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 2

post #31 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Uh oh. Wow. That does not look like HALLOWEEN. I've seen it projected in 35mm and it looked like Fall. Only the THX DVD got it right. Everything else is just wrong.

Yep, I agree.

As most know it shot in spring and they tried hard as heck to make it look like fall, dropping leaves on the ground, using artificial leaves etc. At least the THX shot looks like spring: the trees have spring-like
reddish orange leaves, the leaves on the ground are brown against the green.

In the new transfer the tree leaves are all back to spring-green, and there's little contrast for the leaves on the ground. The THX transfer does a better job of saying "fall" to me.
post #32 of 273
I have about a dozen BluRays in my collection that I have re-color timed (or soundtracks restored, or both). Hell, I have Premiere Pro and the hardware to do it. It's just such a royal pain. Honestly, I hate having to do it, but COME ON ALREADY! Get it right the first time! Or the second time!

rolleyes.gif Such is life.
post #33 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

I have about a dozen BluRays in my collection that I have re-color timed (or soundtracks restored, or both). Hell, I have Premiere Pro and the hardware to do it. It's just such a royal pain. Honestly, I hate having to do it, but COME ON ALREADY! Get it right the first time! Or the second time!

rolleyes.gif Such is life.

Seriously? Re-color timing movies for your collection?

Holy Moly, congratulations. You have re-defined "hard core" movie collector, for me.
post #34 of 273
If you think that's impressive, just google "harmy".
post #35 of 273
Harmy is an icon, lol!
post #36 of 273
More fun with screenshots.

Original Blu-ray:



35th Anniversary Blu-ray:



I'm a photographer. The 35th Anniversary version looks better to me. It's a horror movie, the colors shouldn't be all bright and cheerful. The TV shouldn't be making the room glow so brightly it's distracting. If I was DOP, I'd light the scene like the 35th Anniversary example, NOT like the original Blu-ray! The 35th Anniversary transfer looks far more natural.

Mark
post #37 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post


I've been a movie fan for decades. Watched thousands of making of video. Interviews with DPs. I've even conversed with real filmmakers. Never have I heard anyone say that they want to capture a natural look. Never.

That is a very odd statement. Of course, not every film is supposed to look exactly like real life. However, I've been in the film business since the mid 80's, and worked for quite a time on sets doing lighting, etc. I can assure you many cinematographers were trying to achieve a natural look. I ran my arse ragged following orders trying to achieve it for them. And when I do sound effects (my current gig) it tends to be tailored to the look and intent of the film, with some film-makers going for much more realism than others.
I often strive for "as natural and realistic as possible" in my tracks when required, just like that effort went into the picture. Further, the annals of film-making is filled with film makers going to great lengths to create believable, natural-looking scenes.

That's not to say that Carpenter was going for strict realism, but as a generalization your statement is far too broad to say the least.

That's not to say that Carpenter wasn't going for strict realism, but as a generalization your statement is far too broad to say the least.
Edited by R Harkness - 9/19/13 at 7:45pm
post #38 of 273
I don't have a horse in this race, so to speak. However, I will poot my two cents in here and say often especially in low budget horror films shot under less than perfect circumstances that what winds up on film may not look "realistic" (if that was even the intent) but may not fully reflect the director's intended finished look (lighting, colors, etc). For example, how many day-for-night scenes in uncountable older films just don't look at all like the scene is occurring at night? What winds up in the finished film down to mistakes and imperfections is often an important facet of the particular film for better or worse.

This leads to my next bit, which is despite occasional failures by the film makers to achieve the desired effect in the finished film, it is my opinion that the film should be presented on home video as it appeared during it's theatrical run. Not re-color timed, digitally corrected decades later to "help" the film achieve the desired look for an effect or a scene. There's an interesting article aptly titled "Digital Alchemy" in the latest Video Watchdpg magazine where Bret Wood who oversees mastering films to Blu-ray for Kino Classics details the technical process finding, restoring and prepping - in this case, the cult film "Zombie Lake" for Blu-ray.. After going through the basics of finding the film elements and bringing them into the digital realm, he describes using today's digital tools to "to help execute (the intended) effect" of (deceased) director Jean Rollin such as lighting that may be too harsh which can be diffused and making sunsets more brilliant and digitally removing intrusive set hardware that otherwise shouldn't be in a shot.

