or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Halloween 35th Anniversary
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Halloween 35th Anniversary - Page 5

post #121 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shingster View Post

Croweyes, just continue to ignore this guy's posts completely. We all know the score, so there's no real need for you to defend yourself. That way we can keep the thread on-topic.
Way ahead of you. wink.gif

I'm still trying to decide what I think of the altered (well, I guess, more faithful) color timing on this new edition. Part of me does miss the warm palette, yet another part appreciates the drabness as well. Logically, I know you can't really have both...yet I want both! lol Thoughts?
post #122 of 273
The disc's timing was supervised (not approved, but supervised) by Dean Cundey. Imo, it really doesn't matter what someone who will never watch the disc thinks of the color timing.
post #123 of 273
Thread cleaned. Most of you have been here long enough to know better. Continued attacks on posters will result in an infraction and ban from this thread. What happens at other sites, stays there.

S~
post #124 of 273
Greatly appreciated, thank you. smile.gif
post #125 of 273
Wow. what did I miss? Last time I was in here everything was fine. eek.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

This quote from the Hi-Fi Digest review expresses the same type of disapointment I felt: "However, we still must contend with the fact that the story loses some of its effectiveness when it no longer feels like it takes place on Halloween night. "

That nails it for me. The new transfer just doesn't *feel* like Halloween night for me anymore. It really loses something from this. Again, this is a subjective opinion/reaction, but I know I'm not the only one who
finds the new color timing a bit of a bummer.

BAM! That's it. I see little difference between these two transfers. They both look like green California with some dead leaves thrown about. When I received the first BluRay way back when I watched it with the wife and despite her being born and raised in SE Asia and not having experienced all the variety of weather and scenery the USA has to offer, halfway through she turned to me and said, "Did they film this in California? This doesn't look like Halloween at all."

Good grief, if SHE felt that way I knew I wasn't crazy. I actually pulled the BD out of PS3 and popped the 99 THX DVD in and despite it being blurry as heck in comparison, suddenly it felt right and the wife immediately got into it. It scared the pants off of her (which was great for me later that night). wink.gif

Anyway, no way are we going to get anything else on this title and with the obvious screwing the pooch on the audio the first Blu-Ray is actually the more desirable to me.
post #126 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Wow. what did I miss? Last time I was in here everything was fine. eek.gif
BAM! That's it. I see little difference between these two transfers. They both look like green California with some dead leaves thrown about. When I received the first BluRay way back when I watched it with the wife and despite her being born and raised in SE Asia and not having experienced all the variety of weather and scenery the USA has to offer, halfway through she turned to me and said, "Did they film this in California? This doesn't look like Halloween at all."

Good grief, if SHE felt that way I knew I wasn't crazy. I actually pulled the BD out of PS3 and popped the 99 THX DVD in and despite it being blurry as heck in comparison, suddenly it felt right and the wife immediately got into it. It scared the pants off of her (which was great for me later that night). wink.gif

Anyway, no way are we going to get anything else on this title and with the obvious screwing the pooch on the audio the first Blu-Ray is actually the more desirable to me.
In regards to the bolded part, not to point out the obvious, but that's because that's exactly what was shot - green California with some dead leaves thrown about. The THX version was clearly revisionist. If you prefer that version, great, but it's not what was released in 1978.
post #127 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croweyes1121 View Post

I'm still trying to decide what I think of the altered (well, I guess, more faithful) color timing on this new edition. Part of me does miss the warm palette, yet another part appreciates the drabness as well. Logically, I know you can't really have both...yet I want both! lol Thoughts?
I'm in the UK so it's gonna be another month before I can sit down and watch it in motion, but my initial reaction to the screenshots was very positive with just a hint of disappointment at how desaturated the daytime sequences look. I was never that attached to the autumnal look of the THX DVD so colour timing isn't too much of an issue for me, but I do wonder if Cundey has maybe toned down the look of the daytime sequences to give the film a gloomier feel. I also wonder if there would be so many complaints about the colour timing had the daytime sequences been more saturated (without the fall timing).

