Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Canchola93

I assume if you want the poster its only through shout correct? Not amazon or bestbuy

Right. The posters are available only through Shout (or later on Ebay for a markup from sellers that bought it from Shout just to sell the posters later).

[Big_Bass_Man]

Wish they made horror movies like they did in the 60's through 90's. Halloween is a good movie.

[SpazeBlue]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

.

I knew about that (I posted about it earlier), I was just wondering why he said "There's no reason a laserdisc mono track should sound better than the blu-ray mono track." as if mono being on Blu-ray means it's automatically better or that LaserDisc audio tends to be poor quality. Most of the time, Blu-ray mono tracks (at least ones that are released by major companies, and have remixed tracks also included) are just lossy DD or DTS tracks, while most LaserDiscs tend to sound much better, a lot of the time even having LPCM tracks.

[The80s]

Originally Posted by Big_Bass_Man

Wish they made horror movies like they did in the 60's through 90's. Halloween is a good movie.

I wish they made movies like they did in the 60s through 90s. More focus on actual story and making the movie genuinely good, and less focus on....other stuff.

Some people nowadays still hold those standards, but most seem not to.

[Telemachus]

Originally Posted by mar3o

There's no reason a laserdisc mono track should sound better than the blu-ray mono track.

My tech knowledge of laser disc is almost completely gone, but was the mono track on that Halloween LD release digital or analog? I'm guessing it was analog, and in that case, it's not surprising to me it can trounce a digital track, even lossless, that has been manipulated in a bad way.

I've heard plenty of vinyls and analog tapes that were better than CDs or even lossless files up to DSD quality. There is almost no reason for that to happen except when those more advanced formats were mastered in a way that made them sound inferior on great speakers, which sadly happens so much it would make your head spin, because they master things for the worst speakers imaginable usually, crunching out all dynamic range.

I wonder what these companies have against just using the LD audio on a BD, Shout could have done it on Return of the Living Dead II as well, instead they used a VHS tape (!!!!!) and it sounds horrid.

[JCRW82]

Originally Posted by Telemachus

My tech knowledge of laser disc is almost completely gone, but was the mono track on that Halloween LD release digital or analog? I'm guessing it was analog, and in that case, it's not surprising to me it can trounce a digital track, even lossless, that has been manipulated in a bad way.

I've heard plenty of vinyls and analog tapes that were better than CDs or even lossless files up to DSD quality. There is almost no reason for that to happen except when those more advanced formats were mastered in a way that made them sound inferior on great speakers, which sadly happens so much it would make your head spin, because they master things for the worst speakers imaginable usually, crunching out all dynamic range.

I wonder what these companies have against just using the LD audio on a BD, Shout could have done it on Return of the Living Dead II as well, instead they used a VHS tape (!!!!!) and it sounds horrid.

Knowing Criterion they probably went out of their way to obtain the analog tape of the Original Mono Mix as it also appears that they added the Mono Music and Effects tracks to their laserdisc release.

I'm going to make a complete guess and say that the last couple of releases of Halloween (including the SF boxset with the correct original mono mix) bypassed using the analog tapes and most likely received a digital version. Who knows what kind of processing would have been done at the analog to digital conversion stage. If any kind of noise reduction or filtering was added at this point then the damage is already done. It wouldn't surprise me if this is exactly what SF got for the release, which means that in order to correct the issue they would have to request for the original master tape of the mono mix and get that converted to digital with no processing applied.

Noise reduction is such a terrible product which is unfortunately still used in film and music to this day. It is supposed to remove tape hiss but it does more than that. You lose the airiness and three dimensional space of the overall soundtrack and everything ends up sounding sterile, flat & boxed in. A perfect description of the mono mix we got in the boxed set & the surround mixes we have gotten through the years. All we can do is wait and see if SF pulls out all the stops and treats the audio portion of these films with the same respect they are giving to the visuals and film.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by SpazeBlue

I knew about that (I posted about it earlier), I was just wondering why he said "There's no reason a laserdisc mono track should sound better than the blu-ray mono track." as if mono being on Blu-ray means it's automatically better or that LaserDisc audio tends to be poor quality. Most of the time, Blu-ray mono tracks (at least ones that are released by major companies, and have remixed tracks also included) are just lossy DD or DTS tracks, while most LaserDiscs tend to sound much better, a lot of the time even having LPCM tracks.

I think they're just saying there's no reason why the Blu mono shouldn't be as good as the Laserdisc.

[BobSimms]

Originally Posted by JCRW82

The LaserDisc mono track sounds miles better than the SF mono track."