This is the mindset that unfortunately permeates much of the home video industry now. That digital tinkering, whether it's simply across the board color timing changes or scene-by-scene or even single objects in a frame *need* to be changed or "fixed." Either to "make the film better as it should have looked" under even the best intentions or simply to drastically change the look of an older film to suit someone's idea of what modern audiences "want to see" on their big flat screens.... it's wrongheaded revisionism.
post #39 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

This is the mindset that unfortunately permeates much of the home video industry now. That digital tinkering, whether it's simply across the board color timing changes or scene-by-scene or even single objects in a frame *need* to be changed or "fixed." Either to "make the film better as it should have looked" under even the best intentions or simply to drastically change the look of an older film to suit someone's idea of what modern audiences "want to see" on their big flat screens.... it's wrongheaded revisionism.

+1000!

I try to stay consistent with my expectations of a movie presented on Blu-ray (and with DVD before that). And those expectations are that the movie should look (and sound) as close as possible to how it was originally projected theatrically. (Yes, yes, I know the theatrical presentations varied by theater, projector and projectionist. I'm talking about the filmmakers' original intent.) The Blu-ray presentation should be the same aspect ratio. There shouldn't be any monkeying with swapping in new digital effects to replace old analog effects (e.g., George Lucas' shenanigans with the Star Wars trilogy). And the color timing shouldn't be revisionist either. PERIOD!

Cleaning up dust, hairs, scratches and other defects that WERE NEVER INTENDED TO BE SEEN is not only acceptable, but highly encouraged. That's restoration. Restoration to the originally intended theatrical appearance, along with preservation, should be the ultimate goal of ANY and EVERY transfer to Blu-ray.

Based on anecdotal information being shared across several forums, I am VERY convinced that the 1999 THX DVD release was a REVISIONIST process. Those trees along the streets weren't yellow in the theatrical screening and the trees shouldn't be yellow in the Blu-ray presentation.

We can argue all day whether the original Blu-ray's color timing is closer to the theatrical presentation than the 35th Anniversary Blu-ray. Buy the one that looks right to you (and, for me, that will be the 35th Anniversary version). But nobody is going to convince me that the 1999 THX DVD's color timing is representative of the theatrical presentation. Love it if you like, but that's NOT what was shown in theaters!

BTW, on another forum, one member posted this:
Quote:
Well, having seen the film MANY times in its initial theatrical release, plus the subsequent annual re-releases each autumn through (I think) 1980, the film never looked like Cundy's approved dvd from 1999, although that is a gorgeous look that I love. I believe that is the look they would have liked the film to have had at the time. The prints I saw theatrically looked a lot more like the first blu ray edition (whiter night scenes, not blue).

I haven't seen the 35th except for screencaps, and that's no way to judge. My preference is Cundy's 1999 transfer, but that was not what I saw theatrically.

Mark
post #40 of 273
I too generally want the film I saw in the theaters and always hope that is available (I generally hate "director's cuts," which seem to be excuses to sell you something new and/or load the film with material that only teaches you why it was cut out in the first place). But as far as newer versions go, the Bladerunner Final Cut is the best I've seen. It's now my favorite version by far. I actually appreciate the removal of the wires holding up the spinner cars, the re-syncing of Ford's dialogue with the snake guy, and getting rid of that horrible stunt-woman's face for the death of Zhora. Those were always moments that tripped me up, brought me out of the movie, and it's a welcome relief to have them fixed. Not to mention the removal of the voice-over. I recently put on the original version with the voice-over, first time I played it on my system.
I thought maybe I'd enjoy it in it's own way, out of nostalgia or whatever. But I was amazed at just how much (bad) effect it had on the movie. Every time it came on it just "flattened" the movie, took out depth and tone, overrode sound effects, music etc. I just lost that truly "sinking into the world" effect that happens so effortlessly and purely in the Final Cut version.