This is Anchor Bay though, so maybe next year we'll get a super-SE set with an "autumnal remaster" included on a second disc or something! Why they didn't think of doing that this time though, I'll never know!
post #128 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Dolittle View Post

I just played the scene where Loomis shoots MM and there definitely is a click when the gun is empty. My source is the Meda VHS tape from 1979. As far as I know, this was the first video release of Halloween. Hope this helps in your research.smile.gif


I can't believe how bad the picture looks! I guess HD has spoiled us.

Incredible! I solute you for keeping that copy all these years! And, I bet you can easily tell that the copy is from a road print with scratches dust and other worn down film elements. Another words, I bet it does not look like it came from the original negative or from a interpositive. If it did, I'd be very surprised.

Another thing, if there was a home video release of "Halloween" earlier than the copy you have, it would have defiantly been a bootleg! Halloween after all, had only come out less than a year before that!

Here's a video of a guy who has two versions of Halloween from 1978! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYh9deLA1ms According to this guy, you do have the first one because it's from Meda and not Media (Media being the 2nd release from 1978.)


About the picture quality; I'm sure it's more then just the VHS's lower resolution your talking about. The improvements in the "basic" transferring from film to video has of course greatly improved. For later VHS releases, there had been great strives in the technology used for film to video transfers in the early to mid 80s to improve contrast and low level information. Other improvement included using sources much closer to the original recordings and sometimes even from the original negative, especially for laserdisc. And probably one of the biggest improvements today (besides resolution and the equipment it's played back on,) is the use of much more strict color control and it's standards (wider color gamut) along with the difficult task of reproducing color that's the same or as close as possible as the original recordings.

And then of course (and often overlooked, except for many here on AVS;) is the last part of the chain in the home, the display. All the work to encode someone else's work while using original source material is all moot if the equipment used to view it from is not calibrated to give the best representation of the encoded signal.
post #129 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSUL View Post

Is is not sad that, for some reason, we get excited at the prospect of a bluray release (or re-release in some instances) of a film near and dear to us, only to find out 'something is not right' with it.
Be it proper framing, correct aspect ratio, color timing, audio, edits.....maddening!

It makes me wonder who is in charge in these decisions and why more thought and attention to detail is not being used.

I think very early on, it didn't matter except for the very few who knew the differences. Just the fact a movie that could be shown FULL LENGH in the home, uncut and without commercial interruption was a breakthrough. Another words, just the fact it worked was quite amazing! Also during the late 1970s, there was another way to watch theatrical movies in the home, that being the use of 16mm and 8mm film. A very costly purchase along with much dedication for each viewing and of course, the cost of bulbs. Even with those disadvantages, resolution, screen size, color and with some releases, correct aspect ratios was achieved. Unfortunately, full length movies were mostly cut down to 20 minutes or so to keep expenses down! Here's an example of one! http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Super-8mm-Jaws-2-400ft-Letterbox-version-Sound-P2-/281092235790?nma=true&si=HsBagNz%252BUfwylZx1FxNVefRdVRk%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 To see something like that in the home was something else!


TVs during that time was 1:37:1 and many would have been confused if original aspect ratios would have been used, so the ratios were cropped to fit TVs of the day. When letterboxing was first used, many have screamed then, and some still do today; even with the wider HDTV screens we're accustomed to today. Though thankfully, it's much less of an issue because of the larger screen sizes being sold today.

Music many times through the years has been altered because getting the rights for home video release is sometimes very costly or difficult at best. In some cases, certain movies have been delayed for years because of this very issue. Of course today that's not a problem since today's movie agreements include home video usage.

Edits like you say, can be maddening. Unless, it's clearly stated a movie had been altered in some way and a good reason given; we should all scream if something has been altered.

