Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[grodd]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's not how it works. Compression artefacts stand out more because the compression is mediocre. But if these has FEL Dolby Vision then that may be going some way to making them look a trifle more filmic in motion than those caps where grain has seemingly been replaced with chunks of digital shite.

If the source is lower quality that's plugged up, darker and has the classic "pixel noise" source limitations, then the compression artifacts can blend into the otherwise lower resolution of the source. Its a common occurrence, image compression /source quality.

A good example is the drying sheets in the final shot, they are a noisy mess on the old version, yet the pixel compression areas stand out more on the sheets (in the new version) because of the source quality being so much better, the sheets are no longer a overall noisy mess. But the compressed areas on the sheets stand out more on the newer transfer.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

Yes. Yes we are.

It's just funny how so many folks seem to hate the sequels, but they keep selling.

[Jay H.]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

It's just funny how so many folks seem to hate the sequels, but they keep selling.

I bought II and III years ago - II because it's okay and I found it cheap and III because I genuinely like it. Even though I don't care for the other sequels at all, I still watch them. And I know I'm going to watch Halloween Kills. Hell, these movies have been part of my life for 40 years; why stop now?

I can't guess why anyone else has a love/hate relationship with the Halloween sequels, but for me it's definitely a nostalgia thing.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by grodd

If the source is lower quality that's plugged up, darker and has the classic "pixel noise" source limitations, then the compression artifacts can blend into the otherwise lower resolution of the source. Its a common occurrence, image compression /source quality.

A good example is the drying sheets in the final shot, they are a noisy mess on the old version, yet the pixel compression areas stands out more on the sheets because of the source quality being so much better the sheets are no longer a overall noisy mess. But the compressed areas on the sheets stand out more.

If you're saying that an OG negative contains more high frequency detail and sharper grain which makes it harder to compress then yes, you're absolutely right - but a semi-competent compressionist would still be able to render both grain *and* detail without turning the former into blocky clumps of rubbish is the point. "The source is better so of course the compression is worse!" is one of the weirdest instalments yet in the long, storied history of the Shout Defence Force™️.

[Matt89]

I mean, at least the Lionsgate UHD rendered the "noise" better on that disc than the SF UHD renders the grain on this new version. They used an inferior source on the previous disc obviously, but at least there aren't blocky digital chunks where there should be grain. You can still have a mediocre source that has great compression, and a great source that has poor compression. They don't have much to do with one another.

Tbh all 3 caps look pretty bad, compression-wise. There's obvious improvements like colour, detail, it looks less video-y in comparison, etc. But still, the compression is...not great. And that detracts from the other improvements made on the new scan.

Nearly a decade into the Scream Factory label, and Shout still can't seem to encode their discs.

~Matt

[grodd]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If you're saying that an OG negative contains more high frequency detail and sharper grain which makes it harder to compress then yes, you're absolutely right - but a semi-competent compressionist would still be able to render both grain *and* detail without turning the former into blocky clumps of rubbish is the point. "The source is better so of course the compression is worse!" is one of the weirdest instalments yet in the long, storied history of the Shout Defence Force™️.

I agree with the first part. Up to "semi-competent...."
"Source is better/compression is worse" is not the argument. Source is better, which will reveal more detailed compression areas as opposed to a softer noiser source.

And I haven't watched the whole thing through as we are checking out single screen caps from wind swept white sheets. (Will it even be visible in motion?)
It's hardly something unique to Halloween, and par for UHD. When I see more images, I'll likely comment again.

Never been a "Shout defender" but hey I'll call em as I see em.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I've just measured both in AutoCAD. The Lionsgate measures 2.35:1, whereas the SF measures 2.39:1. Unless I'm mistaken, that would actually make the SF correct, not the other way around (the top image is not measured incorrectly - the red bounding box only looks like it's above the lower letterbox bar in the image - it's right on the line when I zoom in close).

Either way, it's such a freaking small difference, I'll absolutely never notice one way or the other. And neither would anyone else without switching between the two sources. And if they say otherwise, frankly, they're lying.

Right, which is what I assumed. The new disc is correct, finally.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Right, which is what I assumed. The new disc is correct, finally.

It’s also worth noting that HII and HIII are now 2.39:1 as well.

[evanft]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Don't worry, matey will have an update to the custom FW soon enough.

It looks like Rattlebyte, the supplier of the mod I installed for my UB820, has also issued an update.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by grodd

I agree with the first part. Up to "semi-competent...."
"Source is better/compression is worse" is not the argument. Source is better, which will reveal more detailed compression areas as opposed to a softer noiser source.

And I haven't watched the whole thing through as we are checking out single screen caps from wind swept white sheets. It's hardly something unique to Halloween, and par for UHD. When I see more images, I'll likely comment again.

Never been a "Shout defender" but hey I'll call em as I see em.

Tbh I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue here. If the scan itself is bad, that's one thing. However, the source being better doesn't automatically make compression more obvious. Bad compression is just bad compression. It's up to the encode, not necessarily the source.

