Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[AllOuttaBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Yeah. I don't know why people are talking as if they have the same timing. They certainly do not.

I grouped them because the '07 and THX do share some of the broad stroke values in terms of generally higher--and often warmer--saturation levels, along with brighter output for many of the nighttime elements as opposed to the more subdued, nuanced look of the 35th/UHD.

[bobbyh64]

I prefer the 35th over the ‘07 mainly because the 35th has that bluish tint in some of the nighttime scenes that’s lacking in the ‘07.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

If you could see me, I would be shrugging to display my indifference. A mono track is available with this UHD release. Is it the original mono track? No, apparently not. Is it a lossy version. Yes, it is. The differences between this mono track and the original are incredibly minor and superficial. Also...the hill some choose to die on is lossy vs. lossless...mono? Seriously? If you believe you can tell the difference with a 1978 mono source you are only fooling yourself.

This is a beautifuly done catalog release. If this doesn’t make you happy, nothing will.

Eh, missing sound effects aren’t a minor thing, at least not by my estimation.

[Law212]

I watched this last weekend on DVD. I also heard "whats the boogeyman"
Also I forgot how slow the movie is.

Cant wait to see the new one.

I dont think ill be upgrading myversion of this film. One thing i loved about horror movies is the muddy grainy quality. Made them feel scarier. Like watching a home video of people getting killed. (which i dont watch... i swear)

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Eh, missing sound effects aren’t a minor thing, at least not by my estimation.

In this case it’s pretty minor. An extra thunder noise or two and a missing high frequency synthesizer sizzle in the car scene. I’m not losing sleep over it. And the 7.1 mix sounds great.

This is not The Terminator, where I can see a legit case to be made. Although in all honesty, the new mix of that sounds better to me.

The one that really irked me was Conan the Barbarian. That’s my favorite soundtrack of all time and the remix omitted entire choral pieces.

[crissrudd4554]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

In this case it’s pretty minor. An extra thunder noise or two and a missing high frequency synthesizer sizzle in the car scene. I’m not losing sleep over it. And the 7.1 mix sounds great.

This is not The Terminator, where I can see a legit case to be made. Although in all honesty, the new mix of that sounds better to me.

The one that really irked me was Conan the Barbarian. That’s my favorite soundtrack of all time and the remix omitted entire choral pieces.

Jaws and The Terminator IMO are the epitome of overly revisionist surround mixes.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by crissrudd4554

Jaws and The Terminator IMO are the epitome of overly revisionist surround mixes.

I know you and I probably discussed this in the past, but I disagree regarding Jaws, at least...

[crissrudd4554]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

I know you and I probably discussed this in the past, but I disagree regarding Jaws, at least...

It’s a matter of opinion. Why one likes something else better is why others prefer something else. I will add though the Jaws mono won an Oscar in 1975 yet the surround mix deviates heavily from it.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by crissrudd4554

It’s a matter of opinion. Why one likes something else better is why others prefer something else. I will add though the Jaws mono won an Oscar in 1975 yet the surround mix deviates heavily from it.

I totally agree that it's a matter of opinion; I was merely stating that I disagree regarding Jaws' reworked audio being detrimental to the essence.

IMHO, the 5.1 mix (in DTS, at least, which is the version of the DVD I own) adds a layer of aggressiveness and heft missing from the original stems of this film's audio; I realize most purists and diehard fans don't care for the overtly loud "thudding" of Bruce coming through the Orca at the end on the surround mixes and other cues, but I personally enjoyed it. I also have total respect for the fact that the mono mix won an Oscar.

I also prefer reworked audio on many other older titles including The Amityville Horror and The Exorcist.

[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".

I'm not sure which discs you have, but on the 35th Anniversary and 2007 Blu-ray releases the subtitles say, "It was the boogeyman." Actually, on the '07 release they spell it "bogeyman."

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Law212

I watched this last weekend on DVD. I also heard "whats the boogeyman"

[DR Herbert West]

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

In this case it’s pretty minor. An extra thunder noise or two and a missing high frequency synthesizer sizzle in the car scene. I’m not losing sleep over it. And the 7.1 mix sounds great.

This is not The Terminator, where I can see a legit case to be made. Although in all honesty, the new mix of that sounds better to me.

The one that really irked me was Conan the Barbarian. That’s my favorite soundtrack of all time and the remix omitted entire choral pieces.

Heh. It's easy enough to be blasé about these things....until they get to one we do care about. I'm not having a pop at you per se, just sayin' that there might even be something someday that certain other posters will get to watching on Blu or 4K and think to themselves "well, that's not right". And when that day comes I will laugh. I will point and laugh.

