Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by tardif

Who is 'Dean Candy'?

Found him:

[Show spoiler]

[GasmaskAvenger]

Looks like Target will be carrying this in-store next week.

[TheSweetieMan]

Howard Dean Candy

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It doesn't really matter what any one "prefers." What matters is how it was originally made, which is the only way it should be seen.

Well that rules out the 4K disc then as there was no way in the world this was created 40 years ago with HDR in mind.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Well that rules out the 4K disc then as there was no way in the world this was created 40 years ago with HDR in mind.

This is a misconception. An SDR Blu-ray or DVD is not capable of reproducing the full dynamic range of a 35mm negative. If anything, HDR actually allows for greater accuracy to original theatrical intent.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

This is a misconception. An SDR Blu-ray or DVD is not capable of reproducing the full dynamic range of a 35mm negative. If anything, HDR actually allows for greater accuracy to original theatrical intent.

Exactly right.

[steev210]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

Looks like Target will be carrying this in-store next week.

I wonder if Best Buy will be carrying this in-store? It has an 7 digit SKU, but the link seems to have been removed when you click on product information.

[y2jman]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

Looks like Target will be carrying this in-store next week.

well if target carrying this i'm sure Walmart will also carry this in their store

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

This is a misconception. An SDR Blu-ray or DVD is not capable of reproducing the full dynamic range of a 35mm negative. If anything, HDR actually allows for greater accuracy to original theatrical intent.

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Exactly right.

No it's not a misconception. Your statement is simply a way to resolve cognitive dissonance because you are excited about the format but dont like the idea of revisionism, or perhaps it's a piece of marketing you heard.

Theaters dont project negatives and filmmakers realized the limits of development when making the film 40 years ago. They did not set the camera and development parameters considering a technology that will not theatrically exist for 40 years in the future.

Its ok to like the 4k hdr version better but it's a pretty epic logic chasm to bridge when stating this was filmmaker intention 40 years ago when it didn't exist. It's literally impossible for it to be filmmaker intention back then. A filmmaker can revise intention but that is not how it was "originally made."

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Ruined

No it's not a misconception. Your statement is simply a way to resolve cognitive dissonance because you are excited about the format but dont like the idea of revisionism, or perhaps it's a piece of marketing you heard.

People on these forums rrrrrrrreally need to stop trying to psychologically diagnose other people they don't know at all. It's not a good look, and makes everything else you try to argue appear to be smug, arrogant, and in bad faith.

Theaters dont project negatives and filmmakers realized the limits of development when making the film 40 years ago. They did not set the camera and development parameters considering a technology that will not theatrically exist for 40 years in the future.

Its ok to like the 4k hdr version better but it's a pretty epic logic chasm to bridge when stating this was filmmaker intention 40 years ago when it didn't exist. It's literally impossible for it to be filmmaker intention back then. A filmmaker can revise intention but that is not how it was "originally made."

This is a fair point, but people have tried to make the same argument about the extra fine detail that can be mined by scanning an OCN in 4K, and I think this is a bit silly and nitpicky. I have seen many screenings projected in 35mm and - simply put - 4K Blu-ray with HDR is the only format that has been able to come close to approximating the experience in a home viewing environment. An SDR Blu-ray certainly does not look like a 35mm print. There absolutely is added fine detail "pop" in a print. There absolutely is a more dynamic range of light and color in a print.

4K is the first format, in my experience, that truly is transcending looking like "home video."

And, to be clear, I never said that these films were created with HDR in mind. That's a misreading of my words. I said HDR can allow for greater accuracy to the source material because we are no longer saddled with SDR constraints. Which, again, are certainly not more accurate than HDR.

[soulreaper313]

Idk if anyone watches youtuber Wetmovie1 but it his latest video shows he got Halloween 4K early at a Best Buy store so it seems it should show up in store aswell as online.

