Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by IPreferPi

Given the 4K disc art uses the same art from the 35th anniversary remaster in 2013, pretty sure the blu-ray in this release will just be that same 35th anniversary disc.

...and that's why I won't be buying it, more than likely...

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by neveser

Saw that this morning... aaarrrghhh... want to pre-order but I want to see a review first!

Why?

Originally Posted by IPreferPi

Given the 4K disc art uses the same art from the 35th anniversary remaster in 2013, pretty sure the blu-ray in this release will just be that same 35th anniversary disc.

Of course it is. The 35th was a brand new 4K scan from the negatives, and specifically color timed by Cundey. Why would they go back again and do another new scan for no reason? It's been known from the start that this is a 4K UHD of that version.

[javy]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

...and that's why I won't be buying it, more than likely...

Why? Cause you dont want the remastered blu ray?

[Vorhees13]

Originally Posted by F13BluRay

Has any Halloween release ever had a digital code with it? Not that I'm aware of

H6 - Producers Cut

[ROSS.T.G.]

Was it confirmed that it was a 4K scan though? I read somewhere it was 2K. Can’t remeber where I saw that.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Was it confirmed that it was a 4K scan though? I read somewhere it was 2K. Can’t remeber where I saw that.

Yes. And there's no way they went back to the negatives and did a full color grade form scratch if they didn't future-proof it at 4K. No way.

[barrycameron]

Since it's the same old artwork time and time again, I decided to create my own slipcover and sleeve for the movie:

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by javy

Why? Cause you dont want the remastered blu ray?

Pretty much -- this is the thing I've been saying about rebuying certain titles over and over again as they are released in a new format. I understand that there should be some image improvement just from the jump to a higher resolution alone -- such as films we may have had on DVD and then bought in 1080p Blu-ray, and now 1080p Blu-rays jumping to 2160p (I think it is?) 4K/UHD -- but I've been burned too many times with certain titles that I double or triple dipped on, only to feel that the version with the higher resolution didn't look all that much different from the DVD I replaced...

Here are some examples: When I replaced my Warner snapper case DVD version of The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen with the original digibook Blu-ray version, the Blu-ray didn't look -- to MY eyes -- all that much more spectacular than the DVD it replaced on MY setup. Sure, it may have been slightly more detail-rich and boasted some other small improvements, but for the most part it looked very similar to the upconverted DVD. The same issues I had with the film's transfer itself were there on the Blu-ray, but just in higher resolution glory (making some of these elements WORSE the way I saw it), such as the ridiculously thick film grain throughout many sequences and the softness in other scenes that really didn't improve with the 1080p encode. The way I saw it, Warner seemed to have taken the master of The Version You've Never Seen (already digitally cleaned up for the home video release) DVD and simply ported it over to a Blu-ray Disc. The same thing happened when I bought Fox's first Independence Day BD release (it looked very similar to the Limited Edition DVD transfer I sold off; from what I learned, though, Fox was using outdated masters for films of this era like Fight Club and ID4 for their BD transfers).

Now, this COULD be because my Oppo Blu-ray player does such an excellent job of upconverting DVDs to near-high-def, but I am only reporting what I can see.

When Anchor Bay first released its Halloween Blu-ray (under the Starz! moniker), I was solely disappointed with that disc -- to my eyes, the grain structure and color algorithms didn't look right compared to the (admittedly softer and more artifact-ridden) THX DVD. I have not seen the Anniversary edition of the Halloween Blu-ray (the last one released as a standalone digibook and then in the franchise box set) so I don't know what it looks like, but my worry is that I buy yet another version of Halloween (now in 4K -- though I don't have a player yet) and it simply looks like the previously-released Blu, albeit at a somewhat higher resolution...

Now don't get me wrong -- I understand that repurposing or remastering a title from scratch for a new resolution is a very expensive proposition for a studio, and this cost would be passed on to us, as fans and consumers (it would probably make most of these releases completely unaffordable)...but I feel that perhaps many of these could be offered at, say, a $40 or $45 price point and enthusiasts would be willing to buy their favorite titles at such cost knowing the film was given a brand-new 4K re-minting (I know I would) rather than a port-over of some kind.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Yes. And there's no way they went back to the negatives and did a full color grade form scratch if they didn't future-proof it at 4K. No way.

Good to know.

No I wouldn't expect they would.

[HeavyHitter]

I guess it just depends on the type of equipment and set-up as Exorcist on Blu-ray was a big upgrade for me over the DVD. And I expect the inevitable UHD BD to be a big upgrade over the BD.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Why?



