Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[JCRW82]

Originally Posted by vailsy

I think that it would be absolutely worth going back to the multitrack tapes even for the mono version (at some point in the future), from the point of view of mastering and restoration since each stem could be treated in isolation. It might be for example that the Foley track needs more noise reduction whereas the other tracks do not .. applying one noise reduction pass to the entire mix would result in too much processing of sounds that do not need it which seems to be the problem actually esp with the 'filtered mono' .. it's a quick and nasty noise reduction effort

Going back to multitrack tapes was the norm when movies were being mastered for dvd, I don't see why it should be too much cost and time now in the 4k era

It's just way too time intensive and costly a process to go this route to restore and remix a new Mono track. Here's a good resource that was included in the 1999 Special Edition DVD that goes over details on how they compiled everything for that release: http://www.dvdreview.com/1999/05/pro...y-halloween/2/

All that work done in 1999 sounded very time consuming and expensive, It's no wonder why Anchor Bay and now Shout Factory continue to port over these audio sources. They could certainly make a financial and logistical case for going back to the multitracks if it was to create an Atmos Mix from scratch. But the Mono Mix is fine as it is. The 35mm Magnetic DME Master Tape has everything there, and if they want to do a bit of cleanup to that source they can separate each element (Dialogue/Music/Effects) into 3 stems and groom them if necessary. This is most likely the process Universal used for their restoration of Jaws and they spend a boatload of time and money on that one. If it's good enough for Jaws, Halloween should fare equally as well.

[SleazyForWeasley]

Thanks for filling me in, y'all. Sorry to be repetitive again.
“The only thing I can’t stand is their gibberish… how they keep ranting on and on.”

[rjy33]

So, who cares? I always forget my original mono and 1994 criterion mono, and my tv cut, and my, let's see, my correct color timing, and... well, who needs original mono anyway? I don't need original mono. I always forget all my original mono. I mean, it doesn't really matter if you have your original mono or not... Hey, isn't that Devon Graham?

[fuzzyfoot]

So are there 3 cuts on the 3rd disc? The original color timing, the extended cut, and the broadcast cut?

[Vixen of the Night]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I will say that some (NOT all, but SOME) of the differences between those two mono tracks are minimized with volume matching. As it is, that comparison has the 2014 mono at about 50% of the volume of the Criterion. Again, I’m not saying the two tracks are equal, because they aren’t…but the differences aren’t AS pronounced when you crank up the 2014 mix. I suspect you could bring it even closer to the Criterion while watching by adjusting your low end volume up a bit. The 2014 still neuters that stinger, though…

The audio used in my comparison videos are exact transfers of the source with no tweaking on my part. Literally a flat transfer of each track as they are.

The 2014 really is that quieter. The 1994 original mono is really that "loud"(not artificially compressed to sound louder, it's fully dynamic).

Turning up the volume on the 2014 mix does not even come close to achieving the quality of the 1994 mix. It's just harsher sounding and brittle as all the dynamic range was squeezed out of it. Even the music is neutered as the music builds louder and louder, while it all stays weak and at the same tiny level in the 2014 mix. Turning the volume up doesn't bring back the punch the 1994 mix has.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by hungrywives

If we're all loud enough they might. At least I hope so. Shout has a good history of going back and fixing audio issues. That's why I don't understand the people here who are saying, "eh, the 2014 track is good enough." Why not at least put it out there that you want this set to have the best presentation it can? You have nothing to lose. If you don't care about quality why buy the UHD? Why even look at this thread in the first place? Are you just here for the movie quotes?

Again I'll point out that they did not fix the audio sync for the 5.1 and stereo tracks on Black Christmas, even after a replacement program. They fixed another issue but didn't fix those. They likely didn't notice. They also included a very poor audio track on their first release of Lifeforce and didn't fix it. It sounded like it was coming from a tin can. The Arrow release had no such problem.

I agree that it's annoying when certain posters ridicule those of us who care enough to want to see the film done justice and the release handled properly. Why are they even here?

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by Vixen of the Night

The audio used in my comparison videos are exact transfers of the source with no tweaking on my part. Literally a flat transfer of each track as they are.

The 2014 really is that quieter. The 1994 original mono is really that "loud"(not artificially compressed to sound louder, it's fully dynamic).

Turning up the volume on the 2014 mix does not even come close to achieving the quality of the 1994 mix. It's just harsher sounding and brittle as all the dynamic range was squeezed out of it. Even the music is neutered as the music builds louder and louder, while it all stays weak and at the same tiny level in the 2014 mix. Turning the volume up doesn't bring back the punch the 1994 mix has.

