Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[Colson]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Funny you mentioning day-for-night shots. I have seen several TV shows and films lately on blu-ray that clearly relied upon day-for-night for some shots, but the newly-remastered blu-ray that came from the original negatives didn't take that into consideration (wasn't aware they used this technique) and so those shots are ruined in the presentation, making the film makers look daft for getting day and night confused when really it is the transfer that didn't properly account for that day-for-night photography.

Gerry Anderson's UFO had that issue in an episode or two on the Network set, and several films suffer from that. One film someone was supposed to be struggling to find their way in the dark looking for a light switch but because they took the scan from the negative and didn't re-create the day-for-night color timing, it looked ridiculous because it was clearly daylight pouring through the windows, illuminating the room.

Any other examples of this? I'd love to see it; sounds hilarious, honestly.

[steev210]

Originally Posted by Jay Mammoth

Can’t wait to see the scene where Micheals face appears behind Laurie on my OLED.

That shot is going to look amazing. As would the scene where Janet backs up against Michael in Dr. Mixter's office in Halloween II.

I really hope Universal releases a UHD of HII and HIII since they both received new 4K scans.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

We never saw a negative projected though. We were never meant to see them in that state, period. Most home video transfers back in the day were done from IP, and still are in several cases. But since datacine got more refined - spearheaded by the advances in digital FX which needed stable high-res scans, which then migrated across into the adoption of the DI for finishing films in general, then into remastering/restoration as a whole - that meant that handling negative was no longer a do-or-die prospect, and with it came a whole new can of worms. No baked-in colour timing and/or filters (like day for night), far greater detail and dynamic range than was intended to be seen, all of this needs to be carefully considered no matter if it's SDR or HDR. So we're not just newly knocking at the door of Mr Revisionism, we stepped over that threshold and into his front room quite a while ago. Made myself good and comfy too.

LOL I typically enjoy your insights, but not sure if you're serious here. Claiming it's revisionist because "we never saw the negative progected" is laughably nearsighted. I get what you mean, but if you really think we should be seeing dupes put onto blu-ray because that's "technically" the theatrical experience is silly. The negative IS yje film, persiod, and you know what, so going back to the best it can look isn't revisionist, it's PROPER for maybe the first time ever. And just because the inage now has more detail and dynamic range doesn't mean it's revisionist. Changing the colors, audio, etc, IS.

I feel like osme people really try to make an argument out of anything they can, to the point of just making stuff up to try and "fit" an argumentative narrative. But at some point, it crosses the line into absurdity.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

LOL I typically enjoy your insights, but not sure if you're serious here. Claiming it's revisionist because "we never saw the negative progected" is laughably nearsighted. I get what you mean, but if you really think we should be seeing dupes put onto blu-ray because that's "technically" the theatrical experience is silly. The negative IS yje film, persiod, and you know what, so going back to the best it can look isn't revisionist, it's PROPER for maybe the first time ever. And just because the inage now has more detail and dynamic range doesn't mean it's revisionist. Changing the colors, audio, etc, IS.

I feel like osme people really try to make an argument out of anything they can, to the point of just making stuff up to try and "fit" an argumentative narrative. But at some point, it crosses the line into absurdity.

Why do you have to act like this when you disagree? It’s fine that you don’t agree with what he’s saying but can’t you just converse respectfully instead of acting like you do? I agree with a lot of what you say sometimes but man you need a lesson in people skills.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

LOL I typically enjoy your insights, but not sure if you're serious here. Claiming it's revisionist because "we never saw the negative progected" is laughably nearsighted. I get what you mean, but if you really think we should be seeing dupes put onto blu-ray because that's "technically" the theatrical experience is silly. The negative IS yje film, persiod, and you know what, so going back to the best it can look isn't revisionist, it's PROPER for maybe the first time ever. And just because the inage now has more detail and dynamic range doesn't mean it's revisionist. Changing the colors, audio, etc, IS.

I feel like osme people really try to make an argument out of anything they can, to the point of just making stuff up to try and "fit" an argumentative narrative. But at some point, it crosses the line into absurdity.

While I don't really understand why you took the tone you did here, I do tend to agree somewhat, or at least I see where you're coming from.

If dupes/IPs/prints are simply the medium that the negative is copied onto, and we consider the negative to be the movie itself, then yeah, digital scans are just the new "thing the negative is copied onto."

However, color timing and optical effects are done on the dupes, not the negative. In the case of optical effects, redoing them digitally is actually something I'm theoretically not a fan of, though I don't mind too much, as long as the final result is as close to an exact reproduction of the original as possible. Basically, I want to preserve the work of the original effects staff, as their work is important and "art" in and of itself.

So, copying from the negative, then re-doing the color timing and optical effects is inherently revisionist, but as long as the goal (and result) is as close to the original IP (or your favorite "original" source), I'm cool with it.

I guess after thinking it out, I don't really agree with you. "The original movie" doesn't exist in any real sense until several generations after the original camera negative, so Geoff is right (as per usual ), but just like Geoff, I don't mind this discrepancy in my purist tendencies, because the goal (and hopefully, the result) of these OCN restorations is a like-for-like recreation of the original IP (or whatever master copy of the final film is appropriate).

[JohnCarpenterLives]

I hope the color-timing is "correct," but I'm doubtful. I also hope the mono mix is original, and not some downmix.

[IntelliVolume]

What's the primary audio mix supposed to be on this release (sorry if I missed it in previous pages of the thread) -- is it an Atmos or TrueHD surround track?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

What's the primary audio mix supposed to be on this release (sorry if I missed it in previous pages of the thread) -- is it an Atmos or TrueHD surround track?

Originally, the promotional material said immersive audio. So... who knows at this point.

