Blu-ray Review HTF Blu-ray Review: Halloween (1978) (1 Viewer)

[Don May Jr]

Well, you don't have to worry about the claims being dubious... I have hours of the original 35mm camera neg for HALLOWEEN (all the b-roll stuff... hours of it) and of the reels I've taken a look at (within the past year or so, mind you), all the blue lighting is definitely there, in full-force.

The negatives were untouched and stored in air-tight containers and the images on the b-roll looked like they were shot yesterday. Nothing was faded and the blue was there. One of the shots I looked at was a scene where nancy Loomis is stuck in the window and little Kyle Richards comes into the laundry room. The blue was so rich, bright and vivid coming through the windows it looked surreal. So, on the original untimed negatives, they had the blue lights blaring! Actually it's a funny blooper as little Kyle tries to pull Nancy's leg, gives up, turns to the camera and just sorta shrugs!

Anyway... Next time I'm in LA, I'll try and do a few scans of the frames to show folks that the blue lighting is definitely supposed to be there.

 

[TravisR]

You didn't know that because that's not the case. I don't trust people's recollections of prints that they saw a month (let alone 28 or 29 years ago) but I've seen both Carpenter and Cundey talk about the blue look years before that DVD and like Don said, the negatives have it too.

I'm not saying that people can't or shouldn't enjoy this release but the color is not the look that the director and cinematographer intended.

 

[Dave H]

I'm still on the fence for this release. I know it looks great, but correct/approved color timing is very important (just like OAR is) to me and Dave's screenshots are very telling. It's just amazing to me how Anchor Bay evidently ignored all of the fan feedback they had gotten a few years ago on the Divimax DVD release.

Wow, first Dracula, now this. Oh well, just $40.00 used for other BDs.

 

[Jari K]

Thanks Don, that would be great. Is it possible that some "color tweaking" was done in post-production, though? I mean many times the "original negative look" still isn´t the "final look" (generally speaking here, not about Halloween nessesarily).

It seems that Starz took the "Divimax" transfer and "tweaked" it a little bit? If that´s the case, they should´ve just released the "Divimax"-transfer. I mean if they can´t fully create the "original blu-ish look", then I would prefer the "Divimax"-look and not some "quick tweaking" in the middle..

It´s a shame that this color debate happens now everytime when this film is released.. I hope that in the future they can create the brand new transfer (since we have now the original negatives and everything).

 

[Don May Jr]

I'm sure it was to a certain extent but, remember, this was an extremely LOOOOOW budget indie film for the time. So, whatever "tweaking" they may have done for HALLOWEEN was minimal when creating the IPs. I have had a few conversations with the film editor and he says the ratio for filming was about 3-4 to 1 at THE MOST, meaning that they only did 3-4 (maximum) takes of every shot and, if they didn't get what they wanted in those shots, they used the best one. Budget and film stock costs were a factor. I'm sure these budgetary concerns were also present during the editing and IP creation.

Also, just speaking for HALLOWEEN, I doubt seriously that they'd be flooding the camera images with a neon-blue lighting scheme if it wasn't intentional... a low-budget, independently produced film, like HALLOWEEN, couldn't recover from those types of lighting mistakes if budget was so much on their minds during filming. Also, if they decided against that particular look, they'd have a hard time recovering from such a mistake with no computer assisted editing, especially with the film timing and development techniques of the late 1970s.

I have cancelled my pre-order for the BD of HALLOWEEN until I can take a look at it (maybe a rental from Netflix or Blockbuster). I am curious as to what they did, if people are reporting that the BD version appears to have been "tweaked" from the original DiviMax version. But, keep in mind, tape-to-tape color correction is quite prevalent in the industry and they probably mastered the DiviMax versions to D5 digital tape. If they did a D5 to D5 tape-to-tape color correction to "fix" the colors on HALLOWEEN, there WOULD be ever so slight compression, but the naked eye wouldn't notice it. D5 is component digital and any frame accurate telecine room/digital editor/color timer could go in and try to fix the colors back to the way they were on the original THX '99 Cundey approved version but, the D5s picture would be much more limited in the spectrum than putting up the 35mm film negative and correcting that way. With film, you have a lot of ways to fix the image but, with the balance of color and image already put to tape, your corrections would be possible but much more limited on what you could accomplish.

My guess, and this is just a guess... they discovered that, when trying to add the stronger, richer blue tints to some of the scenes for the BD that, perhaps (only perhaps... I'm not speaking to this as a fact, only speculating) they discovered that adding the blue was causing a color problem somewhere else in the colorspace of the digital master. Maybe shifting the colors to blue was creating more of a problem with another color in the master, or shadow detail was compromised because of the added color? Hmm... donno... maybe the stark/night/black scenes, where the blue was originally very vibrant on the '99 version, when changing the colors, was causing the black to "block up", perhaps, so they just added a "little" bit of the blue instead of a lot (creating what they assumed would be a "happy medium")? Based on the BD screencaps, the daylight scenes seems to be "fixed" though, so maybe the problem was only with the darker, night shots... adding the blue too strongly (like '99) was probably degrading the film image in other ways due to the tape-to-tape??

