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 9

post #241 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

I will say this: It concerns me when folks like Josh state the THX version of the title I own should be the same as the subsequent releases -- not that it definitely is the same...eek.gif

I don't own that disc, so I can't say with 100% certainty. However, if that copy has a THX logo on it, I feel at least 98% comfortable that it's the same transfer. Anchor Bay only struck one THX certified master for the film. Neither the older DVD release nor the later "DiViMax" edition were THX certified.
post #242 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I don't own that disc, so I can't say with 100% certainty. However, if that copy has a THX logo on it, I feel at least 98% comfortable that it's the same transfer. Anchor Bay only struck one THX certified master for the film. Neither the older DVD release nor the later "DiViMax" edition were THX certified.

That's, in a proverbial nutshell, all I wanted to know...

I'm sure it's just the "dumbed down packaging" variant of the two-disc THX-sanctioned releases of Halloween (missing the extras disc and the lenticular cover, et al) but I just wanted to be kinda sure.

Thanks.
post #243 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

I may be wrong about this, however I thought the THX version was the only THX version of Halloween out there.

There is, as we have been discussing in subsequent posts, most probably one THX transfer version of the film but Anchor Bay has released a few versions of the title with this THX certification and so that's where my confusion was coming in -- I own the variant that contains one disc but does include the "Unmasked" documentary extra and the remastered widescreen transfer (along with a pan and scan variant on the same disc, which more than likely added to compression issues) as well as the reworked Dolby Digital 5.1 track. I believe the version I picked up -- with no fancy packaging but rather just the flat, mask-only cover on the keepcase -- came out around '99 but since then there were releases of the film on DVD that came in "Limited Collectors Editions" and then, of course, the 25th Anniversary cut which boasted the DiviMax transfer (which was not the transfer seen on the THX releases)...

Confused yet?
Quote:
By the way, THX means a lot of things, though mainly in terms with the DVD copy you have, the video quality, audio, color, contrast, noise, compression (video and audio) along with a lot of other ways of measuring end quality (for example; quality checks with the disc manufacturing itself) is set up to make sure the final output disc plays back with the quality expected from the master. It's a simple (or very complex) way to make sure quality control is tight to make sure what comes out of the consumer disc is exactly what was put into it regardless of how good or bad the source, color mastering, audio good or bad etc. is. If something is poorly mastered and manufactured through THX standards, the final disc will be just as poor as the master. Nothing more, nothing less.

THX for a movie theatre is a whole other set of standards including types of wiring, audio output, distortion levels, sound isolation from one auditorium to the next etc.

I fully understand the logistics behind the THX certification process -- I wasn't making a "big deal" out of this query because I am a "THX fan boy" or anything of the like; I just wanted to know if the version I own is technically (merely) just the same THX release but without the added bonus material of subsequent releases (i.e. the aforementioned "Limited Collector's Edition" runs which looked like this:)




Now, the 25th Anniversary (Region 1) DVD came with the DiviMax treatment which supposedly "brightened up" the imagery with boosted contrast and some cleaned-up visuals but it changed the way the THX version looked, to many fans' dismay; those looked like this:


Quote:
Now let's talk about the audio from the movie Halloween. I do know, if a identical audio track level is lower on one disc and higher on another, the amplifier does not work any harder (or less hard) regardless how much more you have to turn up or down the volume. One watt is one watt, 10 watts is 10 watts and 100 watts is 100 watts (regardless on how the volume control is set.) On the other hand, if the dynamic range is extended or wider when compared to a track that's compressed, the amplifier will have to work harder to handle the louder parts of the movie...and then mainly, if there's lots of high level low frequency information.

If the two tracks are identical though only different in encoded audio levels, you will be the one compensating with your volume control (one way or the other) to get the volume level to the desired output. The output will be exactly the same and the amplifier will not be working any harder or less hard.

I know -- I just happen to personally prefer "slighly overcooked" mixes...so if the DolbyTrueHD track on this new release seems a bit "quieter" as compared to the previous releases' tracks (multichannel PCM/Dolby Digital) compared even at the same given levels, that is something of concern to me.
Quote:
By the way, talking about colors between the different releases; the new edition is slightly on the bleak side (as far as outdoor color temperature is concerned helping to create a sense of helplessness.) Another words, not as cartoonish when directly compared to the first Blu-ray (as high contrast, more saturated colors are more suited for comedies) though I don't know how the colors compare to the THX edition, (with the newest edition) except for a scene with some trees in it.

