Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

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.

Dynamic range can be just as important to the visual story being told as colour is, from my perspective anyway, and although you're correct in implying that HDR is as "dumb" as any other transfer function when it comes to applying it to a source - because it's all about the people at the controls, as always - there is nonetheless an inherent scope for a much vaster alteration than ever before. Conversely, it can also get us much closer than ever before.

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.

And that's alls I'm saying. We place a large amount of trust in that the images we're seeing are correct to whatever target we have in mind as being "accurate", but some movies have changed so many times as they bounced from one transfer to another over the years (some with direct filmmaker involvement) that I'm not sure it's worth clinging on to any more, not without explicit proof of what the original actually was. Even then, the filmmaker may well decide to rehape the movie into what they want it to be like now, e.g. Michael Mann. Always in motion are his movies.

[ronboster]

I can't wait for the release, so we can see members put their rulers away.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

there is nonetheless an inherent scope for a much vaster alteration than ever before. Conversely, it can also get us much closer than ever before.

That's my preference with the application of HDR, and it's really the whole reason HDR was so exciting to me, originally. 35mm prints (and OCNs, for what it's worth) have way more dynamic range than SDR video, so the theoretical ability to match those original prints in color information was and is very exciting to me.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even then, the filmmaker may well decide to rehape the movie into what they want it to be like now, e.g. Michael Mann. Always in motion are his movies.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Well hopefully some members get their hands on it soon and let us know how it looks.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Well hopefully some members get their hands on it soon and let us know how it looks.

I'll be on a cruise next week when it comes out, and while I am certainly not complaining about the cruise, I will be very excited to watch this when I get home

[u2popmofo]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Well hopefully some members get their hands on it soon and let us know how it looks.

Agreed. It's one of my favorite (if not THE favorite) movies, but i haven't preordered this because I'm worried about wonky colors like some others here.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Well hopefully some members get their hands on it soon and let us know how it looks.

And what the hell would they know? Only how they think it looks.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Colson

That's my preference with the application of HDR, and it's really the whole reason HDR was so exciting to me, originally. 35mm prints (and OCNs, for what it's worth) have way more dynamic range than SDR video, so the theoretical ability to match those original prints in color information was and is very exciting to me.

A film print has nothing like the range that's on the negative though, the super high gamma will put paid to that. Point being that the images were lit and exposed with the print's ultimate dynamic range & presentation medium (projection) in mind, i.e. nothing crucial was left in the extreme shoulder or toe of the exposure because it would be wiped out in the final print. Did the film stock still record information in those areas? Sure it did, which we're seeing all these years later in HDR and indeed in an SDR transfer from the negative that's been moved up or down the response curve, giving us more highlights but low brightness, or more brightness and less highlights, which again all depends on who's doing what in the grading suite.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Martoto

And what the hell would they know? Only how they think it looks.

Depends who it is I suppose. I trust a lot of members in these threads over some of the hack pro reviewers from other other sites.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And that's alls I'm saying. We place a large amount of trust in that the images we're seeing are correct to whatever target we have in mind as being "accurate", but some movies have changed so many times as they bounced from one transfer to another over the years (some with direct filmmaker involvement) that I'm not sure it's worth clinging on to any more, not without explicit proof of what the original actually was. Even then, the filmmaker may well decide to rehape the movie into what they want it to be like now, e.g. Michael Mann. Always in motion are his movies.

Right. All I want is a general adherence to the original look of the movie. That's me saying that's what I want from a remastering process though, it's not me saying I actually know what the f**k that is most of the time. I wish I did. Without that knowledge we can only make educated guesses and trust the studios/labels to do their best work. When something is obviously wrong, like the new Platoon remaster with zero grain, then we can call shenanigans.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

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.

Nothing wrong with this viewpoint, I was just commenting on another poster wanting to see Halloweeen as it was "originally made." Halloween was shot (camera configuration etc) and developed for projection in the late 70s. Therefore there is no escaping that representing how it was "originally made" cannot include HDR since HDR did not theatrically exist until 40yrs later.

The 4k resolution someone brought up doesnt really matter re: original intent since film is analog/infinite resolution and that Infinite resolution could have been projected back then thus 4k resolution is just a more accurate represention of the analog film. HDR is where intent gets mucked up because it would be impossible to theatrically achieve HDR via any process when the film was originally made.

I personally would have preferred 4k SDR but apparently that doesnt sell.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I personally would have preferred 4k SDR but apparently that doesnt sell.