I think the BladeRunner Blu-Ray/HD DVD is the paradigm release of a movie on to hi-def. Do the version you want (e.g. Ridley's last The Final Cut version) but also give fans the original version (and others if generous) so we have a choice. Unlike, famously, Lucas and Star Wars. It's amazing how much easier George's life would have been, how much less vitriol he would have absorbed, how much less bitter he'd be about the attitude of fans, if he'd simply also supplied the original versions of Star Wars along with his revisionist versions.
post #41 of 273
Wheres Dave Mack?
post #42 of 273
From above -

which is the THX DVD?
post #43 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by JA Fant View Post

From above -

which is the THX DVD?

Neither. If you are talking about the girl on the sofa image.
post #44 of 273
I agree with the photographer. I have also worked with photography for a number of years and have worked with color correction and have given color lots of thought. The scene with the glow of light coming from the TV is correct. TVs, particularly then; were always too cool color temperature wise along with a lot of TVs out of the box today!!! Even without knowing all of that, I say most would probably agree the colors having a muted (bluish effect) does make the scene much more suspenseful.


Now lets talk about those fall like colors from the DVD THX version of the movie. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. The only direct sunlight I see is shooting across the horizon. (Another words, it's not high noon and it's without any real deep shadows.) In addition, I see a hazy or clear sky and both also effect how colors are recorded onto daylight balanced film. The point is, the sun is at a position like that only two times a day. Either early or late in the day. When that happens, unless there's sun light illuminating a subject directly (during that time of day,) what your going to get color wise is a major cooling effect in the shadows and shaded areas. For example, with the new Blu-ray edition, take a look at the house on the very left. It's totally in shade and very bluish (because the light is from the sky) along with the sidewalk and pavement on the road. That's just the way things look when it's dusk.


Now of course during dusk, and when the sun still has not completely gone below the horizon; that quality of filtered sunlight illuminating onto something directly, is going to be very orangey and reddish. And, everything else in the shade will appear bluish (unless there's lots of light being bounced or reflecting directly into a shaded area.) So based from what I know on the effects of light during different times of the day along with other naturally occurring conditions, the DVD THX version looks to be correct in a real world situation.

So the color differences between the THX version and the new Blu-ray version confuses the hell out of me and probably a lot of others on this board. So let's "shed some light onto the subject" (pun intended) and examine the differences in color between those two versions.

One person stated the scene was shot during the Spring. Well, that would have to be late Spring because everything looks to be in full bloom. In late Spring, there are also no fall colors. So where did all these fall colors come from? Looking for answers, I looked somewhere else. In a conversation about this movie within IMDB, one person wrote "H1 was filmed during the spring of 1978, hence the greenery instead of the autumn." There is also talk about how palm trees had to be "hidden." So the fact the movie was recorded in the Spring is not an argument.

To quickly move this conversation further and to a quick determination, I can only say, unless someone has an original road print from 1978, we can only speculate on how the colors originally looked.

Now, just for the hell of it, let's use some logic to understand more of what's going on here.

I can take any outdoor image of a lawn photographed in the Spring and play with the color adjustments all day. Yes, I would be able to make any and all green leaves and give them fall like colors. However, without being able to selectively target certain plants and/or vegetation for color adjustments, creating fall colors on trees without also effecting all the other green areas and the rest of the colors, would create an image that would look very bad!!! I mean really really bad!!! It wouldn't even look real. As far as I know, when working with selective color adjustments, (adjusting the color on one object while not effecting all the other colors,) is a technique that can only be done digitally. And of course, color adjustments like that would have been a impossibility in 1978. So, the only way to do that in 1978 would have been to either paint each one of those leaves or use some other type of special effect such as a mat paining and/or use of another 35mm motion picture camera. Of course, VistaVision would be the correct choice to help hide the effects of the extra layer of film superimposed with the original scene. Since (as far as I know,) VistaVision was not used for the making of this movie, painting the leaves would have been the better (and less expensive) choice for this 1978 low budget production.

Giving the benefit of doubt, if there was another film strip superimposed over the original scene and that special effect strip of film came up missing, that could explain why if going back to the original negative, everything has more of a spring like look like it was originally shot. At this point of course, I'm speculating. I don't know of any of those kinds of special effects being used for this movie.