Not sure exactly what went wrong with Anchor Bay/Starz's first cheap-o, stripped-down joke of a Blu-ray, but I agree about the high contrast not working for a film like this (the problem that fans complained about on the aforementioned 25th Anniversary DVD which sacrificed more rich but toned-downed colors for brighter, pop-off-the-screen visuals). Like I said, I am going to revisit the THX DVD this October 31st, but from what I recall, the "oranges" and "reds" of fall are correctly in place -- whether that was something Cundey originally wanted or if it was altered with filters, etc...
Quote:
Back in 1978 when I first saw the film, my attention was focused on Michael Myers popping out from the bushes with little to no regard to the color of the trees to the upper right of the frame.

Point taken. wink.gif
post #244 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

There is, as we have been discussing in subsequent posts, most probably one THX transfer version of the film but Anchor Bay has released a few versions of the title with this THX certification and so that's where my confusion was coming in -- I own the variant that contains one disc but does include the "Unmasked" documentary extra and the remastered widescreen transfer (along with a pan and scan variant on the same disc, which more than likely added to compression issues) as well as the reworked Dolby Digital 5.1 track. I believe the version I picked up -- with no fancy packaging but rather just the flat, mask-only cover on the keepcase -- came out around '99 but since then there were releases of the film on DVD that came in "Limited Collectors Editions" and then, of course, the 25th Anniversary cut which boasted the DiviMax transfer (which was not the transfer seen on the THX releases)...

Confused yet?


I think you laid it down pretty good!

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

I know -- I just happen to personally prefer "slighly overcooked" mixes...so if the DolbyTrueHD track on this new release seems a bit "quieter" as compared to the previous releases' tracks (multichannel PCM/Dolby Digital) compared even at the same given levels, that is something of concern to me.

I am very confused about that comment. I'm not sure of what you mean by "overcooked."


You stated the new release seems a bit "quieter"..."even at the same given levels" so how can that be a concern if the levels are the same? It should sound the same. Unless what your describing when you say "slightly overcooked" is audio compression. If a naturally wide dynamic range recording of a movie sound track is compressed, then the louder and quieter sounds will be closer together. That sounds like what your talking about. If that same soundtrack is played back uncompressed, then there will be a more noticeable difference between the loud and softer audio levels on that recording, and yes; dialog levels will generally be slightly lower in that case. And then of course, turning up the volume control slightly would compensate for that.

Unless your watching the movie at night and there's people trying to sleep and/or you live in a apartment, or your trying to watch a movie at a generally lower audio level, movie soundtracks are generally more enjoyable uncompressed. And of course, there are settings in Blu-ray players (I don't know if all of them have a setting like this) that limit or "compress" the dynamic range for a more "comfortable" experience so you don't have to turn up and down the volume level throughout the movie between regular dialogue and explosions.

In 1978, audio recording equipment was pretty good. Still, the noise reduction system was limited on what it could do. So there was the noise floor with which to contend and of course the over saturation of the audio tape. Another words, even though the dynamic range could be pretty wide, it's nowhere near the limits of what can be recorded today (as far as total dynamic range.) Even so, anything less than the full dynamic of the original recording is to me, a step backwards in audio fidelity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

Not sure exactly what went wrong with Anchor Bay/Starz's first cheap-o, stripped-down joke of a Blu-ray, but I agree about the high contrast not working for a film like this (the problem that fans complained about on the aforementioned 25th Anniversary DVD which sacrificed more rich but toned-downed colors for brighter, pop-off-the-screen visuals).

As I stated earlier in this thread, HDTV was (and still is) kind of new to a lot of people. I think the first Blu-ray of Halloween had more to do with showing people what they expected a movie to look on their brand new HDTV set rather than a proper representation of film. For example: Wow mom, look how good Halloween looks on HDTV! I've never seen the colors pop off the screen like that! WOW!!! Aren't you glad we bought a new HDTV set? Imagine what our other favorite movies will look like on HDTV!

I think many movies first released on Blu-ray were "scrubbed" to hide grain and given more of a bright colorful look to compete with how sporting events looked on HDTV. I also think it's how people expected to see their favorite movies on the new Blu-ray format on their new HDTVs.