I think, with that goal, you'd be better off wanting something like Goodfellas, where HDR is used very minimally and likely roughly matches a theater print. That's better than SDR, IMO.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

A film print has nothing like the range that's on the negative though, the super high gamma will put paid to that. Point being that the images were lit and exposed with the print's ultimate dynamic range & presentation medium (projection) in mind, i.e. nothing crucial was left in the extreme shoulder or toe of the exposure because it would be wiped out in the final print. Did the film stock still record information in those areas? Sure it did, which we're seeing all these years later in HDR and indeed in an SDR transfer from the negative that's been moved up or down the response curve, giving us more highlights but low brightness, or more brightness and less highlights, which again all depends on who's doing what in the grading suite.

Right, and in theory, I'd prefer the HDR presentation to as closely match the print as possible. I'm not too bothered by getting a little extra information in those spots, though, with my main concern being that the color timing should be as close as possible.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I think, with that goal, you'd be better off wanting something like Goodfellas, where HDR is used very minimally and likely roughly matches a theater print. That's better than SDR, IMO.

If they are conservative with Halloween it could be an overall good result in the end. I just remain skeptical as HDR leaves so much roon for revisionism.

I am actually more concerned eith evil dead due to its heavy grain.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Nothing wrong with this viewpoint, I was just commenting on another poster wanting to see Halloweeen as it was "originally made." Halloween was shot (camera configuration etc) and developed for projection in the late 70s. Therefore there is no escaping that representing how it was "originally made" cannot include HDR since HDR did not theatrically exist until 40yrs later.

The 4k resolution someone brought up doesnt really matter re: original intent since film is analog/infinite resolution and that Infinite resolution could have been projected back then thus 4k resolution is just a more accurate represention of the analog film. HDR is where intent gets mucked up because it would be impossible to theatrically achieve HDR via any process when the film was originally made.

I personally would have preferred 4k SDR but apparently that doesnt sell.

Riiiiiight...so I guess there's another reason why the wires holding up the Lion's tail were erased in Wizard of Oz's restoration, and why the wire attached to the bullet hole appliance on Sterling Hayden's face was removed in The Godfather. The resolution at source may have been "infinite" (itself a rather silly way of describing it as film negative really does have finite limits to its resolving power) but the resolution of the final representation shown to audiences was typically a copy of a copy of a copy projected on an inherently unstable sprocket-based mechanism.

[Martoto]

Did someone say Sprockets?

I hope you know what time that makes it.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Nothing wrong with this viewpoint, I was just commenting on another poster wanting to see Halloweeen as it was "originally made." Halloween was shot (camera configuration etc) and developed for projection in the late 70s. Therefore there is no escaping that representing how it was "originally made" cannot include HDR since HDR did not theatrically exist until 40yrs later.

The 4k resolution someone brought up doesnt really matter re: original intent since film is analog/infinite resolution and that Infinite resolution could have been projected back then thus 4k resolution is just a more accurate represention of the analog film. HDR is where intent gets mucked up because it would be impossible to theatrically achieve HDR via any process when the film was originally made.

I personally would have preferred 4k SDR but apparently that doesnt sell.

I’m not sure why you think SDR is more accurate, though? Digital home theater tech was not considered at the time Halloween was made. Period. Why do you think HDR is somehow more revisionist than any other new tech?

It’s all about trying to get as close as possible. SDR simply doesn’t allow you to get as close as HDR. It’s all about being used properly. Not saying it CAN’T be revisionist.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Ruined

If they are conservative with Halloween it could be an overall good result in the end. I just remain skeptical as HDR leaves so much roon for revisionism.

I am actually more concerned eith evil dead due to its heavy grain.

The catalog titles on UHD BD I have watched (admittingly not every one released) have been very tasteful with HDR offering more range than SDR but not looking unnatural. I would be willing to guess closer to theatrical prints (not even talking the ON). In fact, I would say a lot of SDR Blu-rays look very unnatural as the clipping is by no means looks filmic and I highly doubt it was "original". Just take a look at Die Hard for example.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

The catalog titles on UHD BD I have watched (admittingly not every one released) have been very tasteful with HDR offering more range than SDR but not looking unnatural. I would be willing to guess closer to theatrical prints (not even talking the ON). In fact, I would say a lot of SDR Blu-rays look very unnatural as the clipping is by no means looks filmic and I highly doubt it was "original". Just take a look at Die Hard for example.

Yeah I think most use it tastefully enough. There are exceptions like some of Universal's early titles, but overall I think most catalog releases are more restrained.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yeah I think most use it tastefully enough. There are exceptions like some of Universal's early titles, but overall I think most catalog releases are more restrained.

It's kind of relative with Universal as many of their catalog BD titles (especially earlier to mid ones) are god awful and look completely opposite of film. They look like they were shot on 720p video cams. They did start to come around with the Monster classics and others later on, but then had to throw in a real stinker with American Werewolf in London of fairly recently (still irks me with that one coming from a 6K scan!).