[eddievanhalen]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

I totally agree that it's a matter of opinion; I was merely stating that I disagree regarding Jaws' reworked audio being detrimental to the essence.

IMHO, the 5.1 mix (in DTS, at least, which is the version of the DVD I own) adds a layer of aggressiveness and heft missing from the original stems of this film's audio; I realize most purists and diehard fans don't care for the overtly loud "thudding" of Bruce coming through the Orca at the end on the surround mixes and other cues, but I personally enjoyed it. I also have total respect for the fact that the mono mix won an Oscar.

I also prefer reworked audio on many other older titles including The Amityville Horror and The Exorcist.

I love how The Exorcist remixed audio track on the BD sounds, either on The Version You've Never Seen or the Theatrical Cut.

[crissrudd4554]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

I totally agree that it's a matter of opinion; I was merely stating that I disagree regarding Jaws' reworked audio being detrimental to the essence.

IMHO, the 5.1 mix (in DTS, at least, which is the version of the DVD I own) adds a layer of aggressiveness and heft missing from the original stems of this film's audio; I realize most purists and diehard fans don't care for the overtly loud "thudding" of Bruce coming through the Orca at the end on the surround mixes and other cues, but I personally enjoyed it. I also have total respect for the fact that the mono mix won an Oscar.

I also prefer reworked audio on many other older titles including The Amityville Horror and The Exorcist.

I can respect where you’re coming from but my problem with the remixes to Jaws and The Terminator, and even Grease to an extent, is I have the visuals of a movie from one time and the audio mix from another. For my tastes they just don’t always blend and in some cases are put to much up front instead of blending complimentary throughout the mix.

A big reason fans were psyched for the new 40th Anniversary release of Grease is the audio is sourced from an original six track. For the last 20 years all we’ve had is a revisionist remix that mixed the songs differently and added new Foley, much of which was unnecessary. For instance in You’re The One That I Want the 1998 mix added jacket sounds to when Danny and Sandy remove their jackets and toss them aside. While not a big deal, when you watch the scene with the original mix without those sounds you realize how unnecessary they feel when seen (or heard) with them. The new 40th Anniversary mix is as close to what we’ve gotten since the VHS days to the original mix.

Then there’s examples in Jaws and Terminator where some of the new additions are either awful or just change the feel to a scene. When the Terminator kills the wrong Sarah Connor, the scene is almost comedic now with the ‘pew pew’ gun sound effect. The pipe bombs in the tunnel go ‘poof’ and don’t echo like they did in the original. The shark in Jaws crashing through the boat window now sounds like a wine glass was broken. It’s almost laughable. The original sound wasn’t perfect either but at least IMO adds to how strong the shark is. In the mono, the boat creaks as it sinks which kinda adds to the seriousness of the situation. Those sounds are gone in the remix. Jaws has one of the most iconic themes in movie history yet the opening notes are virtually inaudible in the remix yet are crystal clear in the mono.

But I digress. We will agree to disagree. In the end we find something unique about our preferred mixes and that’s fine. Revised remixes don’t always work for me but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t for others.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by eddievanhalen

I love how The Exorcist remixed audio track on the BD sounds, either on The Version You've Never Seen or the Theatrical Cut.

Those are two totally different mixes. I'm not a big fan of TVYNS's audio; it's technically well-engineered, but I feel like it goes overboard in a lot of spots.

[HAL9K]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You do know that the images in the video comparison are converted SDR, right? Whatever matey's doing to them is blowing the gamut completely out of whack, not just on this but I'm guessing on pretty much every comparison vid he's produced if Solo and Bad Boys were any indication.

I've compared HDR10 and DV on my set with Halloween, there's no discernable difference in colour between the two. But as far as I can tell there aren't many people in this thread who've actually watched the UHD and come away with the impression that it was grossly oversaturated vs the 35th anniversary edition, and many have had the opposite reaction. I think what doesn't help with the "monochromatic" comments is that some people are comparing the UHD to the packed-in 2007 Blu-ray with its golden autumnal timing whereas if they were to compare to the more muted 35th anni Blu-ray (sold separately ) then they'd see that they are very, very close.

I don't buy that whatsoever, that the difference in saturation opinions from people are caused from them comparing the UHD vs 2007 Blu. That's just dumb. The screenshots and video comparisons would be WAY different, instead of just saturation differences for the most part. Not to mention, people specifically stating 4K vs 35th Blu.

Do you also believe that both the the caps-a-holic AND blu-ray.com images were altered to make it look like the 4K has more saturated colors than the 35th Blu? Why do both of those sets of images AND the video comparison show the 4K to have more saturation, yet others say it is most definitely less saturated? And who said anything about grossly oversaturated?