Then you have this post with a link to a comparison of the Criterion Mono track vs the 5.1 mix we have had for years and years:

[Show spoiler] https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...ostcount=33887

Halloween (1978) - Original Mono vs. 5.1 Remix - YouTube

Question about the Scream Factory mono in that comparison video: is that the downmix of the surround audio (it’s labeled as “5.1 remix” in the video), or is it the original 1978 mono that SF released in the box set in 2014? It clearly sounds terrible compared to the Laserdisc, but when the YouTube video calls it the “5.1 remix”, it’s not clear what we’re actually hearing.

[JCRW82]

Originally Posted by BobSimms

Question about the Scream Factory mono in that comparison video: is that the downmix of the surround audio (it’s labeled as “5.1 remix” in the video), or is it the original 1978 mono that SF released in the box set in 2014? It clearly sounds terrible compared to the Laserdisc, but when the YouTube video calls it the “5.1 remix”, it’s not clear what we’re actually hearing.

The linked video is a comparison of the Criterion Laserdisc Original Mono Mix vs the 5.1 mix that I believe was included as the surround option on Disc 2 of the Shout Factory Box Set.

I'm going to take a guess that the original poster of the video made a down mix of the 5.1 or else you would hear certain effects missing. Either way, the Criterion Mono Mix wins hands down. You can tell there were some poor production choices made in the 5.1 mix.

[BobSimms]

Originally Posted by JCRW82

The linked video is a comparison of the Criterion Laserdisc Original Mono Mix vs the 5.1 mix that I believe was included as the surround option on Disc 2 of the Shout Factory Box Set.

I'm going to take a guess that the original poster of the video made a down mix of the 5.1 or else you would hear certain effects missing.

I see. Would’ve been more useful to compare the original 1978 mono from the 2014 box set, no? Oh well. Looking forward to hearing what Scream Factory does with the original mono on the UHD. Also still very concerned about the opening titles and on-screen text.

[Telemachus]

Those Criterion Laser Discs were something else, I think their quality has been way surpassed since those days by other companies.

[BPW2016]

Originally Posted by BobSimms

Also still very concerned about the opening titles and on-screen text.

What's the issue with the titles/text?

[sancho]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Shout has had issues with scratched discs. With Amazon it's simple to get a replacement shipped before I even send the other one back, in case the new one is worse. While Amazon always carries the likelihood of some exterior damage, my bad luck with scratched discs has to be factored in, and Amazon wins when it comes to ease of replacements. Though I do get tired of getting half the stuff I buy dinged up. If I could count on my discs not being scratched up, I'd absolutely go with Diabolik more often.

Very valid point. Scratched discs from Shout is always a concern.
I have received scratched discs from Shout...and AMZ replaced them within a few days. I would go with Diabolik more often too...if there was no issue with scratched discs from Shout.

[BobSimms]

Originally Posted by BPW2016

What's the issue with the titles/text?

Some discussion about it in the comment linked below. There was a question of whether they had the unaltered film from the opening credits (over which the titles were laid in editing), as well as the establishing shot in the “present day” (where the words ‘Haddonfield’ and ‘Halloween’ appear on screen in a dissolve). When they go back to the OCN for a new scan, they either have all the original elements and rebuild the credits physically or — shudder — digitally, or they just scan the interpositive for those scenes, which necessarily involves a generational loss in quality from the OCN.

The opening scene with the ‘mask’ image overlaid on the film is another such optical effect, but no one thinks they’d dare try to rebuild that.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=5063

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by BobSimms

Some discussion about it in the comment linked below. There was a question of whether they had the unaltered film from the opening credits (over which the titles were laid in editing), as well as the establishing shot in the “present day” (where the words ‘Haddonfield’ and ‘Halloween’ appear on screen in a dissolve). When they go back to the OCN for a new scan, they either have all the original elements and rebuild the credits physically or — shudder — digitally, or they just scan the interpositive for those scenes, which necessarily involves a generational loss in quality from the OCN.

The opening scene with the ‘mask’ image overlaid on the film is another such optical effect, but no one thinks they’d dare try to rebuild that.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=5063

Holy shit. Maybe that's why the 35th anniversary was a 4K scan from the interpositive. To not **** things up.

[BPW2016]

Originally Posted by BobSimms

Some discussion about it in the comment linked below. There was a question of whether they had the unaltered film from the opening credits (over which the titles were laid in editing), as well as the establishing shot in the “present day” (where the words ‘Haddonfield’ and ‘Halloween’ appear on screen in a dissolve). When they go back to the OCN for a new scan, they either have all the original elements and rebuild the credits physically or — shudder — digitally, or they just scan the interpositive for those scenes, which necessarily involves a generational loss in quality from the OCN.

The opening scene with the ‘mask’ image overlaid on the film is another such optical effect, but no one thinks they’d dare try to rebuild that.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=5063

Wow! I had no idea all of that was going on - thanks for the info and the link.

