Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by hidefjunkie

Just finished watching this and i have some mixed feelings about it. The overall presentation was nice with good clarity and detail, colors were also better but what i really missed was better black levels. But don`t get me wrong, i am not saying black levels were bad. At some occasions, it looked really good but there were also occasions with more greyish blacks which was disappointing.

But like i said, the overall PQ is really good and this is the best Halloween has ever looked on any format IMO and i am happy with the upgrade from the standard blu. I just wished they could have squeezed out that last bit of black levels and this would have been a superior release.

Could the "greyish blacks" have something to do with, perhaps, a local dimming setting on your display? Don't know what you were watching it on...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Blu Balls

I have watched the video, and find that it looks completely different than that on my OLED. The title card of the 4K (on my Mac book) looks really bold and saturated to the point that "John Carpenter's" looks red while "Halloween" looks orange. That's not how it looks on my OLED. The colors are more pale and muted. The "John Carpenter's" looks the same shade of orange as the "Halloween" portion. I agree though, that the comparison video makes the 4K look much more vibrant than what I am seeing on my OLED.

I may not agree with Mr Balls' take on HDR in general (of which he's well aware, no need to cover old ground) but I have to agree re: Halloween, people are watching this hallowed comparison video which is using converted SDR caps on uncalibrated monitors/tablets/phones and are treating it as the absolute gospel but the 4K played back at my end does not feature amped up colour vs the 35th, it's generally got a slightly cooler look to it but with purer primaries. It's not "black and white" either, mind you.

I don't usually pay attention to videos from that channel (I don't mean for this movie, I mean every time one is posted for whatever movie) because it's just too reductive a means of comparison and, honestly, having finally looked at it those Halloween comparisons are a complete ****ing joke, I actually laughed out loud when it got the one of Jamie Lee in the classroom as the skin tones are so red she looks like a lobster! And now I think of it, I remember the exact same charges being levelled at Mission: Impossible when those same clowns did a comparison video, that people looked like they've been broiled, when the actual HDR playback is much less intense. Sorry chaps, I'm sure those idiots mean well (and they damned sure love all the clicks they're getting) but whatever they're doing they are royally screwing with the colour of their "HDR" shots and they're about as far off base as you can get on this one. Alas, they'll keep on posting them and y'all will keep on clicking them.

HDR: confusing the shit outta people since 2016™

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Which THX DVD do you have? The mono on my THX DVD sounds exactly like the original mono to me. Just popped it in and the stinger in Annie's car is the original mono stinger. Also, the 2.0 has the changed stinger just like the 5.1, not the proper one like you said. I wonder if there's a version of this DVD that somehow switched certain aspects of the mixes. Here's a picture of my THX DVD.

Attachment 209212

Fair enough gents, I won't dig myself in any further. Mine is the UK Anchor Bay R2 DVD of that exact same release, however I'll gladly throw my hands up and apologise for thinking that the audio options on that disc mirrored the US one despite them being listed as 5.1, 2.0 and original mono in the menu.

Looks like Anchor Bay just randomly ****ed with them for the UK DVD and it's not that they accidentally swapped the 2.0 and the mono either, for although the 2.0 (which reads as 4.0 on my OPPO!) has the original car stinger it's not the mono because when Annie wipes the condensation from the windshield it can clearly be heard coming from the right speaker!

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Sorry if this has been covered before in any other countless discussions about this film (or in this thread), but is there any version that corrects the odd "pitch problem" when the theme is playing and Michael stops the car after Annie screams out "HEY JERK, SPEED KILLS!"?

Did the TrueHD mix on the 35th Anniversary correct this? I know it's there on the THX DVD and the original Blu...

Yeah, it's "corrected" on the 35th Anniversary Blu-ray. Personally, I kinda like how it was before. Adds to the tension in a weird way. I'm curious if it was actually a mistake or a deliberate choice.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Sadly this disc will fall into Goodfellas status.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Sadly this disc will fall into Goodfellas status.