There are also those who are going by their own eyes and not by any screenshots/videos. Some saying less saturated than the 35th, some say more saturated than the 35th. If it's more saturated and natural looking like the caps-a-holic & blu-ray.com screenshots (and the video) show, then I will make a purchase. If it's even less saturated then the 35th Blu, then I have zero interest. It has to be one or the other. Which is it? Again, it can't be both.

Edit: As far as the images being HDR to SDR conversions... I was told the same thing about caps-a-holic screens for The Dark Crystal 4K. Except in that instance the conversion supposedly made the image both desaturated and with greatly overblown highlights. The 4K Halloween pics are the exact opposite. The conversion can't make one image brighter and desaturated, while converting another makes it darker and more saturated. Another example for it can't be both. It would be one or the other in every instance of converting an HDR image to SDR. So I don't buy that as the reason either.

[barrycameron]

Originally Posted by Bourne1886

Oooooooooooo.......scary! Michael has nothing on you!

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Don't feed the troll, dude.

A childish comment then directly backed up by another. This will be the last comment regarding this. Because like you said, I won't be feeding either of your childish troll comments.

I'll be sticking to the movie in question.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HAL9K

I don't buy that whatsoever, that the difference in saturation opinions from people are caused from them comparing the UHD vs 2007 Blu. That's just dumb. The screenshots and video comparisons would be WAY different, instead of just saturation differences for the most part. Not to mention, people specifically stating 4K vs 35th Blu.

Do you also believe that both the the caps-a-holic AND blu-ray.com images were altered to make it look like the 4K has more saturated colors than the 35th Blu? Why do both of those sets of images AND the video comparison show the 4K to have more saturation, yet others say it is most definitely less saturated? And who said anything about grossly oversaturated?

There are also those who are going by their own eyes and not by any screenshots/videos. Some saying less saturated than the 35th, some say more saturated than the 35th. If it's more saturated and natural looking like the caps-a-holic & blu-ray.com screenshots (and the video) show, then I will make a purchase. If it's even less saturated then the 35th Blu, then I have zero interest. It has to be one or the other. Which is it? Again, it can't be both.

Edit: As far as the images being HDR to SDR conversions... I was told the same thing about caps-a-holic screens for The Dark Crystal 4K. Except in that instance the conversion supposedly made the image both desaturated and with greatly overblown highlights. The 4K Halloween pics are the exact opposite. The conversion can't make one image brighter and desaturated, while converting another makes it darker and more saturated. Another example for it can't be both. It would be one or the other in every instance of converting an HDR image to SDR. So I don't buy that as the reason either.

I'm taking it that you're new to 4K HDR? The vagaries of tone mapping mean that any number of outcomes are possible when people are putting these things in and pressing 'play', but I can assure you that the video which people keep touting is hilariously out of whack, which is where the "gross oversaturation" comes from. Halloween 4K does not look like that in any way, Shape or form.

I wondered out loud that differences in opinion might be influenced towards this "monochromatic" look that some people are experiencing if they were directly comparing to the packed-in 2007 disc, meaning on their own setups, but seeing as you've referenced the "blu-ray.com caps" as being gospel I'll put on my condescending hat on again and say that you do realise the "caps" in the site's review are 1080p images from the 2007 Blu-ray...right? They're not even from the 35th anniversary Blu-ray, never mind the funking UHD!!

So, that's two out of three visual comparisons that are completely misrepresentative of this 4K disc, as for the third I don't see a blanket over/undersaturation across the movie in the capsaholic grabs (though even those grabs are still SDR converted and should still be taken with a pinch of salt) either way, and I never said I did. Some shots have a bit more colour than the 35th, some shots have less colour, though it's more of a change to the overall colour balance than anything. That's pretty much how this UHD transfer rolls, and what happens from there is up to the tone mapping gods to sort out.

[edit] And besides, YOU ASKED as to what's causing these differences between user experiences and I replied with a few thoughts. If people's answers don't match up with what you've clearly already formulated in your head then why ask the question at all? As I said at the top, it's clear you're new to 4K HDR so I'll finish by saying that display implementation of HDR has been one of the greatest tech industry ****-ups of all time, you could play the same disc on five different displays and get drastically different outcomes as a result because HDR just doesn't work like SDR. At all. But I speak with the didactic authority that I do because my HDR display has been calibrated to the correct 6500K colour temperature with the proper greyscale and the HDR brightness curve is tracking exactly where it should be, P3 primaries/secondaries are also tracking properly. I know what my display is doing on an objective level, I cannot speak towards the accuracy of anybody else's display which is why the amount of people whose opinions on UHD I actually trust is an extremely short list.

[ROSS.T.G.]

These big catalogue threads are infested with UHD haters.