Any reviews for "Halloween" yet....????? (1 Viewer)

[Gordon McMurphy]

Yes, the new transfer is totally clean - no noticeable blemishes at all.


Gordy

 

[Dave H]

Using a 10% off discount from DDD, I just ordered it for $14.30 shipped. I'm looking forward to doing a comparison.

 

[Bjorn Thoresen]

My best guess as to how this happened is that for the 1999 transfer, they (Adams, Cundy, and whoever) added bluish tint to some of the whitish night time scenes. This new transfer starts at the o-neg (or whatever) and while none of the blues were stripped away from the print, nothing has been added either. But, this is just speculation.

My best guess as to how this happened is that for the 1999 transfer, they (Adams, Cundy, and whoever) added bluish tint to some of the whitish night time scenes. This new transfer starts at the o-neg (or whatever) and while none of the blues were stripped away from the print, nothing has been added either. But, this is just speculation.

The negative to a film is malleable -- prints or video transfers made from a single negative can display wildly different color qualities depending on the sensibility of the person doing the work -- the color timer or colorist.

This is why much time is spent color timing release prints of a film, and why it is helpful to bring in a film's director of photography during the telecine process.

Saying that the new transfer "starts from the neg" is meaningless. The neg contains raw visual data that must be interpreted. In the case of this particular transfer of Halloween, it would seem that that data has been interpreted contrary to the intentions of the director of photography. So regardless of whether or not the image is acceptable to a particular viewer, it is inaccurate to the film's intended visual appearance.

For a rather extreme example of the variability of a film's negative, take a look at the supplemental feature on the Se7en DVD transfer, which demonstrates how footage "straight from the neg" had to be extensively processed in order to replicate the look previously created by a combination of processes used to make the film release prints.

 

[Michael Allred]

Well, I caved in and bought the new DVD today because, well, it was cheap.

Yes, the transfer looks great but it's a bit disapponting to see the tints removed (yeah, they're just like those screenshots from www.dvdfile.com), I watched the documentary on disc 2, which of course shows clips of the film throughout and you see the blue tints, etc...so it's a goof to then watch the movie and have some scenes look so different.

Anyway, I basically got the disc for the commentary and extras, but unlike the times when I would upgrade my DVD's to special editions, I will end up keeping my other "Halloween" disc...in case, ya know, I wanna watch the movie.

 

[Paul Arnette]

It sure would be nice to hear from Carpenter or Cundey about this matter.

Yes, it certainly would. It really makes one wonder why we should even care about how the cinematograhy is presented if the cinematographer and director can't be bothered enough to comment on it. :rolleyes

Feeling very frustrated at the moment...

 

[David Von Pein]

I read someplace where somebody was complaining that the "New" 80+-minute documentary on the 25th Anniv. Edition is NOT "all new". Is this correct?

This person was saying that the Jamie Lee interview portion of the new docu. is the exact same one as was on the 1999 "Halloween Unmasked 2000" docu.

Another question I have regarding all these versions ... Is the 1998 documentary feature, called "Halloween Unmasked" (which I have on VHS with the two bright orange cassettes) the exact same thing as "Unmasked 2000"??

If these ARE identical in every way, it seems like a tad bit of false advertising if you ask me...because they're not titled the same.

 

[David Von Pein]

The new 25th Anniv. Halloween includes a very, very nice 16-page booklet, with some extremely interesting text, plus some good photos.

A cute bit of trivia that I'd never really thought of previously (I'll bet nobody else has either) is another Hitchcock film reference when Jamie Lee at one point answers the phone, "Doyle residence"...just like a similar babysitter-answering-the-phone situation which occurs in Hitch's "Rear Window".

 

[Matt Stone]

I read someplace where somebody was complaining that the "New" 80+-minute documentary on the 25th Anniv. Edition is NOT "all new". Is this correct?

I don't own the new version, so I can't be 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure that the new doc is an expanded version of the doc that was on AMC last year. It's new in the sense that it's not out on DVD, and it has more footage than was shown on television.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

The Jamie Lee Curtis interview is indeed culled from the Halloween Unmasked documentary. I have no trouble with that as she said all that needed to be said in that interview. Everybody else that was interviewed probably just wanted another paycheck - again, I have no trouble with that; I, like Carpenter, am a Capitalist.

*Here's* my business card!


Gordy

 

[Reagan]

David VP,

About the documentary, the Jaime Lee Curtis interview footage is all from the H20 shoot, which dates it to about 1997/early 1998. Most of her clips are the exact same from the last documentary (hallween unmasked). The other clips are all new, but the questions are the same - which must be dreadfully boring for people like John Carpenter. I heard that this documentary already aired on TV sometime back, but I don't know the details.

A few other comments about the disc (not related to David's items).
1) The 87 minute documentary needs chapter stops something fierce. One about every ten minutes should be mandatory for a documentary supplement. Also, this documentary is guilty of padding its time by letting the film clips run far too long.
2) The 87 minute documentary has exceptional picture quality and is presented in anamorphic 16x9. Kudos all around.
3) The film has the original mono soundtrack in addition to the new 5.1 remix. Very nice
4) The level of picture detail in the movie is fantastic, and not just for a 25 year old movie. It's fantastic for any movie.
5) The commentary is better than I remember from the one time I listened to the Criterion laserdisc.
6) Blacks are dead on. Watching with a properly calibrated display in a properly lighted room is a pure pleasure. This movie has NOT been over-brightened.

