OF TERROR, SPIDER BABY, DEVIL'S RAIN, and EATEN ALIVE. On the whole I'm fairly enthusiastic about them. I wish their DVD of COUNT DRACULA had the woman searching for her stolen infant, but it's much nicer-looking that the Kinowelt and Spanish imports. I tend to think Image would have done just fine had they been willing or able to revisit those titles. Well, maybe not Image, they've kinda lost the plot when it comes to these sorts of things themselves. Point being, those were all early, non-anamorphic discs that somebody was gonna revisit. And outside of a VCI CHILDREN-style cock-up, they would have to be considered improvements. I don't think Dark Sky's COUNT DRACULA looks as good as it ought to, just better than its competition. I think my biggest issue with Dark Sky is probably connected to their deal with MONSTERS HD - the whole '1.78:1 fits all' thing. HORROR OF PARTY BEACH last night really put me off. - Jeff
dhtreptow		#3	[-]
(12/30/07 6:11 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I hope they hang in there though, who's left? Synapse, Blue Underground, Mondo Maccabro, BCI, Noshame, and Shriekshow have all had their stinkers and are all releasing a fraction of what they once did. On a side note, I've seen the other COUNT DRACULA's and they all have the same cropping, even the old Republic VHS. Were talking about the Franco film and not the BBC thing right?
Jeffrey Allen Rydell		#4	[-]
(12/30/07 6:44 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	dhtreptow wrote: I hope they hang in there though, who's left? Synapse, Blue Underground, Mondo Maccabro, BCI, Noshame, and Shriekshow have all had their stinkers and are all releasing a fraction of what they once did. On a side note, I've seen the other COUNT DRACULA's and they all have the same cropping, even the old Republic VHS. Were talking about the Franco film and not the BBC thing right? Right - the Franco. And I don't actually want anybody to go anywhere - I just want them to not fall into avoidable traps, and to make the most of the properties they license. - Jeff
dhtreptow		#5	[-]
(12/30/07 7:16 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Oh I agree, it's just that none of these outfits has a 100% batting average, and I just wanted to give them some credit where it's do.
Koukol 5		#6	[-]
(12/30/07 8:46 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I'm perfectly happy with SLAUGHTER OF THE VAMPIRES. I would rather have the widescreen look over the full screen...it didn't feel cramped to me.
Jeffrey Allen Rydell		#7	[-]
(12/30/07 9:38 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Koukol 5 wrote: I'm perfectly happy with SLAUGHTER OF THE VAMPIRES. I would rather have the widescreen look over the full screen...it didn't feel cramped to me. I think it looks very cramped, myself. The Retromedia full-screen was worse overall, but Dark Sky's source is cropped on all four sides then matted top and bottom. At the very least, the thing to do would have been to present the film at 1.66. - Jeff
dhtreptow		#8	[-]
(12/31/07 1:27 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	...and then there is the problem with SLAUGHTER OF THE VAMPIRES being lethally dull after the first five minutes
Gil Ray		#9	[-]
(12/31/07 1:38 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Jeffrey Allen Rydell wrote: Koukol 5 wrote: I'm perfectly happy with SLAUGHTER OF THE VAMPIRES. I would rather have the widescreen look over the full screen...it didn't feel cramped to me. I think it looks very cramped, myself. The Retromedia full-screen was worse overall, but Dark Sky's source is cropped on all four sides then matted top and bottom. At the very least, the thing to do would have been to present the film at 1.66. Why would they do this? Not really a rhetorical question, but I would like to know why a company would go to the trouble of matting a cropped image? Don't they know what they're doing? Is there any monetary gain for them to be doing this? Are they and any other company that does this, think they are riding the letterbox wave? Questions, questions, questions.....! Gil Last Edited By: Gil Ray 12/31/07 1:40 AM. Edited 1 times.
Paul Haight		#10	[-]
(12/31/07 2:38 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	The overall AV quality on the Dark Sky disc of THE FLESH EATERS is the best I've ever seen or heard for this title, so I'm glad to have it, but I don't think it should have been matted; below are frame grabs from Sinister's DVD-R (on the left) and the Dark Sky disc (on the right). The compositions on the left look better to me.
Jeffrey Allen Rydell		#11	[-]
(12/31/07 4:37 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Gil Ray wrote: Why would they do this? Not really a rhetorical question, but I would like to know why a company would go to the trouble of matting a cropped image? Don't they know what they're doing? Is there any monetary gain for them to be doing this? Are they and any other company that does this, think they are riding the letterbox wave? Questions, questions, questions.....! I'm about knackered, so more tomorrow, but most of the transfers Dark Sky releases were originally commissioned for broadcast on MonstersHD, who are most interested in filling up the 1.78 ratio native to the format. In early days they ran almost everything (2.35 and 1.33 alike) at 1.78, and have backed way off on the practice after vocal criticism by subscribers. Unfortunately, when it comes to titles that might well be widescreen - but require special attention (because they're 1.66, are haphazardly composed, or utilize a source that's been cropped for some prior reason), they seem to be simply re-conforming them for 1.78 regardless of the negative impact. On three transfers that I've seen (BLOOD OF THE VAMPIRE, HORROR OF PARTY BEACH, and tonight's viewing of CURSE OF THE LIVING CORPSE), the title sequences are presented in some bizarro ratio (1.45, 1.55, something like that) to prevent the text from spilling out past its confines. Something just isn't being properly addressed here. Upon reflection, my bigger 'beef' is probably with MonstersHD. Except of course that Dark Sky's selling a tangible product using the same masters. - Jeff