Overall, I think it's getting better. For example, like the first time letterboxing was used on 4:3 TVs and it confused and upset a lot of people. Many didn't understand that's the way a movie was suppose to look. Unfortunately, many simply wanted the image to fill their screen, even if it wasn't correct.
post #245 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

THX = lots of edge enhancement.

That makes me wonder if the edge enhancement was on the master or added during the making of the disc. If added afterwards, then it would not look like the master...a step backwards to the THX process.
post #246 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

That makes me wonder if the edge enhancement was on the master or added during the making of the disc. If added afterwards, then it would not look like the master...a step backwards to the THX process.

THX was often involved with the creation of the master itself, so the edge enhancement would be baked in at that stage.
post #247 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

I am very confused about that comment. I'm not sure of what you mean by "overcooked."

A track such as the DTS mix on the Region 1 War of the Worlds DVD from DreamWorks illustrates my point and simultaneously defines my usage of the term "overcooked." wink.gif

You never heard this term as used by people in this hobby?
Quote:
You stated the new release seems a bit "quieter"..."even at the same given levels" so how can that be a concern if the levels are the same? It should sound the same. Unless what your describing when you say "slightly overcooked" is audio compression. If a naturally wide dynamic range recording of a movie sound track is compressed, then the louder and quieter sounds will be closer together. That sounds like what your talking about. If that same soundtrack is played back uncompressed, then there will be a more noticeable difference between the loud and softer audio levels on that recording, and yes; dialog levels will generally be slightly lower in that case. And then of course, turning up the volume control slightly would compensate for that.

Unless your watching the movie at night and there's people trying to sleep and/or you live in a apartment, or your trying to watch a movie at a generally lower audio level, movie soundtracks are generally more enjoyable uncompressed. And of course, there are settings in Blu-ray players (I don't know if all of them have a setting like this) that limit or "compress" the dynamic range for a more "comfortable" experience so you don't have to turn up and down the volume level throughout the movie between regular dialogue and explosions.

In 1978, audio recording equipment was pretty good. Still, the noise reduction system was limited on what it could do. So there was the noise floor with which to contend and of course the over saturation of the audio tape. Another words, even though the dynamic range could be pretty wide, it's nowhere near the limits of what can be recorded today (as far as total dynamic range.) Even so, anything less than the full dynamic of the original recording is to me, a step backwards in audio fidelity.

What I'm saying about this phenomenon of "all too quiet" audio mixes is that sometimes the tracks on a given title aren't mastered in a "hot" fashion, thereby rendering the initial playback level a bit quiet, requiring the raising of master volume (sometimes a great amount) to compensate -- I prefer those mixes that don't "demand" this response. What I'm saying here with regard to Halloween is that subsequent surround mixes -- including the Dolby 5.1 variant prepared for the THX DVD and then the PCM mix found on the first Blu-ray release -- while engaging and somewhat encompassing given the budget and age of the material, was always on the "too low in initial output" side for me and from what I am reading, this new Blu-ray's TrueHD mix appears perhaps even quieter than the audio on these past releases...
Quote:
As I stated earlier in this thread, HDTV was (and still is) kind of new to a lot of people. I think the first Blu-ray of Halloween had more to do with showing people what they expected a movie to look on their brand new HDTV set rather than a proper representation of film. For example: Wow mom, look how good Halloween looks on HDTV! I've never seen the colors pop off the screen like that! WOW!!! Aren't you glad we bought a new HDTV set? Imagine what our other favorite movies will look like on HDTV!

There is something to be agreed upon here and I concur...still, I think Anchor Bay could have released this film with fans in mind, if only from a PACKAGING standpoint; I man, "stripped down and basic" doesn't even define what we got in that first release...mad.gif
Quote:
I think many movies first released on Blu-ray were "scrubbed" to hide grain and given more of a bright colorful look to compete with how sporting events looked on HDTV. I also think it's how people expected to see their favorite movies on the new Blu-ray format on their new HDTVs.

Overall, I think it's getting better. For example, like the first time letterboxing was used on 4:3 TVs and it confused and upset a lot of people. Many didn't understand that's the way a movie was suppose to look. Unfortunately, many simply wanted the image to fill their screen, even if it wasn't correct.