Again, I was very clear that the two tracks are NOT the same quality. But to make a better comparison, the two should absolutely be volume matched. I never accused you of turning one track up or turning another down. But for an apples to apples comparison, they need to be heard at the same volume. Again, I acknowledge that the Criterion is absolutely better DESPITE the volume difference…but comparing them at such a different volume exacerbates the differences above and beyond what they already are.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by JCRW82

Exactly, and even if they are unable to go back and fix it for this release they are at least aware that the 2014 filtered mono mix is not the best audio source available for the original mix and can hopefully go back to scratch for the next release.

That won't do me any good because honestly I'm done with re-buying the same films over and over for little gain. Upgrading early blu-rays is a no-brainer, especially on UHD, but I should not have to buy a new UHD to upgrade an old UHD. That's nonsense. At this point any UHD release should represent the best it will likely be on home video. This was the time to do Halloween right. Not next time.

[Jay H.]

Lindsay, I need a robe!

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

That's why I kind of chuckle about this. I completely understand the "controversy", and completely get why people want the clearly (no pun intended) superior track. However, what makes me laugh a little is that if it is the "authentic original theatrical experience" folks are after, the one from the 2014 DVD is probably a heck of a lot closer to what people actually heard in a theater in 1978.

By that rationale, the UHD should have scratches and scuffs all over the print too, since that's how people saw it in theatres after a couple dozen showings. We also shouldn't have HDR on the disc since people didn't see it in HDR back in '78 by that logic. For that matter they didn't have the detail of 4k up on the theatre screens at all from theatrical prints.

UHD is about presenting the films in the best possible quality available. If you don't care about that, why are you here, and why do you even buy UHDs?

[JCRW82]

Originally Posted by mar3o

That won't do me any good because honestly I'm done with re-buying the same films over and over for little gain. Upgrading early blu-rays is a no-brainer, especially on UHD, but I should not have to buy a new UHD to upgrade an old UHD. That's nonsense. At this point any UHD release should represent the best it will likely be on home video. This was the time to do Halloween right. Not next time.

I agree, and it's the reason why I am holding off on this one and purchasing the other 4 films where they paid proper care and attention to both the video and audio.

[Jay H.]

He got hungry.

[Jay Mammoth]

Cant wait to finally watch in 4K with original mono. Thanks Shout.

[Vixen of the Night]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Again, I was very clear that the two tracks are NOT the same quality. But to make a better comparison, the two should absolutely be volume matched. I never accused you of turning one track up or turning another down. But for an apples to apples comparison, they need to be heard at the same volume. Again, I acknowledge that the Criterion is absolutely better DESPITE the volume difference…but comparing them at such a different volume exacerbates the differences above and beyond what they already are.

People can turn up the 2014 mix all they want to listen closely. The key is, you can turn the volume on your sound system down on the 1994 mono mix and it still has depth/dynamic range/atmosphere. Meanwhile you can't turn the 2014 mix up and have it sound decent or anything. It still rings hollow and weak with no dynamic range.

[dallywhitty]

LiiiiNDsaAaAaAaAaAyyyyYYYyyy!

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Vixen of the Night

People can turn up the 2014 mix all they want to listen closely. The key is, you can turn the volume on your sound system down on the 1994 mono mix and it still has depth/dynamic range/atmosphere. Meanwhile you can't turn the 2014 mix up and have it sound decent or anything. It still rings hollow and weak with no dynamic range.

Which is why I'll likely prefer the new audio mix over the mono, unless we do get a nice surprise with the mono. What's the point of the mono track if it's weak and hollow?

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by Vixen of the Night

People can turn up the 2014 mix all they want to listen closely. The key is, you can turn the volume on your sound system down on the 1994 mono mix and it still has depth/dynamic range/atmosphere. Meanwhile you can't turn the 2014 mix up and have it sound decent or anything. It still rings hollow and weak with no dynamic range.

No disagreement.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by mar3o

By that rationale, the UHD should have scratches and scuffs all over the print too, since that's how people saw it in theatres after a couple dozen showings. We also shouldn't have HDR on the disc since people didn't see it in HDR back in '78 by that logic. For that matter they didn't have the detail of 4k up on the theatre screens at all from theatrical prints.

UHD is about presenting the films in the best possible quality available. If you don't care about that, why are you here, and why do you even buy UHDs?

What part of "I completely understand why people want the superior track" did you, well, not understand?

It was just an funny thought about someone else's comment, no need to go off the rails.

Oh wait, look who I am talking to - the guy that gets bent out of shape ranting in every thread he visits, LOL. I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore, back you go. /wave

[dylrichard02]

Mono

[dallywhitty]

Just the two of us, mano e mano. I have taken off my make-up. Let's see if you can take off yours.

Oops, wrong film.