[Kylo8791]

Originally Posted by soulreaper313

Idk if anyone watches youtuber Wetmovie1 but it his latest video shows he got Halloween 4K early at a Best Buy store so it seems it should show up in store aswell as online.

Also that it has a slipcover!!!!

[harry keogh]

Originally Posted by Ruined

No it's not a misconception. Your statement is simply a way to resolve cognitive dissonance because you are excited about the format but dont like the idea of revisionism, or perhaps it's a piece of marketing you heard.

Theaters dont project negatives and filmmakers realized the limits of development when making the film 40 years ago. They did not set the camera and development parameters considering a technology that will not theatrically exist for 40 years in the future.

Its ok to like the 4k hdr version better but it's a pretty epic logic chasm to bridge when stating this was filmmaker intention 40 years ago when it didn't exist. It's literally impossible for it to be filmmaker intention back then. A filmmaker can revise intention but that is not how it was "originally made."

Your argument is the equivalent of "Movies 40 years ago were not made with 1080p in mind." Insert 4K, 720p, 480p, etc, etc in place of 1080p.

[Joce]

Originally Posted by harry keogh

Your argument is the equivalent of "Movies 40 years ago were not made with 1080p in mind." Insert 4K, 720p, 480p, etc, etc in place of 1080p.

Yes. Since 1080p, and even more with 4K resolution, directors can now show the way their movies was meant to be seen. It was technically too limited with VHS and DVD.

[Killer Meteor]

I have the funny feeling this is not the first time this has been explained to this poster.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by harry keogh

Your argument is the equivalent of "Movies 40 years ago were not made with 1080p in mind." Insert 4K, 720p, 480p, etc, etc in place of 1080p.

That's not good enough. It needs to be more authentic. What you need to do is get a lot of money, collect the films you want in preserved release prints, and project them in a theater room. Otherwise you're just watching revisionist garbage.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Ruined

No it's not a misconception. Your statement is simply a way to resolve cognitive dissonance because you are excited about the format but dont like the idea of revisionism, or perhaps it's a piece of marketing you heard.

Theaters dont project negatives and filmmakers realized the limits of development when making the film 40 years ago. They did not set the camera and development parameters considering a technology that will not theatrically exist for 40 years in the future.

Its ok to like the 4k hdr version better but it's a pretty epic logic chasm to bridge when stating this was filmmaker intention 40 years ago when it didn't exist. It's literally impossible for it to be filmmaker intention back then. A filmmaker can revise intention but that is not how it was "originally made."

This is just categorically incorrect.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

This is just categorically incorrect.

so in 1957 David lean shot bridge on the river kwai with hdr in mind?

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by harry keogh

Your argument is the equivalent of "Movies 40 years ago were not made with 1080p in mind." Insert 4K, 720p, 480p, etc, etc in place of 1080p.

But he never said that.

I think I'll just re-post Da Geoff

Originally Posted by Geoff D

People keep repeating that HDR is the same thing as the negative and it really, really isn't. The negative has a 'higher dynamic range' but 'HDR' as a display implementation is a specific electro-optic transfer function that's got very little to do with how film actually responds to light, if anything it's the other way around, making the content fit this spangly new EOTF that seeks to more closely mimic how we see the world.

The filmmakers never in a million years imagined that, say, the windows or skies which were blown out on their varying print and pre-print forms would now be visible and with a searing brightness range to boot. Did the negative capture these details? Yes, and it's the same principle behind capturing modern digital as raw or log rather than as a set transform, to be able to provide a wide degree of latitude should the filmmakers wish to go there, but just because it was captured doesn't mean it was intended to be seen.

But, as I said, we stepped through the looking glass many moons ago when it comes to getting more detail than was ever intended to be seen so I'm all in for getting more range than was ever intended to be seen as well.

[harry keogh]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

But he never said that.

That is why it is called an equivalent.

And as Geoff stated "just because it was captured doesn't mean it was intended to be seen", the subjective opposite can be true as well.