Funny, I always thought the first run of titles to be released on Blu were bogged down with grain and exhibited grainy transfers...and that only now, due to the complaints of some of the "mass consumer" types the discs are getting "scrubbed free" of such film stock elements...
post #248 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

A track such as the DTS mix on the Region 1 War of the Worlds DVD from DreamWorks illustrates my point and simultaneously defines my usage of the term "overcooked." wink.gif

You never heard this term as used by people in this hobby?


Even though I don't fully understand the term, I think I had it just about correct when I assumed "compressed" and or "higher level." I've always looked at those two qualities as being not good, so I've avoided it.

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/851/index.html

From "Overcooked Floyd"

"...people are going to realize that the music doesn't 'rock more' or 'cut through better' but that it's just plain annoying." Bob Katz agrees: "We need to educate producers that fatiguing, hypercompressed CDs will not be auditioned more than once....Teach them that a decent amount of dynamic range helps make an album more enjoyable, lively, even clear in most cases, and that sound quality suffers as the average level goes up."
post #249 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post


Funny, I always thought the first run of titles to be released on Blu were bogged down with grain and exhibited grainy transfers...and that only now, due to the complaints of some of the "mass consumer" types the discs are getting "scrubbed free" of such film stock elements...


I think that was true from some of the very first releases on Blu-ray when they used not very ideal film sources. The biggest example I can remember was one of the very first Blu-ray titles "The Fifth Element." Sony blew it when they used a less than ideal film source for that one. Because of the feedback, they released it again using a much better source.

Also, some of the very early titles suffered from disc mastering that was not up to par. Of course today, that's been all if not mostly fixed.


Too many film studios (or is it the distributors or some sort of production company) I don't know, who still today; over scrub and over compress the movies making them look less like film and more video like.

However it is getting better and usually when a lot of money is spent for a new high definition scan, the results "finally" is very good and film like.


That's why I usually wait till a good copy has been produced and reviews are good before I buy Blu-ray titles. Of course, there are some titles that won't have much money put into it, nor lots of work into it's cleanup, still if it's a title I've been looking for and it's a title that won't be re-worked on any time soon, I will go ahead and buy it. But it has to be a movie I've be waiting and waiting for.

Like this one!

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Kentucky-Fried-Movie-Blu-ray/69698/
post #250 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

Even though I don't fully understand the term, I think I had it just about correct when I assumed "compressed" and or "higher level." I've always looked at those two qualities as being not good, so I've avoided it.

Well, to each their own, I suppose...wink.gif
post #251 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

I think that was true from some of the very first releases on Blu-ray when they used not very ideal film sources. The biggest example I can remember was one of the very first Blu-ray titles "The Fifth Element." Sony blew it when they used a less than ideal film source for that one. Because of the feedback, they released it again using a much better source.

Also, some of the very early titles suffered from disc mastering that was not up to par. Of course today, that's been all if not mostly fixed.


Too many film studios (or is it the distributors or some sort of production company) I don't know, who still today; over scrub and over compress the movies making them look less like film and more video like.

However it is getting better and usually when a lot of money is spent for a new high definition scan, the results "finally" is very good and film like.


That's why I usually wait till a good copy has been produced and reviews are good before I buy Blu-ray titles. Of course, there are some titles that won't have much money put into it, nor lots of work into it's cleanup, still if it's a title I've been looking for and it's a title that won't be re-worked on any time soon, I will go ahead and buy it. But it has to be a movie I've be waiting and waiting for.

Like this one!

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Kentucky-Fried-Movie-Blu-ray/69698/

There is some truth in the fact that early releases did suffer from mastering issues, thus the "un-clean" appearance of the transfers...I was just pointing out the fact that early on, these observations were readily apparent.
post #252 of 273
Finding out that the mix is more 'quiet' and requires being turned up more makes me more interested in picking up this title; since that may mean that it is more dynamic and not cooked with dynamic range compression. Wish more mixes practiced more restraint with compressors and limiters.

Best Regards
KvE
post #253 of 273
As always, to each their own...

I have an issue going in knowing the track is on the "quieter/hushed" side.
post #254 of 273
post #255 of 273
My Target has the 35th Anniversary for a very affordable 17 or so bucks...makes it tempting to pick up just to test it. smile.gif

But wow...15 bucks or so is cheap...eek.gif
post #256 of 273
My copy showed up this past Saturday just in time for Halloween!