What's wrong with the GoodFellas (that's how I spell it, just like the poster!) disc? I remember hearing that they did some CGI work so that a license plate that fell off a car stays on it now.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Sadly this disc will fall into Goodfellas status.

I dunno if it has to be that complicated, it doesn't help when those silly comparison videos are taken at face value and then people see something completely different on their actual TV in HDR. I thought to myself "if those guys are greatly oversaturating 4K then their 4K comparison vid of Solo could seal the deal" and, to Jack's complete and utter lack of surprise, it's completely different from what I and pretty much everyone else is seeing on Solo, the colour is mightily jacked up in their comparison.

The train heist in particular has this heavy teal wash on their video and it simply does not look like that in 4K HDR, no way no how. I know SDR conversion isn't perfect but I've never seen one as out of whack as what that channel is coming up with, it's like he's regrading them himself or applying a completely wrong gamut (maybe he's an OLED owner who's still got the gamut set to wide which HUGELY oversaturates colour and he's replicating that in the grabs?) and then posting the results for all to see. So strange, and should be completely disregarded as any kind of credible reference for what these things actually look like in HDR.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Yeah the comparison vids are terrible and don’t help. I click on them because I’m obsessed but never take them serious. You might be right about the wide gamut. I actually leave my ISF Day mode in its default wide gamut for when I view cable tv and Netflix with my curtains open or lights on. Oddly enough colors aren’t clipped but they look over saturated in a dark room. I only use ISF dark for SDR critical viewing.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

What's wrong with the GoodFellas (that's how I spell it, just like the poster!) disc? I remember hearing that they did some CGI work so that a license plate that fell off a car stays on it now.

Nothing is wrong with it, that’s my point. It’s the most misunderstood disc of the format.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by okko

I just watched again a couple of times and am convinced that it's Nick trying to get out of the shot. Oh well, doesn't matter.

I can't tell you how many shots that I've watched, would rewind, watch again to try to catch anything that I might have missed.

The most ingenious scenes are the ones that take place in the daytime (the Shape outside of her classroom staring at her, behind the hedge, outside her bedroom window). The reason that these are so chilling is because they take place in the BROAD FRIGGIN' DAYLIGHT! Jesus, things are supposed to go bump in the night, not scare the sh*t out of you when it's light out.

When the Shape was standing in Mister Riddle's back yard looking up at Laurie then in the next shot he's gone, I studied the trees beside the clothesline and at one point was convinced that he leaned and took another peek at her through the trees, but it was the sunshine on the leaves when they were blowing that I mistook for his white mask.



Kev

That last scene you mentioned is the reason I became hooked on Halloween. I came home from school one day, flipped through the channels, and came across Halloween on TV and when I saw that shot where she sees Michael, it cuts to her looking at him, then back to where he was and he’s gone, I became hooked. Such a simple sequence of shots yet so effective. Did he move really quickly? Is he still there? Did she imagine him? I love how that sequence doesn’t really make sense logically. I remember Carpenter said that Hitchcock used that effect. I wonder which movies he was talking about.

[dianabol5mg]

Ive been comparing this 4K version with the 2007 version which is my go to. People have their favorite presentations, I get their reasoning, but this 4K presentation is dark AF. I keep trying to see if I left my energy saver on at medium. The color is nonexistent at times and the black levels are lacking(greyish with hdr and dark with it off, but better). I turned hdr off and it helped a bit. It is like there is a veil pulled over this movie and Im looking for more information(clothing, hair, etc) from scene to scene. I feel like im watching a dvd at times. Still watching and going from chapter to chapter between the 2. Comparing blue tints, 2007 better. The brighter lights at night make the black levels and blue tint on the 2007 version stand way out above the 4K. There are times I wish there were some scenes in the 2007 version muted because of some blown out images from time to time, but id rather deal with that than almost falling asleep because of the lack of brightness in this new and "improved" version. I think the only good thing about the 4K is the sharpness. Its very nice. Also, this may be helpful to some, but hdr makes this movie run at 60hz. I noticed motion flaws throughout the movie. I changed my player to run at 60 instead of 24 and it still didnt work. Turned off hdr, put player back at 24 and voila, smooth as butter.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by dcx4610

There is no "It" at the beginning. It sounds like "What's the boogeyman?" but she's saying "Was it the boogeyman?"