Logically, I can only conclude, the fall like colors on the THX version came later by digital selective color enhancements. Again, the reason why I can only come up with this conclusion (and clearly it's my assumption!) is, if the trees were originally painted fall like colors in 1978; then those fall like colors would have to have been digitally taken out for the new releases. To take fall like colors out of some trees, would take more than simple overall color adjustments. It would have to be deliberate because of all the time it takes to do all of this. It would include selectively separating those fall colors to change them to green without effecting the rest of the colors. Again, if there's any overall adjustment of colors, ALL the colors would be effected. The point is, that would be a lot of work and there would have to be serious reasons to do that kind of work.

I can't stress enough, if all there was in adjusting colors to make those fall colors look green or greenish using a simple cooling effect (either by taking out some red/yellow or adding some blue or taking out some green,) would effect the whole image BADLY! And even worse, adding a cooling filter would still render the fall like colors on those trees, to still have some fall like color effects. So another words, a lot of major work (time) would be needed to make those fall like colors to look green. In my opinion, no one would work that hard to change fall like colors to something else unless it wasn't like that from the beginning.

Another conclusion I can come up with, is; if there's more than one very early generation print of the movie out there being used to create home video releases. For example, there might be a interpositive that differs from the original negative.


Also, it would be interesting to learn if anyone here possibly has a copy of the first VHS cassette ever released of this movie. Chances are, the source would have been from a road print giving us a clue as how the colors originally looked. Not for color matching, but at least to see if all those trees are greenish or have fall like colors. The only other clue to the original colors can also come from original copies of the trailer.

In conclusion, based from all the screen shots of the 35th anniversary Blu-ray edition, the color is probably the closest match of the original film. With that said, I'm very happy I held off on the earlier Blu-ray release!


A final note: Again about the color differences in the trees from the THX edition and the newer editions; EITHER: color was added to fall like colors for one version, OR: color was changed BACK to a natural green color on the newer versions for some odd reason.
post #45 of 273
I know everyone is fixated on those exterior day time shots--but what I want to know ids the blue tint fully back on the night time interiors?
post #46 of 273
Can anyone confirm that the so-called "original mono" on this new release is, in fact, the original mono mix? Or is it simply a downmix from the new 7.1, as some unsubstantiated rumors have claimed?
post #47 of 273
Per a user at bd.com:

I checked the music cue after The Shape pops up in the car. The 7.1 and mono sounded the same to me. I did not hear a difference between the two tracks. Just to check to make sure I'm not off-base in what I was listening for - was I supposed to hear this "high pitched sound" in the 2007 Blu-Ray mono track? I did hear a high-pitched sound there that I could not hear in either the 7.1 or mono tracks on this new release.

Looks to be a downmix.
post #48 of 273
Thanks! all for sharing.

To me, this is a classic 'slasher' film that deserves only the very best treatment to preserve its legacy.

Which company released the 1999 THX DVD version?
post #49 of 273
For those of you that are convinced the color timing on the 1999 THX DVD is the "correct" color timing (as seen in the original theatrical release), I present evidence to the contrary.

The guy on Blu-ray.com that owns the 1980 VHS tape copy took a screenshot (digital rip of the VHS) of the street scene. It's not the world's best image, and the colors probably appear a brighter than they should, but those trees sure as heck don't look golden yellow! So, with the 1980 VHS tape as reference, which one of these other three looks closest to the original look of the film?

1980 VHS Tape:



1999 THX DVD:
j7pXbFTmeMDxr.png


First Blu-ray:



35th Anniversary Blu-ray:



Again, 1980 VHS Tape:



Winner: 35th Anniversary Blu-ray!

The 1999 THX DVD is NOT the way the film originally looked in theaters!

Mark
Edited by Mark Booth - 9/24/13 at 8:16pm
post #50 of 273
Just to expand on Mark's post above, nagysaudio over at blu-ray.com has also confirmed that the mono audio on the 80s VHS matches the mono track on the 35th Anniversary BD. Here's a very general summation of the whole argument about the mono track on the 35th Anniversary BD being a downmix (I've spoilered plot details just in case):

Basically all the furore stems from what looks like a misunderstanding about what the original audio for Halloween actually sounds like. It seems that from the 1997 VHS up until today, all US releases may have featured an altered mono track (criterion laserdisc, THX DVD, original blu-ray). The big indicator people were jumping on was the scene at the end of the film:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
When Loomis empties his gun into Michael and he falls through the window, we cut back to Loomis and he pulls the trigger one last time (but the gun is empty). In most home video mono tracks of the film you can hear an audible "click" from the gun when Loomis pulls the trigger that last time, but on the 35th Anniversary Blu-ray mono track the "click" is gone. This is where the accusations of "downmix" have stemmed from, despite the fact that the 7.1 track on the 35th anniversary release DOES have the click!