I will be watching it on... Halloween! biggrin.gif
post #257 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by neveser View Post

My copy showed up this past Saturday just in time for Halloween!

I will be watching it on... Halloween! biggrin.gif
Excellent. Halloween on Halloween.
post #258 of 273
This is the first take of the opening to Halloween. This was the first time they tried shooting it, without the cuts that they did in take number 2. They only shot this whole scene twice. Notice all of the blue in the picture...completely toned down for the recent release of the movie on Bluray.

https://vimeo.com/78233743

More gas to flash the fire. cool.gif
post #259 of 273
That looks like a non-color timed daily rather than an answer print (or a faded element given a half-hearted color correction).
post #260 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJPete View Post

That looks like a non-color timed daily rather than an answer print (or a faded element given a half-hearted color correction).

Yep, I would base nothing on that. The current Blu-ray has been color timed by Cundey, but some people are still in denial. He's either a liar, BS'er, or something else to them. lol
post #261 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

That's fine. That is YOUR opinion. But it is not mine. So please have the decency to not belittle those of us who object to studios having no respect for original audio tracks and even going so far as to lie about them. That's what happened here.
There is nothing belittling in his posts. He gave his opinion, you gave yours.

S~
post #262 of 273
Keep on topic of the movie, please.

Thank you,

S~
post #263 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

My Target has the 35th Anniversary for a very affordable 17 or so bucks...makes it tempting to pick up just to test it. smile.gif

But wow...15 bucks or so is cheap...eek.gif

Picked it up at Target a couple days ago for...$14.99 in-store price
post #264 of 273
Amazon price matched Target so I finally picked this up...$14.99 still seems a bit much for a catalog title but this release seems like the definitive version until 4k
post #265 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusTroy View Post

Amazon price matched Target so I finally picked this up...$14.99 still seems a bit much for a catalog title but this release seems like the definitive version until 4k

I watched the Blu-ray the other night, and I'd be shocked if 4K offered any improvement at all. Maybe some moderate improvement in color if they move us beyond 8-bit video, but in terms of resolution, I don't think this film has much more to offer than we're already seeing.
post #266 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

Picked it up at Target a couple days ago for...$14.99 in-store price

Cool; unfortunately I didn't pick this up because when my wife and I got to Target ON Halloween, all they were selling was this 35th Anniversary release -- but WITHOUT the special digibook packaging...and, at a HIGHER price than is being discussed here...so I just let it go and watched the THX DVD this year...biggrin.gif
post #267 of 273
watched the 35th Anniversary Blu-ray last night...can't say it's the definitive version of Halloween but it's definitely the best the movie has ever looked on home video...the colors are much more in line with the version I remember
post #268 of 273
I've been on the side of "this version looks more in line with what was originally shot and the thx stuff boosted some reds and yellows to improve the autumnal look of the outdoor shots".

I saw the new bd tonight and I'm embarrassed to say I've changed my mind. The outdoor scenes DO NOT look natural to me. The night shots look great. The red dress on the little girl, a cushions, etc. but the day shots that have everyone up I'm arms do look unnatural to me. They look like digital colour timing and not chemical process. It honestly reminded me of friedkins disastrous French connection retiming. Everything else is a step up but I just don't buy the outdoor shots at all. I should also say that im not a huge fan. I'm a carpenter fan, but this is one of his films I revisit the least.

The sound on the otherhand is great to my ears. There's more action in the rear channels at the beginning but all in all it's doing exactly what it should - be clear and scaring the hell out of me.
post #269 of 273
toonloon,

Are you saying the THX transfer looks more natural, now, to your eyes in terms of those outdoor shots as compared to the new BD?
post #270 of 273
For those with access to myspleen, there's an excellent correction up there under the name Halloween (spoRv). It uses the 35th anniversary blu-ray video and employs a color correction to make the disc more in line with the 1999 THX dvd's color palette. It also syncs up the CAV Criterion laserdisc's PCM original mono track with the film. Highly recommended.

PS: To the mods, if it's not permissible to mention a fan-made version of the film on the forums, I apologize. Just wanted to make people aware that there is a corrected copy available out there.
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