Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by harry keogh

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.

Yeah. OK.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by brian9229

Right on!! Who gives half a s**t about Filmmakers original intent! If any film I watch has questionable colors, I just hit the sliders on my TV settings. Of course, TV's are so awesome now I can make any film look how I want.

..says the guy who routinely watches HDR as converted SDR [insert cheeky smilie here].

[Martoto]

I don't think it's really necessary to lump HDR with the "revisionist garbage" tag since the nature of every electronic capture and display medium ever created has not been the concern of those capturing things on film.

It just seems to be a rather dumb thing to say about any specific format on a forum created for home VIDEO formats. Or maybe they should change it to forum.revisionistgarbage.com/

[Geoff D]

That's pretty much my take on it, 'toto. Film is not video and any attempt to format the former to the latter means that it's all an inherent revision, which I've said before (see below). Can we get closer to the "original intent" than ever before with 10/12-bit HDR and WCG? Sure we can. But are we? I'm not so sure about that.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

HDR is a transfer function which will need more time to settle down in terms of people's expectations of it and also for the actual colourists and how they approach it, so mistakes will happen. But I personally see all forms of video as a revision of sorts, the old gamma EOTF is no more or less intrinsically "accurate" than PQ is, it's all about the people twiddling the controls and how they deploy their taste, skill and judgment, and always has been.

We trust that the images we're seeing have had some form of proper intent guiding their creation, a blind faith that it's true to source (using reference materials and/or filmmaker involvement, though that comes with its own caveats as to whether it's what they intended then or what they intend now). And yet with each new format can come a very different looking transfer for x movie, even those that use the same materials as their basis, because the tools and the methodologies have changed in the interim.

We assume that the last one was the most accurate and that may well have been the case at the time, David Fincher has personally overseen new transfers for Se7en across laserdisc, DVD and HD that all look different in their own way, and Chris Nolan's movies on BD and UHD are a prime example of this. He insists on overseeing the home video transfers and he insists that they be transferred from IPs, and yet some of those movies turned out to be drastically different in terms of black level and colour when transitioning from SDR to HDR, despite using the same IPs at source and despite his seal of approval applying to both versions. He was apparently asked if he wanted to update the existing SDR versions using the new transfers and he said no because he was happy to keep them as a record of what they did look like.

[harry keogh]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Or maybe they should change it to forum.revisionistgarbage.com/

Aliens wasn't teal!!!!

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by harry keogh

Aliens wasn't teal!!!!

It wasn't whatever it was on VHS/BETA/VCD/LD/DVD either.

[harry keogh]

It never really was...

[Geoff D]

BTW if my comments above ^ sound a bit wishy-washy and laissez-faire then I do still have my own limits on how far I'm willing to see a film's look bent out of shape before it offends my own personal sensibilities, and that's how I approach things now. If it mimics the "original intent" and we have proof of that then that's great, if it doesn't then as long as they don't do a Melting Butler or a Ritrovita on its ass then I'm good. Seriously, I've never been 'offended' by any HDR WCG grade as much as what those Italian buffoons routinely shit out in SDR 709.

[harry keogh]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

those Italian buffoons routinely shit out in SDR 709.

Lets see what they can do with the candlelight scenes in Barry Lyndon!

[Geoff D]

Thankfully we don't have to, as Warners have already done a gorgeous 4K remaster and in the proper AR to boot - which in itself shows that even the people who curate these things aren't always correct, what with Vitali insisting it was 1.77 for years only for ol' Stan to prove him wrong from beyond the grave with that projectionist's letter.

[ROSS.T.G.]

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."

Times change and so does technology. Any home video release is revisionist one way or the other plain and simple. By your way of thinking you’re going in the opposite direction than what was presented theatrically with far less detail in highlights, black crush, inferior color, chunky grain and less detail. That’s what BD gives us. If HDR is pushed too far than yes you are right but most of the recent catalogue titles I’ve seen lately have had modest HDR which does look like 35mm. If you’re argument is on how it was made than YES HDR is more accurate. If you’re argument is on what was projected than neither BD or UHD is “accurate” but the latter is closer. But if you prefer to watch an inferior home video release by all means. Why anyone should choose to do so is beyond me but whatever.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterLives

I just want Mr. Carpenter to say which one is correct

Considering he picked the Scream Factory blu of Escape From New York over the MGM one I honestly don't care much about what he would approve.