Anyway, about a day back someone posted a Youtube clip supposedly taken from a 78 screening of the film and that didn't have the "click", and now nagysaudio over at Blu-ray.com forums has managed to record a clip from the 1980s VHS release of the film, which also doesn't have the click.

So basically it's looking like the 35th Anniversary mono track is in fact the original audio, presented for the first time in perhaps 16yrs or more! eek.gif

You can read about the whole thing across pages 208-210 of this thread, but if you just want to view the YouTube clip then here it is:



EDIT: OK nagysudio has now revealed that the VHS clip was taken from a foreign dub, the German release of Halloween by Warner Home Media in 1982! So make of that what you will. Usually they keep the sound effects intact, but who knows?
2ND EDIT: And now someone has checked the English mono on their 1985 VHS from Media Home Video and it does have the gun click! We've come full circle! biggrin.gif
Edited by Shingster - 9/24/13 at 9:57pm
post #51 of 273
Well then, the new 35th Anniversary Blu rocks even more! If you believe the gun clicks shouldn't be there, listen to the mono track. If you believe the gun clicks should be there, listen to the 7.1 track.

Mark
post #52 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

For those of you that are convinced the color timing on the 1999 THX DVD is the "correct" color timing (as seen in the original theatrical release), I present evidence to the contrary.

The guy on Blu-ray.com that owns the 1980 VHS tape copy took a screenshot (digital rip of the VHS) of the street scene. It's not the world's best image, and the colors probably appear a brighter than they should, but those trees sure as heck don't look golden yellow! So, with the 1980 VHS tape as reference, which one of these other three looks closest to the original look of the film?

Mark

Ah ha!!! Thank you Mark!

My long post using logic as a basis for figuring the addition or subtraction of the fall colors is correct! I KNEW it would take a lot of work to take out fall colors from a movie and then all that work for what? It would be a total misrepresentation of what was originally recorded. Obviously, the fall color effects added to the DVD THX edition was just that, effects!
post #53 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcx View Post

I know everyone is fixated on those exterior day time shots--but what I want to know ids the blue tint fully back on the night time interiors?

I'm sure the blue light was there originally during the making of the film. However, in the older Blu-ray version, it's very easy to see the fact it was way over adjusted, almost to give that blue (and all the colors) a unnatural oversaturation. All I can say is who ever worked on that original Blu-ray was looking to impress those with their new HDTVS. On the newest edition Blu-ray, the blue lighting looks more theatrical (more like the movie and it's film effects) than special effects. That in fact is how you impress those who care and know what the differences are. The general public will also be impressed, (especially those who understand there's a difference between something recorded on film VS what something looks like recorded on video.) However, they may not fully understand why. They'll simply think, wow, that movie looks really good!


Blue besides mimicking a pseudo moonlight effect, also represents cooler temperatures.
post #54 of 273
OK, I'm sold! Double dip time (though I'll dump the first copy in for some in-store cred). Thanks for the previous few posts, which are a big help in clearing things up. The 35th looks to be the superior copy in every way. Yay!
post #55 of 273
Great points/arguments all around guys. Still, I tend to like the 'Fall' colors on those trees.
post #56 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

I'm sure the blue light was there originally during the making of the film. However, in the older Blu-ray version, it's very easy to see the fact it was way over adjusted, almost to give that blue (and all the colors) a unnatural oversaturation. All I can say is who ever worked on that original Blu-ray was looking to impress those with their new HDTVS. On the newest edition Blu-ray, the blue lighting looks more theatrical (more like the movie and it's film effects) than special effects. That in fact is how you impress those who care and know what the differences are. The general public will also be impressed, (especially those who understand there's a difference between something recorded on film VS what something looks like recorded on video.) However, they may not fully understand why. They'll simply think, wow, that movie looks really good!


Blue besides mimicking a pseudo moonlight effect, also represents cooler temperatures.