She's asking a question to Loomis. His response wouldn't make sense otherwise. Close captioning on the DVD, Blu-ray and 4K all confirm "Was it".

The line is, "It was the boogeyman," regardless of what the subtitles say (I've encountered wrong subtitles before). It doesn't really make sense to say, "Was it the boogeyman?" If she wanted to ask that question, it makes more sense to say, "Was that the boogeyman?" Saying "it" instead of "that" sounds awkward.

Even though she's talking to Loomis, that line is her basically confirming to herself that Tommy was correct when he said that he saw the boogeyman. She's kind of thinking out loud, and Loomis just goes with it and confirms what she already knows.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, the delivery is perfect if you understand what it is she's saying, that she's become a believer: "it was the boogeyman". Loomis' reply doesn't work nearly as well if she's aksing a question IMO, as you say the almost offhand nature of it is almost like "welcome to the club, honey".

Imagine if that was the dialogue in the movie.
"It was the boogeyman."
"Welcome to the club baby!" Roll credits.

[4kUltraBD]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

The line is, "It was the boogeyman," regardless of what the subtitles say (I've encountered wrong subtitles before). It doesn't really make sense to say, "Was it the boogeyman?" If she wanted to ask that question, it makes more sense to say, "Was that the boogeyman?" Saying "it" instead of "that" sounds awkward.

Even though she's talking to Loomis, that line is her basically confirming to herself that Tommy was correct when he said that he saw the boogeyman. She's kind of thinking out loud, and Loomis just goes with it and confirms what she already knows.

I've always heard the line as "Was it the boogeyman?". She already knows, but Loomis confirms.

I felt this worked because she is not only referencing Tommy saying the boogeyman was outside, it also recalls Loomis himself calling Michael Myers "it" in the early scene in the car with the nurse. Even the nurse gets frustrated with Loomis' usage of the word "it" and calls him out on it.

It's interesting that there were so many interpretations of this line. Somehow the line just seems to work well in the film, even though upon first viewing it could appear as a flubbed take. After all these years, it still generates conversation...seems to me that it was the perfect take.

[Martoto]

There's a choked (she's traumatized) syllable right before "was". There is no syllable audible after was. So I don't understand how people hear "Was it"? Maybe folk are misinterpreting the soft sobbing that Curtis has got going underneath her delivery in that scene. (she's so effing good in the whole movie)

I can understand people saying it's not elocuted very well. But it's an emotional line, with emotion behind it, delivering an emotional climax to the movie. It's not exposition or a prompt for the exposition from Loomis.

The subtitles on the 35th - "It was the boogeyman". On the audio commentary with JC and JLC, Carpenter describes Curitis delivering the line "It was the boogeyman." and Donald agreeing with Jamie...

If some people thought they heard the line "Was it.." or "What is.." then that myth has been well busted for at least five years now.

[4kUltraBD]

Originally Posted by Martoto

On the audio commentary with JC and JLC, Carpenter describes Curitis delivering the line "It was the boogeyman." and Donald agreeing with Jamie...

If some people thought they heard the line "Was it.." or "What is.." (then that myth has been well busted for at least five years now.

I have not watched the commentary, but that's cool they cleared up any confusion. I'll have to check it out.

Thanks for the info.