And of course brightness, contrast and color. All of those items continues to improve and can be pretty close to being spot on even given the fact there are still differences between how something looks on film when compared to how it looks on video. However, those kinds of details (particularly with older movies;) can be lost if certain key people are not involved with the transfer or are no longer around.

Today with high end home video equipment being what it cost, along with those who have dedicated theatre rooms and use their own calibration equipment, (or paying someone to calibrate their equipment) to keep everything on spec, it's not surprising or unreasonable (at least to me;) of those who get "excited" about something not being exactly the same as it was while being displayed in a high end movie theatre.


The theatrical experience in the home, after all; is the stated goal.
post #130 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croweyes1121 View Post

Way ahead of you. wink.gif

I'm still trying to decide what I think of the altered (well, I guess, more faithful) color timing on this new edition. Part of me does miss the warm palette, yet another part appreciates the drabness as well. Logically, I know you can't really have both...yet I want both! lol Thoughts?


Have you ever listened to a favorite song for a number of years thinking the lyrics (in one part of the song) was saying one thing, when in reality it was something completely different?

That's happened to me! And yes, the song did not seem the same to me for a long, long long time! Then after a while, I got used to it.

There is a big difference here however. The lyrics in the song were never changed, regardless of what version of that song I heard. Whether it was from my car stereo, portable audio player, home audio system and regardless if the source was from a record, cassette, CD, Blu-ray, AM, FM or Satellite radio. I simply always misunderstood a few of the words.

As far as the added fall colors from that one DVD release, I'd be mad at the person who made me think it looked one way, when in reality; it was really different the whole time!
post #131 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shingster View Post

I'm in the UK so it's gonna be another month before I can sit down and watch it in motion, but my initial reaction to the screenshots was very positive with just a hint of disappointment at how desaturated the daytime sequences look. I was never that attached to the autumnal look of the THX DVD so colour timing isn't too much of an issue for me, but I do wonder if Cundey has maybe toned down the look of the daytime sequences to give the film a gloomier feel. I also wonder if there would be so many complaints about the colour timing had the daytime sequences been more saturated (without the fall timing).

This is Anchor Bay though, so maybe next year we'll get a super-SE set with an "autumnal remaster" included on a second disc or something! Why they didn't think of doing that this time though, I'll never know!

If in fact Cundey had toned down the look of the daytime sequences, then it's possible that's the way it originally was. Again, we'd have to go back to the original road prints to see what the movie looked like, or the interpositive to see what was really intended.

The last Blu-ray edition was over saturated and may have been done so to look good on everyone's brand new HDTVs. I remember (and this still goes on today,) there were many blu-rays where movies (old and new) were scrubbed to smooth over film grain to give it more of a "clean" video look. This was (and still is done) to please a segment of HDTV owners who may think movies in HD are suppose to look as bright and colorful as HD sporting events. I think it's a look to please a small segment who don't know better. I mean like "Wow, look how my HDTV makes this movie look!!"

I'd like to believe most now know the differences and the people involved are much more serious about reproducing movies to look and feel how they were originally recorded, and/or projected. (Side note; I stated "recorded" since most times what's seen in theatres is many generations away from the original negative.) Of course with digital cinema, we do see how the original recordings look regardless if it was originally shot on film or digital.


It's about the people who did the creating, not those who think it looks better some other way; even with the capability to manipulate images in ways never thought possible. And with that being said, I believe there's now a greater number of those who believe unaltered versions of our favorite treasures look best.



A colorized version of Casablanca anyone?
post #132 of 273
Casablanca was released on VHS w/colorized version...but back on topic.
Halloween is being shown at Movie Tavern locations in October.
We know this will be a digital presentation, so I hope those of us that go to see it, will return to this thread and give their thoughts.

Honestly, I have experienced some good/bad/ugly moments watching some classic films in digital. At times I do not think the image is as bright as it should be....like I recall in seeing the film in the theater originally....like they reduced the power on the projector to save electricity or something.