Jeffrey Allen Rydell		#12	[-]
(12/31/07 4:37 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Paul Haight wrote: The overall AV quality on the Dark Sky disc of THE FLESH EATERS is the best I've ever seen or heard for this title, so I'm glad to have it, but I don't think it should have been matted; below are frame grabs from Sinister's DVD-R (on the left) and the Dark Sky disc (on the right). The compositions on the left look better to me. It looks like 1.66 might have been the way to go here. - Jeff
killer meteor		#13	[-]
(12/31/07 6:06 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I'm pretty sure Horror Of Party Beach is widescreen. But indeed, a telecine operator could zoom in too much or position the picture wrong, then you've got a repeat of what Warners did with Horror Of Dracula
George Reis		#14	[-]
(12/31/07 12:01 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I have an original 1964 pressbook for THE FLESH EATERS, and in the information section, it states the film as having a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. George Reis
dhtreptow		#15	[-]
(12/31/07 12:33 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I'm actually liking the WS version of those FLESH EATERS shots.
BijouBob8mm		#16	[-]
(12/31/07 1:05 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	the compression is crap on WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? and COUNT DRACULA (and I'm convinced COUNT isn't a full-frame transfer at all, but a side-crop). COUNT DRACULA does look as if the compositions are missing picture information, and I was very disappointed that the feature was missing the sequence where the mother comes to the castle, begging for her child's return. (Still hanging onto my Republic Home Video of the film for that reason.) I also wish they would have included the Dracula documentary done with Lee during the film's production. On a more positive note, I have been very happy with their Amicus titles. I'm perfectly happy with SLAUGHTER OF THE VAMPIRES. Jog my memory: Which company gave us the more complete cut of this, Dark Sky or Retromedia?
George Reis	Re: Dark Sky Films	#17	[-]
(12/31/07 1:09 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Jog my memory: Which company gave us the more complete cut of this, Dark Sky or Retromedia? Dark Sky George Reis
BijouBob8mm		#18	[-]
(12/31/07 1:57 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Thanks, George!
Gil Ray		#19	[-]
(12/31/07 3:19 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Jeffrey Allen Rydell wrote: Gil Ray wrote: Why would they do this? Not really a rhetorical question, but I would like to know why a company would go to the trouble of matting a cropped image? Don't they know what they're doing? Is there any monetary gain for them to be doing this? Are they and any other company that does this, think they are riding the letterbox wave? Questions, questions, questions.....! I'm about knackered, so more tomorrow, but most of the transfers Dark Sky releases were originally commissioned for broadcast on MonstersHD, who are most interested in filling up the 1.78 ratio native to the format. In early days they ran almost everything (2.35 and 1.33 alike) at 1.78, and have backed way off on the practice after vocal criticism by subscribers. Unfortunately, when it comes to titles that might well be widescreen - but require special attention (because they're 1.66, are haphazardly composed, or utilize a source that's been cropped for some prior reason), they seem to be simply re-conforming them for 1.78 regardless of the negative impact. On three transfers that I've seen (BLOOD OF THE VAMPIRE, HORROR OF PARTY BEACH, and tonight's viewing of CURSE OF THE LIVING CORPSE), the title sequences are presented in some bizarro ratio (1.45, 1.55, something like that) to prevent the text from spilling out past its confines. Something just isn't being properly addressed here. Upon reflection, my bigger 'beef' is probably with MonstersHD. Except of course that Dark Sky's selling a tangible product using the same masters. Thanks, Jeffrey. It's starting to make sense to me. Too bad there aren't instructions on the prints to take the guess work out, though! Gil
TServo4		#20	[-]
(12/31/07 3:43 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	BLOOD OF THE VAMPIRE should not be shown in anything less than 1.66:1 (it's hard matted practically the entire film that way), so I have no idea about the opening credits. I haven't watched Dark Sky's DVD of the film, so I don't know what it looks like aside from some of the screen caps some people have posted, but BLOOD is a strangely shot film, period. However, I dug out a reel of the film (which I have in lab sections) and did some scans. It would seem to me that correctly framed, there should be nothing important lost at 1.85:1 (cyan border is 1.85:1, red is 1.66:1). and just for S&Gs: J. Theakston The Central Theater, Passaic, NJ

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Dark Sky Films

Dark Sky Films

Quick Reply