[djs259]

Originally Posted by dianabol5mg

Ive been comparing this 4K version with the 2007 version which is my go to. People have their favorite presentations, I get their reasoning, but this 4K presentation is dark AF. I keep trying to see if I left my energy saver on at medium. The color is nonexistent at times and the black levels are lacking(greyish with hdr and dark with it off, but better). I turned hdr off and it helped a bit. It is like there is a veil pulled over this movie and Im looking for more information(clothing, hair, etc) from scene to scene. I feel like im watching a dvd at times. Still watching and going from chapter to chapter between the 2. Comparing blue tints, 2007 better. The brighter lights at night make the black levels and blue tint on the 2007 version stand way out above the 4K. There are times I wish there were some scenes in the 2007 version muted because of some blown out images from time to time, but id rather deal with that than almost falling asleep because of the lack of brightness in this new and "improved" version. I think the only good thing about the 4K is the sharpness. Its very nice. Also, this may be helpful to some, but hdr makes this movie run at 60hz. I noticed motion flaws throughout the movie. I changed my player to run at 60 instead of 24 and it still didnt work. Turned off hdr, put player back at 24 and voila, smooth as butter.

I agree with you. I just received my copy today and was in some ways pleased and in others very dismayed. While the outdoor scenes were in dire need of desaturation and a decrease in contrast/brightness, this clearly does not work for the bulk of the rest of the film, particularly the dark scenes where, like you, I found myself struggling to engage on a purely visual level with the film. With that said, the increase in detail and improvement in highlight and shadow rendition on this 4K transfer is to my eyes immense, and I find myself unable to go back to watching the clearly less detailed Blu-ray, despite preferring the color timing on the older disc for **some** scenes. I just don't know what the solution is. This transfer is just way too dark and lackluster in so many key scenes, yet the overall detail is so much better on the 4K that it's difficult to simply ignore it and go back to watching it the old way. Why can't they just get this right? We need a 4K transfer with more punch to the image.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Imagine if that was the dialogue in the movie.
"It was the boogeyman."
"Welcome to the club baby!" Roll credits.

And instead of finishing with the music that we have now, it should've had a disco rendition of the Halloween theme! It was the '70s after all

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dianabol5mg

Ive been comparing this 4K version with the 2007 version which is my go to. People have their favorite presentations, I get their reasoning, but this 4K presentation is dark AF. I keep trying to see if I left my energy saver on at medium. The color is nonexistent at times and the black levels are lacking(greyish with hdr and dark with it off, but better). I turned hdr off and it helped a bit. It is like there is a veil pulled over this movie and Im looking for more information(clothing, hair, etc) from scene to scene. I feel like im watching a dvd at times. Still watching and going from chapter to chapter between the 2. Comparing blue tints, 2007 better. The brighter lights at night make the black levels and blue tint on the 2007 version stand way out above the 4K. There are times I wish there were some scenes in the 2007 version muted because of some blown out images from time to time, but id rather deal with that than almost falling asleep because of the lack of brightness in this new and "improved" version. I think the only good thing about the 4K is the sharpness. Its very nice. Also, this may be helpful to some, but hdr makes this movie run at 60hz. I noticed motion flaws throughout the movie. I changed my player to run at 60 instead of 24 and it still didnt work. Turned off hdr, put player back at 24 and voila, smooth as butter.

What display do you have? The only times I heard of a DV disc running at 60Hz is when it's connected to a 1080p TV. Runs perfectly in HDR @ 2160p24 for me.

[Agent Kay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8jH...ature=youtu.be

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by 4kUltraBD

I've always heard the line as "Was it the boogeyman?". She already knows, but Loomis confirms.

I felt this worked because she is not only referencing Tommy saying the boogeyman was outside, it also recalls Loomis himself calling Michael Myers "it" in the early scene in the car with the nurse. Even the nurse gets frustrated with Loomis' usage of the word "it" and calls him out on it.

It's interesting that there were so many interpretations of this line. Somehow the line just seems to work well in the film, even though upon first viewing it could appear as a flubbed take. After all these years, it still generates conversation...seems to me that it was the perfect take.

I used to think she said, “What’s the boogeyman?” and Loomis replied, “As a matter of fact, that was,” which sounds incredibly strange. It’s like she randomly asks him what the boogeyman is and he says, “Funny you should ask that. You know that guy I just shot who was strangling you? It just so happens that he’s the boogeyman.” At some point I think I googled the script and I found out what the correct lines were.