Night of the Living Scrotum 1990

[Griff]

Hey gang. I'm trying to solve a mystery here and maybe you can all help me.

I seem to remember that in the 1990 remake of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, when the autopsy zombie makes his appearance and you see him naked from behind, you could make out his scrotum as he stumbles towards the car with Babs in it.

Now, on the DVD and HDTV versions, his balls are definitely not visible. However, its quite a dark, shadowy area down there and they could have been optically painted out quite easily.

The workprints that I have seen are of poor quality and are of little use for checking such a small detail (no offense to the actor).

Anyway, can anyone else confirm that their old VHS version contained a glimpse of the zombie's testicles in this shot?

I'm going off my memory of the old Aussie VHS tape which also featured b&w closing credits, unlike the black&orange/umber ones that the DVD and HDTV versions feature. Perhaps there's a correlation between the two differences?

If anyone from any country could check their old VHS tapes and confirm the presence (or lack) of balls - along with which version of the end credits are featured - it would be greatly appreciated. I need to put this issue to rest.

Cheers.

[capncnut]

In the shot from behind the corpse, the 'gooch' area between balls and anus are definitely visible in the version aired on UK cable around the mid-nineties. Orange hue ending.

[Sammich]

Man, why do you want to be staring at some dude's junk anyway?

[Griff]

In the shot from behind the corpse, the 'gooch' area between balls and anus are definitely visible in the version aired on UK cable around the mid-nineties. Orange hue ending.

Thanks, capn.

Somebody has just confirmed for me that the autopsy zombie's balls do indeed make a brief cameo in the Australian VHS version and that that version contains the B&W end credits sequence. He compared it against the US DVD and said that the nuts have definitely been obscured in that version (sepia credits).

So, it'd be interesting to get an idea of where and when this little bit of censorship started happening. The Aussie tape was released in Oct of 1992. I also had a bootleg tape of the film just a few months prior to that which was balls-enhanced and had the b&w credits so it can't be the only source.

Check your versions, people!


Man, why do you want to be staring at some dude's junk anyway?

I don't ever recall expressing such a desire...

[Neil]

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg577/scaled.php?server=577&filename=abandonthreadh.gif&res=landing

[bassman]

On the R1 dvd release(below), I'm fairly certain his genital area can be seen. I'm not sure if it's his scrotum but there is definitely a hairy area in that shot. Kinda disturbing, but the angle of the shot just begs you to take notice. :lol:

This version also ends with the orange-ish credits. This is the first i've heard of a b&w version.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rhu9OqI6TRQ/TVoOB4GyNdI/AAAAAAAAAG8/emJPhA8wnAQ/s1600/night+of+the+living+dead+1990.jpg


Perhaps all these question would be answered if we ever see the release of the director's cut blu ray that Savini promised ages ago....

[Griff]

On the R1 dvd release(below), I'm fairly certain his genital area can be seen. I'm not sure if it's his scrotum but there is definitely a hairy area in that shot. Kinda disturbing, but the angle of the shot just begs you to take notice. :lol:

This version also ends with the orange-ish credits. This is the first i've heard of a b&w version.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTY3ODQ2NzczNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDg0MjkyMQ@@._ V1._SY317_CR3,0,214,317_.jpg


Yup. I've got that version and there was definitely more "on show" in the old tape I remember.



Perhaps all these question would be answered if we ever see the release of the director's cut blu ray that Savini promised ages ago....

Twilight Time are releasing this on blu ray in October. They do a limited run of 3000 units, usually with no special features (though they may recycle the DVD ones if we're lucky). They have a 3 year exclusivity contract with Sony so there won't be another edition along anytime soon - not that Sony seem interested in this title if they're farming it out to TT.


http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg577/scaled.php?server=577&filename=abandonthreadh.gif&res=landing

Now, now, Neil. Everybody loves a good mystery - and The Case of the Missing Zombie Scrotum is one of the best!

[bassman]

Twilight Time are releasing this on blu ray in October. They do a limited run of 3000 units, usually with no special features (though they may recycle the DVD ones if we're lucky). They have a 3 year exclusivity contract with Sony so there won't be another edition along anytime soon - not that Sony seem interested in this title if they're farming it out to TT.


Well that's sad news. A year or two back someone interviewed Savini and he said he was currently working on a director's cut for blu ray....

[krisvds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHnFK8PK20&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL35A4D1B260F55EE7

[rongravy]

Balls.

[Rancid Carcass]

"It is confirmed that the testicles of the recently deceased are returning to life and attacking the living..."

[Sammich]

I don't ever recall expressing such a desire...

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with looking at mooseknuckles and I fully support you in your quest for 1080p hairy hangers.

[krakenslayer]

I scrolled down this thread REALLY carefully, just like when I used to look at Encyclopedia Dramatica, in the fear that someone might have posted a huge and horrific image halfway down the page.

[rongravy]

"It is confirmed that the testicles of the recently deceased are returning to life and attacking the living..."
"TEABAGGING the living..."

[paranoid101]

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8418/tarmane.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/441/tarmane.jpg/)

Would have been an all different Genre

[Griff]

So nobody's got NOTLD90 on tape? I must be on the wrong website...

[Griff]

So, I got my hands on a VHS copy and I've analysed the footage extensively. The verdict?

They're the same. Nothing has been altered. The transfer used for the tape, however, is significantly brighter overall, unveiling details otherwise lost in the darker pallet of the DVD. This is explains why the zombie's scrotum was more prominent on the VHS. But, hey, don't just take my word for it - are we not men of science, afterall? Observe:

http://i.imgur.com/7lSoI.gif

SEE?