 

[Michael Osadciw]

Now this is the kind of constructive criticism I like to read! Logical and not reactionary. I'm glad to see it restored here.

Mike

 

[Jordan_E]

Myself, as I've stated in another thread, by the time Laurie crossed the street I was too into the movie to notice the color of doors, etc.. For those not getting it because of color schemes...too bad, you're missing out.

 

[Dave Mack]

The divmax transfer indeed DOES have the blues in many scenes but not all and it's not consistent. When The Shape is watching Annie through the kitchen window, it looks blue as hell and just like the Cundey transfer.
It indeed seems that Cundey tweaked several night scene shots for his transfer to make many MORE blue and to make the whole kitchen showdown scene VERY blue. The BD looks like the divimax here though. Greyish-white. It seems that Starz DID asjust the day, (spring now looks like fall) scenes but this one in question, doesn't look like they adjusted. Looks like the divimax.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Re: Color timing in 1978

Once again, people can read the original reviews where the color of the film was praised. I'm going to guess these could be found on the web somewhere. Siskel and Ebert talked about this film several times on special shows against horror movies and they also talked about the blue tint on one of their specials dealing with how color can set the mood for a film. I believe I have one of these specials from 1983 (or perhaps 84) and the clips shown there have the blue tint. These reviews from 1978 talking about the color proves that nothing was changed on that 1999 release.

 

[David Ruiz]

What I don't understand though, is how the DiviMax transfer and this new BD transfer (probably from the DiviMax master) has no blue lighting during certain scenes if the blue lighting was there on the original negatives. How did they remove the blue completely? Did they just drain the color? And why on earth would they ever do something that stupid?

A lot of people keep saying that the DiviMax scenes in question (especially the door) still has a hint of blue, but looking at those screen caps, I see *NO* hint of blue anywhere! The door looks WHITE, gray at the absolute most. I mean, whatever blue was there, has been completely removed.

 

[Dave Mack]

The divimax transfer and the BD still has blues in like 80% of the night scenes.
They obviously used blue gels on the lights but in some scenes it registered alot better than on others. When Cundey tweaked the 99' dvd, it really looks like he pumped it up even more.anyone have an old VHS? Pop in the scene with the door and we'll get an idea. I really doubt that AB deliberately drained the blues from just a few shots. Makes no sense why they would waste the time bothering.

 

[Vincent_P]

Michael,

My comment was neither a cheap shot, nor a thread cap. You wrote in your review, and I quote: "The mono soundtrack is included for nostalgic purposes, but after you listen to the 5.1 remaster, it’s hard to go back to the dirty mono track."

First off, how is it "dirty"? I have the DiviMax DVD, and the mono track doesn't sound "dirty" to me. As David Mack astutely points out, many folks were displeased with the 5.1 remix because all sorts of new sound effects were added, and many of them sound out of place compared to the original mono mix.

As for your "mono pan and scan VHS tape" quip, what the heck does that have to do with anything? As far as I can tell, this forum has never been solely about "new technologies" as you assert- it's the Hometheaterforum, it's about replicating the ideal theatrical experience as best as possible at home. HALLOWEEN was a mono movie that was shot in anamorphic Panavision- for the purest, the best way to view it at home would be a widescreen HD transfer with a nice representation of the original mono soundtrack.

Many folks here were NOT happy with the 5.1 remix of HALLOWEEN, just as they were not happy with similar remixes of other classic mono films like JAWS. Your flippant comment re: the "dirty mono track" of HALLOWEEN suggests to me that you just don't get this, and your follow-up comments to me re: "new technologies"- as if the technology itself was the be-all/end-all reason for any of us being into home theater- merely helps confirm it for me. And this is why it's hard for me to take your casual brushing off of the color timing issue seriously, as well.

These are not "cheap shots" nor a "thread cap", they are simply legitimate reactions to what you yourself have written in your review and the follow-ups.

Vincent

 

[JonZ]

You can see less of a difference in the scene with the girls walking, which is about where I saw until. The difference is much more apparent in later scenes.

Looks like that 99 version is still the one to have(I think I actually paid $10 for it back in the day with coupons)

And some of the digital mono tracks are just wonderful.

I recently saw Scarface on cable w/ the new effects and actually grimaced from the way it sounded. They stood out so much and were completely out of place.

I used to watch those soundtracks in 2.0, but hae learned to appreciate the mono tracks.

IMHO Original mono should be available on EVERY disc where it was the original soundtrack.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Guys, let's keep the discussion in this thread focus on Halloween while discussing any possible issues with Bram Stoker's Dracula in its own thread. Thank you.




Crawdaddy

 

[Jari K]

Yes, but many people like these "5.1 remixes", IF they´re professionally made and everything. I fully agree that the original Mono should be included, but it´s not that the lack of Mono-track makes the release suddenly "s*it" or equal to "pan&scan" or something. Let´s get serious here and drop the silly comments like that.