It will be interesting to see the quality of this upcoming presentation.
post #133 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSUL View Post

We know this will be a digital presentation, so I hope those of us that go to see it, will return to this thread and give their thoughts.
I'm expecting it to share most things in common with this latest blu release. That's likely the source they'll use. But who knows. It'd certainly be of more interest (IMO) to see a 35mm print with the original audio. That I'd pay to see in theaters.
post #134 of 273
A 35mm print would be awesome.....and a few theaters in CA and other select movie houses that specialize in classic films may indeed do just that.
post #135 of 273
I've just submitted my review of this release to br authority. Should be up Monday or Tuesday. It occurred to me in the closing lines of the review why this release is so divisive. In order to fully enjoy it, you have to be:

Enough of a purist that you want the film looking like it did in 1978 (even if the colors - arguably - aren't as pleasing to look at).

...but enough of a non-purist that you don't care at all about the film sounding like it did in 1978.

...but enough of a purist to be totally disinterested in watching the extra scenes incorporated into the film, even as an option.

...yet casual enough of an enthusiast that you won't care about all the extras that didn't port over from the earlier editions.

When I looked at it that way, I realized that this really had no choice but to piss off most people. lol
post #136 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croweyes1121 View Post

It occurred to me in the closing lines of the review why this release is so divisive. In order to fully enjoy it, you have to be:

Enough of a purist that you want the film looking like it did in 1978 (even if the colors - arguably - aren't as pleasing to look at).

...but enough of a non-purist that you don't care at all about the film sounding like it did in 1978.

This is so well articulated. Exactly right.
post #137 of 273
If it's a digital viewing, it's basically just the Blu-ray being projected.
post #138 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croweyes1121 View Post

I've just submitted my review of this release to br authority. Should be up Monday or Tuesday. It occurred to me in the closing lines of the review why this release is so divisive. In order to fully enjoy it, you have to be:

Enough of a purist that you want the film looking like it did in 1978 (even if the colors - arguably - aren't as pleasing to look at).

...but enough of a non-purist that you don't care at all about the film sounding like it did in 1978.

...but enough of a purist to be totally disinterested in watching the extra scenes incorporated into the film, even as an option.

...yet casual enough of an enthusiast that you won't care about all the extras that didn't port over from the earlier editions.

When I looked at it that way, I realized that this really had no choice but to piss off most people. lol
It's a cliche, But damned if you do and damned if you don't. I'll be looking for your review. smile.gif
post #139 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSUL View Post

A 35mm print would be awesome.....and a few theaters in CA and other select movie houses that specialize in classic films may indeed do just that.

That is, if the studio will actually let them have a print. There's rules about these movies where they only have one or no prints, and if they do have a print of a film, they will only let them show the movie if they present it from the 20 minute reels; meaning the theatre has to be capable of doing changeovers. The reason, every time a movie is sent, it's spliced together and then cut. Every time that happens, frames of the film get cut and after a while, there will be gaps every 20 minutes or so that will get worse and worse.

That's not a problem when there's hundreds or thousands of prints out there. However with an industry changing over to digital and doing it's best to save money, things change.


By the way, I had just seen a road print of the movie American Graffiti (1973) yesterday at a drive-in. From the looks of the print, it may have well have been around since day one! The print was beat to hell and really fun to watch!
Edited by Thebarnman - 9/29/13 at 11:28pm
post #140 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

If it's a digital viewing, it's basically just the Blu-ray being projected.




The theatrical exhibition of a digital movie is either the standard 2k or 4k. Most digital theatres today are 2k with only a few theatres capable of displaying 4k. I have read about a theatre that had actually shown a Blu-ray as the source of the movie, (with the writer claiming they had seen the menu system of the Blu-ray etc.) I have no idea if that's standard practice or not. I have a feeling it's not.