[WKoA13]

Originally Posted by Colson

Any other examples of this? I'd love to see it; sounds hilarious, honestly.

I don't know if this is the specific reasoning for it, as I never saw it prior to the SF blu disc, but....

The original THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN has scene that is supposed to take place on old dirt road, after dark. It is CLEARLY shot at some point in the afternoon. The deputy is chasing the sounds of gun fire through the woods, with a flashlight in hand, but you have to look at the bulb to see that it's lit. The entire sky seems overcast, at best. Again, I can't say if that's how it's always looked, or if it was the result of the scan that they used but, it was very clearly not night time when they shot that scene.

Related, but not this same issue:
Dan Curtis' DEAD OF NIGHT recently hit Shudder. The first short story involves a scene that's supposed to a very late night drive, but the day-for-night filtering is not done correctly. It's still the type of coloring where you can tell it's just a very dark picture, BUT, one of the upper corners of the shot are straight up day light, and normally lit scenery. So I'm guessing it was a physical filter that just wasn't properly seated on the lens???

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Originally, the promotional material said immersive audio. So... who knows at this point.

Thanks; guess we'll have to wait.

I was always impressed with the THX DVD's Dolby Digital 5.1 surround remix done by Chace from the mono stem elements, even if the track was overall way too low in mastering output (everything else really took this film to new heights -- the LFE heft, the surround channel usage during the rainstorm sequence and such). I believe the same elements were used for the first Anchor Bay Blu-ray's uncompressed 5.1 mix (which also included the lossy Dolby track), as I couldn't really tell a difference between the two.

[ROSS.T.G.]

It’s funny because 50% of consumers will say no sale if Atmos isn’t included and 50% will say no sale if original mono isn’t. When will they learn and just give everyone what they want with both.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

It’s funny because 50% of consumers will say no sale if Atmos isn’t included and 50% will say no sale if original mono isn’t. When will they learn and just give everyone what they want with both.

Reminds me of the Jaws DVD debacle....

Ahhhh...the memories....

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Reminds me of the Jaws DVD debacle....

Ahhhh...the memories....

JAWS is out on DVD?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

LOL I typically enjoy your insights, but not sure if you're serious here. Claiming it's revisionist because "we never saw the negative progected" is laughably nearsighted. I get what you mean, but if you really think we should be seeing dupes put onto blu-ray because that's "technically" the theatrical experience is silly. The negative IS yje film, persiod, and you know what, so going back to the best it can look isn't revisionist, it's PROPER for maybe the first time ever. And just because the inage now has more detail and dynamic range doesn't mean it's revisionist. Changing the colors, audio, etc, IS.

I feel like osme people really try to make an argument out of anything they can, to the point of just making stuff up to try and "fit" an argumentative narrative. But at some point, it crosses the line into absurdity.

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.

[Noremac Mij]

With UHD and HDR, one can make home video look like a print. If one chooses to of course. For the first time ever. I wish TV manufacturers now focus on motion, instead of 8K.

Geoff, you should get an OLED. You’ll lose your sh!t, I’ll bet cash money on that.

[TheSweetieMan]

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.

Yeah.

I agree with this sentiment.

I do wonder, however, how many filmmakers in the past, when shooting and saw their highlights blown out, fumed at how they could get more detail in those shots. As a photographer myself, there's always frustration when you can't capture an image the way you're seeing it framed IRL, due to the hardware and software limitations. I do imagine that in a good amount of catalog UHDs, they do reflect what the filmmaker may have always wanted to display. Which is why I really like it when studios get the content creator actively involved in the process.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

With UHD and HDR, one can make home video look like a print. If one chooses to of course. For the first time ever. I wish TV manufacturers now focus on motion, instead of 8K.

Geoff, you should get an OLED. You’ll lose your sh!t, I’ll bet cash money on that.

You could make home video look like a print before, just blow out the whites and raise the gamma through the roof. A UHD will destroy any given print in terms of dynamic range.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You could make home video look like a print before, just blow out the whites and raise the gamma through the roof. A UHD will destroy any given print in terms of dynamic range.

The colors. We now have the colors too. Film has a depth and richness that nothing could reproduce it at home, until now.

We are beyond spoiled. My videophile days started watching a 10th generation bootleg copy of The Terminator and Aliens on a top loading VCR back in Europe, when I was 5.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

Yeah.

I agree with this sentiment.

I do wonder, however, how many filmmakers in the past, when shooting and saw their highlights blown out, fumed at how they could get more detail in those shots. As a photographer myself, there's always frustration when you can't capture an image the way you're seeing it framed IRL, due to the hardware and software limitations. I do imagine that in a good amount of catalog UHDs, they do reflect what the filmmaker may have always wanted to display. Which is why I really like it when studios get the content creator actively involved in the process.

But how far are we going with that "I wonder if...?" line, Sweetie? I wonder if the filmmaker truly liked/wanted grain? I wonder if the filmmaker wanted colour rather than black and white? It just depends on how far we're comfortable with rationalising these things and I'm not one to play that game, not any more. I've made my peace with HDR doing its thang, just as with transfers from negative providing dat sweet sweet detail, and if it happens to line up with what I've read in American Cinematographer or whatever (Vilmos Zsigmond's original 1978 piece on The Deer Hunter was very interesting reading after having just watched the UHD, 'interesting' in a good way I should add) then fine, if it doesn't then as long as it's not a Friedkin'ed pastel nightmare or has overt technical problems caused by the HDR then I'm good.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

The colors. We now have the colors too. Film has a depth and richness that nothing could reproduce it at home, until now.

Which is fine. But even if the colour is dead-on accurate to what people saw back in 19whatever then the dynamic range and detail sure ain't. One outta three ain't bad when it comes to assuaging doubts about creative intent, I guess.