Original Mono-track AND the new 5.1 remix are both included in this release, so why we are even having this argument? Enjoy the Mono-track Vincent, but let the people enjoy the 5.1-remix also.

"Dirty Mono-track" was the bad choice of wording, I agree, but this is just one review out there, not the end of the world.

 

[Don May Jr]

I can understand where Vincent is coming from here. I like the original tracks included, mono or not. Many times I find the 5.1 a bit distracting because of the inclusion of remixing and additional sound effects that weren't in the original mix (put in to "spice up" the 5.1). If the actual original mono is present, then I have no issues with the sound.

But, this brings up another "debate" about this practice. I'd like to know about HALLOWEEN... One of the things that really bugs me sometimes about the inclusion of original mono tracks is whether they are truly the "original" tracks at all. Many times, when a company says "original mono", it really is nothing more than a "downmix" of their tinkered-with 5.1 track. To me, this ISN'T the original mono, especially if new effects or sounds have been added.

Does the HALLOWEEN 5.1 mix have anything additional added (sound effects / ambient noise) to the track to make it more dynamic in the 5.1 separation and, better yet, does the "original mono" mix really mean it's the original mono or a downmix of the 5.1?

 

[TravisR]

I'm very familiar with Halloween and to my ears, there's a few new sound effects in the 5.1 mix and the mono mix is the original mix.

*That's on the 1999 DVD. I'd hope that the Blu-Ray disc is the same though.

EDIT: I just checked the Divimax disc and it also has the original mono mix and the 5.1 mix with some new sound effects. And AB's laughably bad original DVD from 1998 only has the original mix.

 

[David Ruiz]

Exactly... but there is something definitely strange about all of this. Everyone keeps saying that perhaps the DiviMax transfer came from the original negatives which didn't have the blue hues, but Don already said that even the negatives have them. Furthermore, what's really weird is that the LASERDISC has much bluer hues than the DiviMax release and the Laserdisc was released WAY before Cundey went in to jack up the blue colors. So if the blues (especially on the door) were available on the Laserdisc, which Cundey had nothing to do with, then why are they not available on the DiviMax release?

There's something seriously wrong about all of these transfers. Cundey's approved transfer aside, the Laserdisc is probably the most like the original "untampered with" negatives that were released in cinemas and the Laserdisc definitely has much bluer blues than the DiviMax release which definitely has been drained of all color IN SPECIFIC shots. I don't think that the DiviMax is anywhere close to what it originally looked like in theaters (not that I was even born when Halloween came out) because the blues were there on the laserdisc and then absent from the DiviMax.

I think they were intentionally removed, for what reason, I have no idea.

 

[AlexBC]

I'm 100% here with Vincent P and Don May.

And I believe the original tracks (stereo or mono) should always be presented on HD discs in lossless fashion alongside whatever remix studios wanna throw in there to please the crowds.

As it's been said, I'm all for technology, but it has nothing to do with butchering video aspect ratios, color timing or soundtracks. For the film/HT enthusiast, the use of technology has a very important place, and that is restore these things closest to their original presentation as possible.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Hi Folks -

Don and Vincent have a wealth of experience and knowledge, and I greatly appreciate their observations and comments. Having done color correction on my own projects (standard def video and now HD), I can tell you that it can be an elusive science/art. There are so many variables that affect something else when you change something. Also, it can be very time consuming, and you can really get lost in the balancing act and possibilities. Two fantastic examples of how this works can be found on the Platinum edition of Seven and the LOTR: Fellowship expanded edition DVDs.

Now I'm not familiar with film-to-video transfer and color correction (Don and Vincent correct me if I'm wrong), but unlike digital, the transfer from neg to digital is not bit-for-bit. Just because there are certain hues on the negative doesn't mean the raw transfer captures that (which is why you have to go thru the CC process after it's transferred). I imagine the process being a little bit like scanning slides or negatives of stills and then working on them in Photoshop. Many times, the scanned images bear little resemblance, tonally, to what's on the negative (due to the scanner's settings, limitations, etc.). David Lynch talks a bit about this on the Wild At Heart DVD. Not only did he have to go thru the grading process from negative to release prints, he had to do it all over again for the video release (and he did it yet again when they discovered there was no latitude in the dark sections of the film, so a whole new print was struck and re-transferred).

I think Don hit it on the head. It appears that for the HD version, there was an effort to move toward the Cundey app'd hues from '99, but perhaps because of other variables, or simply time, the effort fell short.

When the DiviMax transfer came out, I contacted Sandy King, John Carpenter's wife/producer, and she said the colors looked strange but that "John said he had nothing to do with it." In the absence of input by Carpenter, Cundey is the man. If they couldn't afford the guy to come back in, they could have spent the time to get it right, and as far as I know, the '99 version is his latest statement.

Re: the Criterion CAV laserdisc - while that was a revelation at the time (and also app'd by Cundey), the '99 DVD is still the benchmark IMHO as far as the overall look of the film on home video. Cundey had newer, better tools to work with, and you don't have the chroma noise inherent in the analog LD format.

Just my $.02.