~Matt

[grodd]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Tbh I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue here. If the scan itself is bad, that's one thing. However, the source being better doesn't automatically make compression more obvious. Bad compression is just bad compression. It's up to the encode, not necessarily the source.

~Matt

Certainly a bit of subjectivity here, but if you are looking at detailed still shots, then compression artifacts areas will often show cleaner and more precise. As there is less noise and darkness to obscure them.

That doesn't give Carte Blanche to as Geoff D said "blocky clumps of rubbish" either. I'll reserve judgement until I see more.

[Nori]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It's funny you are assuming the previous disc was correct to begin with when this new release is the only one from the original negative. Gotta love the Internet.

Are you saying every other release that we've had since the dawn of the HD age has been incorrect? Cause the 2018 had the same ratio as all of them. Shout being the outlier doesn't make me feel very confident that they got it right.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by Nori

Are you saying every other release that we've had since the dawn of the HD age has been incorrect? Cause the 2018 had the same ratio as all of them. Shout being the outlier doesn't make me feel very confident that they got it right.

The 2018 actually automatically switched aspect ratios about halfway through the film from 2.35-2.40, I believe, due to a technical error.

[Nori]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I've just measured both in AutoCAD. The Lionsgate measures 2.35:1, whereas the SF measures 2.39:1. Unless I'm mistaken, that would actually make the SF correct, not the other way around (the top image is not measured incorrectly - the red bounding box only looks like it's above the lower letterbox bar in the image - it's right on the line when I zoom in close).



https://www.unravel.com.au/aspect-ratio-cheat-sheet

Either way, it's such a freaking small difference, I'll absolutely never notice one way or the other. And neither would anyone else without switching between the two sources. And if they say otherwise, frankly, they're lying.

Good find. Looks like you're right. Actually the Shout must have it right as this film is listed as being in 2.39:1 originally. So I take the previous comment back. Congrats to Shout.

[JPLeon]

Originally Posted by Nori

Are you saying every other release that we've had since the dawn of the HD age has been incorrect? Cause the 2018 had the same ratio as all of them. Shout being the outlier doesn't make me feel very confident that they got it right.

No it didn't, the aspect ratio changed midway through the movie in the 2018 4k UHD.

Edit: nvm, I saw the latest posts

[Rusty100]

Here's some of my own caps comparing it to what's on caps-a-holic for the Lionsgate release. Tried to get them frame accurate. Both are HDR > SDR via MadVR, 100 nits. Maximum quality jpegs.








I dunno. I like the SF better. The colour is much nicer.
The grain structure is finer on the SF, but there are definitely compression issues on it. Scrubbing through it frame by frame, not all frames are equal in keeping the grain structure. On the last picture, it's a flattering shot for the grain. In some frames of this same shot, the grain structure becomes blotchy with visible artifacting. It's most affected in light/near white areas of the image. It's something many won't notice in motion, but it's there. But worth mentioning there's a definite uptick in fine detail if you look at that last image especially!

I think the SF despite some issues has the overall better presentation.

[BobSimms]

The color is extremely better on the 2021 SF.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

I bought II and III years ago - II because it's okay and I found it cheap and III because I genuinely like it. Even though I don't care for the other sequels at all, I still watch them. And I know I'm going to watch Halloween Kills. Hell, these movies have been part of my life for 40 years; why stop now?

I can't guess why anyone else has a love/hate relationship with the Halloween sequels, but for me it's definitely a nostalgia thing.

The vast majority of slashers are not great movies, but a huge chunk of them have charm.

While some modern horror is good... So few have a real charm.

Like The Quiet Place movies.... Well shot, and good in a technical sense... However, They really aren't very fun... The monsters? Nothing special... The characterizations are nothing special. Everything just screams decent, but there isn't a lot to keep coming back to despite how well made they are.

The sequels still have enough charm to make them worthwhile...IMO.

[aloop]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

I dunno. I like the SF better. The colour is much nicer.
The grain structure is finer on the SF, but there are definitely compression issues on it. Scrubbing through it frame by frame, not all frames are equal in keeping the grain structure. On the last picture, it's a flattering shot for the grain. In some frames of this same shot, the grain structure becomes blotchy with visible artifacting. It's most affected in light/near white areas of the image. It's something many won't notice in motion, but it's there. But worth mentioning there's a definite uptick in fine detail if you look at that last image especially!

I think the SF despite some issues has the overall better presentation.

100% agree. I have no desire to go back to the 2018 UHD after getting this one.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I've just measured both in AutoCAD. The Lionsgate measures 2.35:1, whereas the SF measures 2.39:1. Unless I'm mistaken, that would actually make the SF correct, not the other way around (the top image is not measured incorrectly - the red bounding box only looks like it's above the lower letterbox bar in the image - it's right on the line when I zoom in close).

[Show spoiler]

https://www.unravel.com.au/aspect-ratio-cheat-sheet

Either way, it's such a freaking small difference, I'll absolutely never notice one way or the other. And neither would anyone else without switching between the two sources. And if they say otherwise, frankly, they're lying.

Yep, and it actually switches to 2.39:1 halfway through the Lionsgate disc.