Technically, the information from a Blu-ray is only slightly less than what would be available from a movie digitally encoded onto a hard drive supplied by a distributor, therefore; the picture would be slightly less quality than standard 2k projection as far as resolution is concerned. Then there's other factors involved such as the calibration of the output signal from a Blu-ray player and if it totally meets the standards of what the server and/or digital projector is expecting to receive. A digital projector may only play back information that needs to be unlocked by the distributor, copywrite holder or some other company. The unlocking part is true. However, I have no idea if a digital projector will allow for the playback of source material without needing a keycode to allow playback. And that goes for anything such as sporting events or any other special engagements.

Still, I'd be very surprised if a distributer would allow the projection of a Blu-ray where patrons are paying, simply if not for the loss of control of many aspects of the exhibition; such as the amount of times it's presented in a day and for how many days.


Just for argument's sake from what I've been reading in this thread, the presentation of the 35th anniversary edition of "Halloween" (1978) could actually be better than a transfer a distributor might be able to get a hold of. Even so, it doesn't make it right.
post #141 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

The theatrical exhibition of a digital movie is either the standard 2k or 4k. Most digital theatres today are 2k with only a few theatres capable of displaying 4k. I have read about a theatre that had actually shown a Blu-ray as the source of the movie, (with the writer claiming they had seen the menu system of the Blu-ray etc.) I have no idea if that's standard practice or not. I have a feeling it's not.

Technically, the information from a Blu-ray is only slightly less than what would be available from a movie digitally encoded onto a hard drive supplied by a distributor, therefore; the picture would be slightly less quality than standard 2k projection as far as resolution is concerned. Then there's other factors involved such as the calibration of the output signal from a Blu-ray player and if it totally meets the standards of what the server and/or digital projector is expecting to receive. A digital projector may only play back information that needs to be unlocked by the distributor, copywrite holder or some other company. The unlocking part is true. However, I have no idea if a digital projector will allow for the playback of source material without needing a keycode to allow playback. And that goes for anything such as sporting events or any other special engagements.

Still, I'd be very surprised if a distributer would allow the projection of a Blu-ray where patrons are paying, simply if not for the loss of control of many aspects of the exhibition; such as the amount of times it's presented in a day and for how many days.


Just for argument's sake from what I've been reading in this thread, the presentation of the 35th anniversary edition of "Halloween" (1978) could actually be better than a transfer a distributor might be able to get a hold of. Even so, it doesn't make it right.

Incorrect. Most digital theatres in the US now have 4K projection systems installed as of the end of this year. Theatres can use Blu-Ray for one-off presentations of films that do not have a DCP available, which many older films do not, but a satellite feed is the most common way of presenting older films of that nature. Sony however, is making 4K DCPs of it's older films that have been re-mastered in 4K so smaller theatres like Alamo Drafthouse can exhibit them easily.
post #142 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post

Incorrect. Most digital theatres in the US now have 4K projection systems installed as of the end of this year.


I didn't realize most theatres have switched from 2k to 4k projectors. Just the cost of the 2k equipment alone is huge (not including the server, upgrades in the projection booth and support service) and then to spend that much money (per digital projector) on each of the screens. In my area, there's only a couple AMC theatres that possibly have 4k, however as far as I know, the rest I know of have 2k projectors without any plans to switch to 4k anytime soon, if ever.


Do you know of the theatres that have switched to 4k, if it's on all their screens, or only on their biggest screen?



I haven't bought Halloween (1978) since it's first DVD release and I only watched it once! I also have a laserdisc copy of it. I withheld the purchase when it was first released on Blu-ray, simply because of all the talk of the enhancement of the color and how it looks different from the film.