7)Finally, about the colors. I've watched disc 1 twice and parts of it 3 or 4 times and except for the very few scenes posted on dvdfile.com the blues are all there. I've been watching every nighttime scene looking for the blue lights, and they are, almost without exception, they are there. I know I'm going to take a lot of heat on this, but the screenshots posted on dvdfile.com are not a representative sample of the colors in this movie. They are accurate for the scenes shown, but those scenes are the exceptions to the movie as a whole.

In sum, I'm glad I sold the LE to buy this. It's a great disc and I think a very good representation of the film itself.

-Reagan

 

[David Von Pein]

"Well..."

Thanks Reagan.

So I assume that "Halloween Unmasked" and "Halloween Unmasked 2000" are EXACTLY the same in every way (except for the slapping on of the "2000" to just make people think it's something NEW)???

 

[Dave H]

I finally got around to watch the new version and I compared it to the old (THX) version.

First of all, this new transfer is very, very nice. It is extremely clean. The THX version appeared rather dirty to me - lots of specs of dirt, etc. The new version is as clean as can be. The image is more sharper and detailed than the THX version, as well. It also looks more vibrant. I'm sure my 61" displays brings this out more - I probably wouldn't see it as much on my 27". As far as the blue is concerned I find it interesting that in the THX version when he gets his hand through the door - on the second shot - it appears white, where as it was blue on the first shot. It goes from blue to white. I found that odd. Overall, I would say the THX version still looks good for a film of its age; however, the new version takes it up to the next notch.

As far as the new version, this is going to be the one I watch. Until I hear a definitive word from one of the film makers that this new version is defected, this new release is going to be the one I watch. It might possibly be similar to one of those situations as Silence of the Lambs. The Criterion and MGM transfers were both approved, yet look different from each other.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Finally caved in and bought the new DiviMax pressing of Halloween.

I don't care for the transfer. Greens in the first half of the film are bold and blues in the second half are definitely subdued. Both seem very wrong to me.

New transfer is sharper and cleaner over the 1999 transfer, but at some expense (EE - I'll try to get some screen caps). The aliasing in Laurie Strode's house and her dad's Cadillac is gone (this is good).

However, I'm seeing strange, horizontal lines in the eyes and mouth of the pumpkin during the credit sequence - looks like "interlacing" artifacts - as the light fades in and out. Quite distracting. One can also see this to a lesser degree in the credit lettering as they fade up and down from black. This was seen with a Panny RP-91 (prog scan) to a 92 inch screen and is not visible in the 1999 transfer. Will try to get a screen cap to see if I can confirm this anomaly.

I'm keeping for the extras, but will stick to my LE for viewing.

Cheers,

 

[Felix Martinez]

Ok, I did some screen caps, for what it's worth...

The 1999 transfer image is on the left, the new DiviMax on the right.

Note: make sure your web browsers have the "compressed images" preference turned off, or the pics won't look right.


Notice the horizontal lines in the pumpkin's eyes, mouth, etc. in the new DiviMax transfer...


DiviMax is sharper, improved shadow detail, but nasty EE - and the colors are waaay too green for "Halloween"...


DiviMax is sharper, but blues are sadly desaturated...

Cheers,

 

[Lyle_JP]

However, I'm seeing strange, horizontal lines in the eyes and mouth of the pumpkin during the credit sequence - looks like "interlacing" artifacts - as the light fades in and out. Quite distracting.

Yes, I noticed these too. I believe this is what happens when the chroma bug is mixed with alternating flags (some players suppress the chroma bug well, except on discs with alternating progressive flags like Monsters Inc and the new Halloween). This would actually be player dependent. Some players would not show this at all.

-Lyle J.P.

 

[John Macri]

Lyle_Jp:

You've hit on an important factor in reported DVD video issues - the type of DVD player used.

I used to see a great many problems (aliasing, moire, etc.) on DVDs and attributed them to the disc. But after upgrading my player to one (Denon 1600) with a top notch chipset (chroma bug free MPEG decoder) & Farouda DCDI, I rarely see see these issues on a properly encoded DVD.

On the Divamax Halloween DVD, I do not see the Jack O'lantern lines on my 50" HDTV or detect noticeable EE.

 

[Sean Patrick]

will the Panasonic RP91 handle these situations ok, or is it liekly it will show those lines in the pumpkin???

 

[John Macri]

Sean:

The RP91 has the same MPEG decoder w/o the chroma bug as the Denon 1600, but lacks Faroudja DCDI which probably (?) improves Halloween DVD issues...

For more: http://www.dcdi-video.com/technology...-overview.html

 

[Felix Martinez]

except on discs with alternating progressive flags

Interesting...this may be another issue with the DiviMax release, but I did not see this prob elsewhere in the transfer. Again, it's not visible on the 1999 release in my Panny RP-91, nor my Superdrive (as the screen cap hopefully demonstrates).

Cheers,

 

[MickB]

As much as I would love to buy this disc I cannot in good conscience. I think it only lets the studios know that they can put anything buy the public and they will buy it again. The double dipping is out of control. I love the sharpness, but, if they really do not stay faithfull to the original look of the film I will not buy it.