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.

I think the goal is to match the original intent and design, not necessarily the actual visuals of a 70's theater showing. That's where I come down on it anyway. Getting as much detail and range as you can off the negative is good, but changing color design or whatever is bad.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Considering he picked the Scream Factory blu of Escape From New York over the MGM one I honestly don't care much about what he would approve.

I think the goal is to match the original intent and design, not necessarily the actual visuals of a 70's theater showing. That's where I come down on it anyway. Getting as much detail and range as you can off the negative is good, but changing color design or whatever is bad.

But how do you know whether the colour design has been changed or not? Can it still be the "original" if it's being presented with way more dynamic range than was ever intended, even if the colour is identical?

We do an awful lot of picking and choosing when it comes to what we like and don't like about gussying up an older film for a new format and I'm no different, I'm just leaning away from validating my choices with a nebulous claim of "original intent" if I don't know what that intent actually was on the day the answer print was signed off.

[Jay Mammoth]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterLives

I just want Mr. Carpenter to say which one is correct

This. I’ll take his word over random internet posters.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But how do you know whether the colour design has been changed or not? Can it still be the "original" if it's being presented with way more dynamic range than was ever intended, even if the colour is identical?

I can't say for sure with most movies because I don't have access to the original prints, but remastering houses should be able to find out certainly. I don't think HDR can change the overall general look of a movie just by being implemented. I'm talking about shit like "what was once brown is now green" or whatever. HDR doesn't inherently do that. So again you're counting on the mastering house referencing release prints or consulting non-revisionist crew members.

How do WE know which is more accurate without official word or evidence? F**k if I know, which is why I wish such things were more reliable. It's nice when we get snaps of a film strip or something though, like with Aliens, which can show the general look that was originally shown.

[RustinCohle]

I only come in here anymore because I’m waiting to see Tyrok post a picture of the movie.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

lmao.

I know, right?

[Martoto]

"...Sometimes people think wrong. People are people."

[Colson]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Precisely what I was trying to say, in so many other words; as usual, though -- and as I predicted (and spoke about here) -- the discussion has degraded into a "LMAO" commenting corner by cruel-intentioned members who can't reply in any other manner but to laugh at others they disagree with or think are "wrong." It's the same kind of people I see on YouTube who go into someone's channel and make nasty, sarcastic and sometimes caustic comments about their setup "sucking" and their taste "being up their asses." It's ridiculous and cruel.

For the record, I WASN'T spreading misinformation and incorrect details about the various versions of Halloween, as someone in this thread quasi-accused me of doing. The THX DVD is the version MANY of us ingested on a season in, season out basis and became familiar with -- and it looks the most accurate to our eyes with regard to how Illinois would look in the fall. If the other transfers are 100-percent more accurate to Cundy's vision, Carpenter's direction and Hill's production protocols, so be it -- they don't look like the Halloween I grew up with (again, can't speak of the 35th anniversary).

That's all I am going to say about this, and I'm unsubscribing from the thread before more cruel and sarcastic banter gets thrown around by the "bullies" of the forum -- people who have already contributed to me losing a bit of my happiness and joy that's normally associated with this time of year and watching this slasher classic.

Ridiculous that discussing some folks' favorite horror film turns into a pissing contest amongst techno-philes that just want to prove themselves right regarding intent of a color timing.

As it stands, I don't have a UHD disc player yet, so I'm not going to argue any merits or negavtives regarding the new disc's transfer (at least any time soon); maybe I'll check back in if I ever buy the UHD disc.

It's THIS kind of nonsense that makes forums like this one so unappealing to contribute to.

The point was not to lambast you for your choice of color timing on Halloween. We were simply taking issue with your use of the word "accurate," which you were using to refer to accuracy to real-life Illinois in the fall, as opposed to accuracy to the original color timing.

[thorthefifth]

Originally Posted by RustinCohle

I only come in here anymore because I’m waiting to see Tyrok post a picture of the movie.

Me too!