Now I'm very excited to buy the new 35th anniversary edition because of the reviews on how it looks like it did when it first arrived to theatres in 1978. I ordered it and can't wait for it to arrive!!!
post #143 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

Now I'm very excited to buy the new 35th anniversary edition because of the reviews on how it looks like it did when it first arrived to theatres in 1978.
As long as you don't mind it not sounding like it did in 1978, you should be pleased with the purchase. It does look very good.
post #144 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croweyes1121 View Post

As long as you don't mind it not sounding like it did in 1978, you should be pleased with the purchase. It does look very good.
I didn't mind...the PQ was incred, and yeah (I'll have to use a cliché that is frowned on here), the 7.1 mix was good enough for me. And I say that as a life long musician myself. I appreciate the detailed breakdown, Croweyes, I listened to your entire piece! But eh, the various parts you pointed out are for the most part present, just different, I can live with that on this title.
post #145 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croweyes1121 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

Now I'm very excited to buy the new 35th anniversary edition because of the reviews on how it looks like it did when it first arrived to theatres in 1978.
As long as you don't mind it not sounding like it did in 1978, you should be pleased with the purchase. It does look very good.

Any updates? Its a shame such a perfect looking Blu is messed up by the audio. In case you missed it on the other forum, the scene where Annie screams "speed kills", has been altered on the 7.1 mix (not the mono mix). The music no longer speeds up!
post #146 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamus View Post

Any updates? Its a shame such a perfect looking Blu is messed up by the audio. In case you missed it on the other forum, the scene where Annie screams "speed kills", has been altered on the 7.1 mix (not the mono mix). The music no longer speeds up!
Good grief. Someone seriously dropped the ball on this audio. That's a classic moment of the music underscoring Michael's intent. Unreal. As for updates, my review is up (BR authority). Thanks for the update on the speed kills scene. It just astounds me that things like that can be arbitrarily altered and become accepted.

PS: I'm not in charge of the stills, I'm aware that that first shot is from Halloween 5, I have no idea why it was selected. lol
post #147 of 273
I have been to screenings in NYC that turned out to be Blu-Ray projections. It happens more often than you'd think.
post #148 of 273
Local libraries often show movies, and almost 99.9% use a dvd or bluray......on very rare occasions, a 16mm print.
post #149 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

I didn't realize most theatres have switched from 2k to 4k projectors. Just the cost of the 2k equipment alone is huge (not including the server, upgrades in the projection booth and support service) and then to spend that much money (per digital projector) on each of the screens. In my area, there's only a couple AMC theatres that possibly have 4k, however as far as I know, the rest I know of have 2k projectors without any plans to switch to 4k anytime soon, if ever.


Do you know of the theatres that have switched to 4k, if it's on all their screens, or only on their biggest screen?

Cost is really not an issue. A lot of "migration" happened in the past four years thanks to agreements between projector makers and theatre chains. 2K systems were initially installed in many theatres a few years ago as part of the "digital cinema rollout", with the ability to upgrade the projectors to 4K with simple hardware swaps that can be done quickly and easily as the digital servers have been 4K compliant from the get-go. AMC is using Sony projectors and have upgraded all if not almost all of their 4600+ screens to 4K Sony projectors by this time as they signed an agreement with Sony to do a full 4K move a few years back to be completed by this year, though not all of the projectors are the same models due to availability when the upgrades were performed. Other chains will likely be entirely 4K by the end of 2014/2015 as 4K laser projectors are hitting the digital cinema market next year, with some already installed in select theatres for testing.

AFAIK, all theatres that have 4K installed at this point have them on all screens because that's how the original agreements were hashed out, though it's not uncommon to have a theatre where there are multiple projectors used for different purposes such as advertisements and pre-show stuff. Presentations of things like live concerts and one-shot events are usually done using B-Team equipment instead of the digital cinema projector installed in the booth as wear on the bulb of a cinema projector adds up quickly, hence the switch to laser projection methods where the elements last five times as long or longer.
post #150 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post

Incorrect. Most digital theatres in the US now have 4K projection systems installed as of the end of this year.

I would love to see a source for this claim.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Halloween 35th Anniversary