Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[Colson]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

The 4K HAS mono on it.

Are you now complaining it isn't lossless mono?

The 4K's mono track is a fold down of the surround track, including the changes made to that surround track, rather than the original mono audio.

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by Colson

TCM says it was 2.35:1, which the UHD Blu-ray matches. Source for it being 2.39:1 when originally released?

IMDb says 2.39:1 but IMDb is IMDb.

I'd trust a technical film site before I ever trust a movie network.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/technical

I think I'll trust TCM on this one...

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by Colson

The 4K's mono track is a fold down of the surround track, including the changes made to that surround track, rather than the original mono audio.

Man, I'm so glad I'm not like you guys.

It must be a hard life to NEVER be satisfied.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

Man, I'm so glad I'm not like you guys.

It must be a hard life to NEVER be satisfied.

I just took the original mono and paired it with the 4K's video, so I am very satisfied, thank you very much.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

The 4K HAS mono on it.

Are you now complaining it isn't lossless mono?

As already mentioned, key word is 'original'. It was a good reason people coughed out for the set.

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by Colson

I think I'll trust TCM on this one...

I won't.

This essay from Library Of Congress has it filmed in a 2.25:1 OAR

https://www.loc.gov/programs/static/.../halloween.pdf

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by Colson

I just took the original mono and paired it with the 4K's video, so I am very satisfied, thank you very much.

I wish I had that kind of time in my life.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

I wish I had that kind of time in my life.

It took about 30 minutes, but yeah, it is nice having free time for hobbies.

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

I won't.

This essay from Library Of Congress has it filmed in a 2.25:1 OAR

https://www.loc.gov/programs/static/.../halloween.pdf

For what it's worth, this supports neither side here, though I've never heard of a 2.25:1 movie (could be wrong there) and would guess that this is a typo.

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by Colson

It took about 30 minutes, but yeah, it is nice having free time for hobbies.

My free time is spent actually watching the movies.

But, to each their own.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

I wish I had that kind of time in my life.

You have been replying to this thread for longer than 30 minutes.

[gigan72]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

Man, I'm so glad I'm not like you guys.

It must be a hard life to NEVER be satisfied.

How dare people buying films on a rather niche, high quality format want the absolute best. Hell why aren't they just satisfied with a DVD? You can see everything that needs to be seen.

This is a forum for people to discuss releases and both post what they're happy about and dissatisfied about. It's not an echo chamber where people can only have one opinion, and in fact encourages people to talk, thankfully.

Whenever people are unsatisfied about a release and people go "god, I just watch the movie" or "you are all too critical" it baffles me because what do you expect to see here? Seriously???

[Colson]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

My free time is spent actually watching the movies.

But, to each their own.

Ah, but my free time is spent actually watching the movies in a way more faithful to their original presentation.

But let's not derail the thread into arguments about prioritizing time. The point is that the 4K Blu-ray does not present the movie's original audio track, a fact that is lamented by me and others, considering this omission is almost certainly an error. This error was made with the 35th anniversary Blu-ray and corrected for the next release, so its reappearance is mystifying.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Colson

TCM says it was 2.35:1, which the UHD Blu-ray matches. Source for it being 2.39:1 when originally released?

IMDb says 2.39:1 but IMDb is IMDb.

2.35/2.37/2.39/2.40 are about as interchangeable as it gets, twothirtyfive is still the shorthand that people use even though the SMPTE specs cinched it in a bit tighter to cover splices back in the '70s IIRC. I do love correcting people on techy shit but arguing over what a movie shot in anamorphic in the Academy 35 aperture should be is the ultimate in nit-picking even for me, unless we're talking about a Storaro-style crop to 2:1 (which was asinine beyond belief).

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by Brian81

You have been replying to this thread for longer than 30 minutes.

I started replying to comments at 2:23

It's currently 2:33

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by Colson

Ah, but my free time is spent actually watching the movies in a way more faithful to their original presentation.

But let's not derail the thread into arguments about prioritizing time. The point is that the 4K Blu-ray does not present the movie's original audio track, a fact that is lamented by me and others, considering this omission is almost certainly an error. This error was made with the 35th anniversary Blu-ray and corrected for the next release, so its reappearance is mystifying.

Okay, and maybe 0.5% of the population cares that it doesn't include the original mono track.

They are sold out at almost every Target around me. Lionsgate doesn't care what you think.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

2.35/2.37/2.39/2.40 are about as interchangeable as it gets, twothirtyfive is still the shorthand that people use even though the SMPTE specs cinched it in a bit tighter to cover splices back in the '70s IIRC. I do love correcting people on techy shit but arguing over what a movie shot in anamorphic in the Academy 35 aperture should be is the ultimate in nit-picking even for me, unless we're talking about a Storaro-style crop to 2:1 (which was asinine beyond belief).

Yeah, they are mostly interchangeable. Same reason I don't get too bent out of shape at Warner cropping their 1.85:1 movies to 1.78:1.

Not really worth arguing over. My original point I was trying to make was simply that, aspect ratio-wise, the new 4K is faithful to the original (within the margin of error).

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

Okay, and maybe 0.5% of the population cares that it doesn't include the original mono track.

They are sold out at almost every Target around me. Lionsgate doesn't care what you think.

Yeah, but this thread is for discussing the release, and this is a valid criticism of the release.

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by Colson

Yeah, they are mostly interchangeable. Same reason I don't get too bent out of shape at Warner cropping their 1.85:1 movies to 1.78:1.

Not really worth arguing over. My original point I was trying to make was simply that, aspect ratio-wise, the new 4K is faithful to the original (within the margin of error).



Yeah, but this thread is for discussing the release, and this is a valid criticism of the release.

Not when it takes up 20 pages of the thread.

That is not why most of us come on the forums.

It's sad when I have to actually post if this is an upgrade over the "x" release because the previous 15-20 pages are nitpicking a release for not having something the vast majority of people couldn't care less about.

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by Colson

Yeah, but this thread is for discussing the release, and this is a valid criticism of the release.

Haha now that is debatable.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

Not when it takes up 20 pages of the thread.

That is not why most of us come on the forums.

It's sad when I have to actually post if this is an upgrade over the "x" release because the previous 15-20 pages are nitpicking a release for not having something the vast majority of people couldn't care less about.

Yes, this is easily an upgrade over the previous release. In fact, the release is so great that the only real nitpick is that it does not include the original mono. This is a shame, but it certainly did not stop me from picking up the disc. If you have the 35th anniversary disc, this is better in every way (well, it's an exact match in the audio department IIRC).

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

Haha now that is debatable.

Is it? It's a clear error on the disc. The disc includes a mono track, but it's an erroneous one from a previous release that was later corrected on a subsequent release.