Of course it is. The 35th was a brand new 4K scan from the negatives, and specifically color timed by Cundey. Why would they go back again and do another new scan for no reason? It's been known from the start that this is a 4K UHD of that version.

Do you have a source? The insert of the 35th ann states it's a new "1080p" transfer supervised by Cundey (or words to that effect).

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I guess it just depends on the type of equipment and set-up as Exorcist on Blu-ray was a big upgrade for me over the DVD.

Like I said, I suspect this had a lot to do with my BD player's upconversion of the standard DVD (and most I watch) of that title (my Oppo boasts a premium Anchor Bay VRS processor that really takes standard definition to a different level, provided the disc itself was authored properly and the film transfer doesn't have any baked-in issues).

What version of the Exorcist DVD did you own? Was it The Version You've Never Seen or an older cut? I ask because The Version You've Never Seen -- now called the Extended Director's Cut on subsequent releases of the film -- was given a visual upgrade even for its theatrical release circa 1999 or 2000 (can't remember when it came out, but I saw it twice in theaters at that time when it did -- plus went to a screening of it at a film festival at New York City's Radio City Music Hall, which was AMAZING). So THAT version already looked pretty great in many places (save for the grain and noise I mentioned); some previous "special edition" and "anniversary" editions may not have...

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Do you have a source? The insert of the 35th ann states it's a new "1080p" transfer supervised by Cundey (or words to that effect).

That's what I thought, as well...

[grodd]

Yes, the 35th anniversary says it was from a new HD transfer.
I've seen nothing stating it was from a 4k scan.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by barrycameron

Since it's the same old artwork time and time again, I decided to create my own slipcover and sleeve for the movie:

god no, its annoying enough when they use shit artwork on the blu ray when its theatricle poster was awesome.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Do you have a source? The insert of the 35th ann states it's a new "1080p" transfer supervised by Cundey (or words to that effect).

It was reported years back. And again, no company would spend money now and go back to the negatives, which require a full color grade for scratch, if it was only 2K.

It's not a 1080p transfer, it's a 1080p disc. WB has been making 4K transfers since 2007, but they also don't say 4K, they say 1080p.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Like I said, I suspect this had a lot to do with my BD player's upconversion of the standard DVD (and most I watch) of that title (my Oppo boasts a premium Anchor Bay VRS processor that really takes standard definition to a different level, provided the disc itself was authored properly and the film transfer doesn't have any baked-in issues).

What version of the Exorcist DVD did you own? Was it The Version You've Never Seen or an older cut? I ask because The Version You've Never Seen -- now called the Extended Director's Cut on subsequent releases of the film -- was given a visual upgrade even for its theatrical release circa 1999 or 2000 (can't remember when it came out, but I saw it twice in theaters at that time when it did -- plus went to a screening of it at a film festival at New York City's Radio City Music Hall, which was AMAZING). So THAT version already looked pretty great in many places (save for the grain and noise I mentioned); some previous "special edition" and "anniversary" editions may not have...

It's been a while since I saw the DVD of either. Actually, it's been a while since I last watched the BD...will have to give it a spin again soon. I just remember the BD looking more filmic and natural - fewer typical DVD compression artifacts, noise, fewer compressed highlights, etc. It's also true the VC-1 encoding of the BD is not perfect either. I think given this got a 4K scan from the original negative means it should be a vast improvement on UHD BD and H.265 as well as with the other typical UHD benefits.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by grodd

Yes, the 35th anniversary says it was from a new HD transfer.
I've seen nothing stating it was from a 4k scan.

It was a completely new negative scan. Just because you haven't seen it stated in 30 articles doesn't make it not true.

[grodd]

This was discussed in length years back and nothing ever came forward stating it was from a 4k transfer.
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...21578&page=371

You said it was reported years back, where?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It was reported years back. And again, no company would spend money now and go back to the negatives, which require a full color grade for scratch, if it was only 2K.

It's not a 1080p transfer, it's a 1080p disc. WB has been making 4K transfers since 2007, but they also don't say 4K, they say 1080p.

I only recall reading an interview with Cundey about the 35th ann BD and "negatives" came up as well as other film sources used for the transfer, but I recall nothing 4K was stated in that interview and it seems like it would have if done based on the context of that interview. Given the studio involved and especially higher costs of 4K scanning back in 2013 (or maybe it was even scanned in 2012), I would certainly not necessarily bank that it was scanned at 4K at that time.