But see--I really find that blue color effective--call me crazy but I find it makes the film much more atmospheric and creepy--and recent versions have not had it as clearly as the old dvd
post #57 of 273
I'm a life-long fan of this film. Halloween, along with Jaws, was one of the movies that inspired me to get into film-making, and a Halloween-inspired super 8 movie that I made was one of the things that got me accepted to Film-School in the early 80's. So I couldn't resist buying the 35th Anniversary Edition yesterday.

I previewed the transfer last night, watching the first 20 minutes or so, and previewing later scenes.

My first reaction was: Wow, what a beautifully detailed transfer.

The rest of my reaction was: Ugh.

The new color timing is just Fugly as hell, a color drained gray-blue tone that sucks the life out of the image and, literally for me, made it unpleasant to look at. It completely lost the "Halloween-time" feel for me that I've always experienced in viewing this film. And the general contrast and black levels looked worse than I've seen before (I have a professionally calibrated projector).

Not only that: the sound mix was really odd, which I wasn't expecting. The music started and it sounded so...wimpy. I've always loved that clear, present, solid driving tone of the piano and high-ticking drum-machine pattern and here it just felt like listening through speakers that were underpowered or something. Just a sort of soft, background lack of presence. This was the case for music, and even some effects, as I went through the transfer.

To make sure I wasn't going crazy I put on the previous Blu-Ray release and there it was: the soundtrack had that more crisp bite, that presence, that feels more effective. Also, while the old Blu-Ray loses a little bit of detail, the increase in contrast certainly boosts it's dimensionality and the black levels look deep, rather than hazy. Very welcome effects. And then, I also like the more fall-like (to me) feel of the coloring - there are actually fall-colored trees in the opening shots of Haddonfield, and the leaves on the ground are actually reddish and fall-like.

So, my first reaction is a real let down. However, I'll still try to watch this version for Halloween (traditional) and see if I warm up to it. One thing it has going for it over the previous Blu-Ray transfer is it does look somewhat more old-film-like, whereas the contrast of the older Blu-Ray can in certain shots give a bit more of a video look. I always appreciate a film-like look, but this version came with enough other disappointing qualities that it might outweigh, for me, that positive.

As I said, I hope I warm up to this version once I watch the whole thing.

This is simply my personal, subjective reaction to this transfer, not a claim that it is "wrong" in someway, and I completely understand anyone else having an opposite reaction and loving it.
post #58 of 273
For those that still doubt the 35th Anniversary Blu-ray is closest to the original look and feel of the film, perhaps you'll believe the words from cinematographer Dean Cundey himself?

Here's part of an interview with Cundey, published on Sept 8, 2013:
Quote:
Q: What was the process like of putting together the Halloween 35th Anniversary Blu-ray?

A: Well, it was actually pretty straightforward. I'd been disappointed by the fact that so many previous issuances of that, but also other films, they didn't call me in, they just said "well, we've got a print here, we'll just make it look like that." And by the time they got to making the second or third version of a film on a DVD, the iterations that they had gone through, somebody would subtly brighten up the film because the felling was "well, it's going to be on somebody's TV" and then the next guy would say "well, it's brighter but it looks like it's too blue" so over a period of two or three versions, the look would change, and so the fact they called me in to recreate the original look and feeling, it was a great thing to sort of protect all of our original visions.

Source article: http://www.horrorbid.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=279&t=24807

"...so the fact they called me in to recreate the original look and feeling, it was a great thing to sort of protect all of our original visions."

Right out of the mouth of the cinematographer, the 35th Anniversary Blu-ray is the definitive look and feel of the film.

Isn't it time to end this argument?

Mark
post #59 of 273
I have no reason to doubt Cundey's statement, but I must point out that a crummy old VHS transfer cannot be used as a reference to what the movie's original theatrical prints may or may not have looked like.
post #60 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I have no reason to doubt Cundey's statement, but I must point out that a crummy old VHS transfer cannot be used as a reference to what the movie's original theatrical prints may or may not have looked like.
That obvious enough, but the only reason people are using that VHS screenshot is to show that the THX DVD transfer has clearly had the treelines altered to look autumnal.
Edited by Shingster - 9/25/13 at 12:47pm
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