[crowe-t]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Shout has had issues with scratched discs. With Amazon it's simple to get a replacement shipped before I even send the other one back, in case the new one is worse. While Amazon always carries the likelihood of some exterior damage, my bad luck with scratched discs has to be factored in, and Amazon wins when it comes to ease of replacements. Though I do get tired of getting half the stuff I buy dinged up. If I could count on my discs not being scratched up, I'd absolutely go with Diabolik more often.

Shout is supplying both Amazon and Diabolik. If Shout has problems with scratched discs then wouldn't those be supplied to both Amazon and Diabolik too?

I'm confused. Isn't it still better to buy from Diabolik since they are cheaper than Shout and provide better packing than Amazon?

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by crowe-t

Shout is supplying both Amazon and Diabolik. If Shout has problems with scratched discs then wouldn't those be supplied to both Amazon and Diabolik too?

I'm confused. Isn't it still better to buy from Diabolik since they are cheaper than Shout and provide better packing than Amazon?

Obviously not every disc will be scratched (hopefully).

The point is if I get a scratched disk from Diabolik, I'm assuming I'll have to contact Diabolik and/or Shout Factory and try to snap an image of the disc with the scratch which isn't always easy and then they will decide if it's big enough/deep enough to send a replacement. Then they may or may not require me to ship the original disc back first. Then I have to hope the replacement is actually an improvement (likely sent in a paper mailer which may add to the likelihood of it arriving scuffed).

With Amazon I report the damaged set and they instantly send out a full sealed replacement copy which will hopefully be better, and I don't even have to send the old one back until I have both to compare, in case the new ones turns out to be worse. If the replacement has even worse scratches I can cut my losses and keep the lesser damaged one if I have to. I don't even need to snap a picture.

I've gone through both scenarios (not with Diabolik, but getting replacement Shout discs for multiple scratches and scuffs in the latest Friday the 13th box set was a nightmare and a half, with Shout using a 3rd party for handling replacement discs).

Shout had major issues with Trick or Treat remastered discs being scratched. Read the thread.

I'll take Amazon's return process any day over anyone else.

[The80s]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Obviously not every disc will be scratched (hopefully).

The point is if I get a scratched disk from Diabolik, I'm assuming I'll have to contact Diabolik and/or Shout Factory and try to snap an image of the disc with the scratch which isn't always easy and then they will decide if it's big enough/deep enough to send a replacement. Then they may or may not require me to ship the original disc back first. Then I have to hope the replacement is actually an improvement (likely sent in a paper mailer which may add to the likelihood of it arriving scuffed).

With Amazon I report the damaged set and they instantly send out a full sealed replacement copy which will hopefully be better, and I don't even have to send the old one back until I have both to compare, in case the new ones turns out to be worse. If the replacement has even worse scratches I can cut my losses and keep the lesser damaged one if I have to. I don't even need to snap a picture.

I've gone through both scenarios (not with Diabolik, but getting replacement Shout discs for multiple scratches and scuffs in the latest Friday the 13th box set was a nightmare and a half, with Shout using a 3rd party for handling replacement discs).

Shout had major issues with Trick or Treat remastered discs being scratched. Read the thread.

I'll take Amazon's return process any day over anyone else.

What happens if you get a scratched disc, order a replacement, and the replacement is scratched too?

[crowe-t]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Obviously not every disc will be scratched (hopefully).

The point is if I get a scratched disk from Diabolik, I'm assuming I'll have to contact Diabolik and/or Shout Factory and try to snap an image of the disc with the scratch which isn't always easy and then they will decide if it's big enough/deep enough to send a replacement. Then they may or may not require me to ship the original disc back first. Then I have to hope the replacement is actually an improvement (likely sent in a paper mailer which may add to the likelihood of it arriving scuffed).

With Amazon I report the damaged set and they instantly send out a full sealed replacement copy which will hopefully be better, and I don't even have to send the old one back until I have both to compare, in case the new ones turns out to be worse. If the replacement has even worse scratches I can cut my losses and keep the lesser damaged one if I have to. I don't even need to snap a picture.

I've gone through both scenarios (not with Diabolik, but getting replacement Shout discs for multiple scratches and scuffs in the latest Friday the 13th box set was a nightmare and a half, with Shout using a 3rd party for handling replacement discs).

Shout had major issues with Trick or Treat remastered discs being scratched. Read the thread.

I'll take Amazon's return process any day over anyone else.

I have to admit I really like Amazon's replacement process. I've ordered stuff that had a problem and Amazon just shipped out a new item fast.

My only problems with Amazon is they don't usually put packing material in boxes and their prices seem to change from day to day. I just looked up the Halloween 1 - 5 4K's and the first 2 are now $36.21 each. Part 3 - 5 are still $27.99.