Sorry to have alarmed you all. Back to the intelligent, non-zombie-scrotum-related discussion.

[Rancid Carcass]

The transfer used for the tape, however, is significantly brighter overall, unveiling details otherwise lost in the darker pallet of the DVD. This is explains why the zombie's scrotum was more prominent on the VHS.

So you could say your findings were a load of old bollocks?!! :elol: :D

[Griff]

So you could say your findings were a load of old bollocks?!! :elol: :D

Why, yes, I suppose you could...

[babomb]

Let me be the 1st to say-Dead Balls Don't Hang!!!!

[SymphonicX]

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with looking at mooseknuckles and I fully support you in your quest for 1080p hairy hangers.

omfg win.

-- -------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

So this is probably due to the VHS having a lesser colour spectrum than the mordern formats.
I'm not really clued up on the deliverable formats of VHS vs DVD etc in this respect...I can tell you a bit about TV's colour spectrum...

Usually it depends on the satellite operator/broadcaster...but where I work we have what is known as a "safe colour" area. This is part of the RGB spectrum which exists within a "safe" ratio...don't forget colour is measured in temperature - and here we broadcast RGB values clipped at -16 to 235....the full range is 0 to 255 - this is best illustrated when you use Photoshop to pick a colour, and the top corner colour is always measured as 255 somewhere.

What this means is that the black colours are slightly greyer, and the whites are slightly duller. This is to ensure that when broadcasting, the satellite doesn't overheat trying to produce high colour values that it can't handle.

So what you're seeing in short is probably a clipped luminence value based on the safe operating colour spectrum of VHS vs DVD - the DVDs, blu rays etc, will have a deeper and more ranged colour space - so when it's on DVD, the blacks are blacker than when you see the VHS - possibly due to it's analogue nature and however VHS actually handles pictures.

I don't come from a world where VHS is used at all - so really it's just a theory. When I started in thsi industry, VHS was already dying and was certainly only used at my company for preview purposes...even that use has completely gone now and the VHS format no longer resides here.

[babomb]

Before knowing what the image difference is caused from you have to know exactly what's being dealt with here. You have to know the resolution of the VHS image. Is it S-VHS? And how is the VHS source device connected to the device that's capturing the image? Composite(RCA jacks) has very limited brightness abilities, which doesn't always mean it will be darker, it means the color detail in it's bright and dark areas will be limited. So a composite connection basically clips the dark and light points in the image on it's own. So the signal is degraded even further from the limited source resolution.
To compensate they boost the brightness of the image during recording to VHS.
But even S-video has limitations, but in order to have true S-VHS quality the devices must be connected through S-video. S-VHS only boosts the luminance, which again doesn't always mean brighter image it means more detail in the entire luminance spectrum.
If you notice in the image, when it changes to the VHS image you can't even see detail in the grass, all detail in even the car is washed away. The image looks brighter, but all the detail is gone. If you boost the gamma and/or brightness in your DVD player, all that detail comes out and is much more prominent than the VHS image.
VHS also uses interlaced video, so there's an even and an odd field in the signal that come together in scanlines to make each frame. Usually 330-520 lines, I think NTSC has 330 and PAL has 520.
It's also important to know where the original footage for the DVD comes from. Is it a remastered special edition from the original film print? If so, how recent was the remastering? That technology improves constantly.
DVD does progressive scan, so it draws each frame as 1 single image which has a big effect on image quality. That added image quality makes it possible to adjust the image to suit you better. So while the VHS image seems brighter and more detailed, that's just an illusion.
The DVD image can be brightened and will still retain more detail than the VHS image. The VHS image will get worse and worse whether you lighten it or darken it. Lightening it will make all the detail in the brighter areas vanish, darkening it will do the same but in the dark areas. With the DVD image, if you adjust the gamma you can bring out all the details. The one above is just the default gamma for the source device and/or output device. So if you can adjust the gamma on the source to bring out the detail, then you can adjust the brightness and contrast on the output to make it even better. This is one of the big reasons why DVD is so much better. You can adjust all these values within the DVD player itself, before the signal gets to the output device. Then the output device processes the image again using it's own settings.
Don't forget that VHS is not digital data, and it's stored on magnetic film.
If you tried to adjust the images above you could regain SOME detail in the DVD image, but the amount of data it holds is set at the moment of capture. In order to do it right you'd have to set up the source to brighten the gamma. This brings out the detail.
So it's basically not that the VHS transfer has more details and a brighter color pallet, it's that the image on the DVD was not setup properly. Sorry OP.

[Griff]

So it's basically not that the VHS transfer has more details and a brighter color pallet, it's that the image on the DVD was not setup properly. Sorry OP.

I wasn't claiming that the VHS is more detailed than the DVD overall, just that the brighter picture has revealed some extra detail - in this case, what's going on between the zombie's legs. Brightening the DVD won't quite do the job because some of that information has been lost in the black crush.

Since there's nothing even remotely approaching 000 black on the VHS grab, and nothing approaching 255 white on the DVD grab, I felt confident in saying that the DVD had a darker palette, referring to the overall brightness level of the picture. I never inferred that one source was superior to the other, just that there was a difference.

So while I appreciate the technical sermon, you certainly needn't have offered your condolences in your conclusion.

Ultimately, if a picture says a thousand words then I'm sure you would agree that the animated comparison certainly says at least a mouthful!