Yep, mono is there. Also, it fails to mention that it has widescreen -and- fullscreen on the same disc =|
As for the colortiming, there's still plenty of green grass in there, but it does look a lot fresher to my eyes (without having a side-by-side). It's got more of a yellowish early sunset cast to it, and the night scenes definitely have more blue in them. I'll have to watch it a few more times, but so far, I like it.
This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
Flexicon9 said:
It also has the original mono and also a 2 Channel track, as well as the 5.1 remix that made its debut with this disc.
I've always wondered, what exactly is 2.0 surround? It sounds like an oxymoron to me. Or is that just marketing speak for "stereo"?
I always try to choose it when it's an option (and mono or stereo is not), since I don't own any TVs that have more than one or two speakers. I don't know if that's the correct course of action, but it sounds right...
This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
"2.0 surround" would be something like DPL, not?
"Right now the coffees are doing their final work." (Airi, Masked Rider Den-o episode 1)
Usually "2.0 surround" is encoded in Dolby Surround, but there are compatible alternative (read: when decoded with a Dolby Surround decoder they will sound as good as the original DS material).
The ones you could find on laserdisc are DTS Stereo, UltraStereo, CHACE. And, IIRC, there were some company that avoided to pay Dolby royalties, so they decided to print on the cover only the words "Surround Sound", without Dolby... don't know if the track was mixed with a Dolby encoder or with another method.
DPL - Dolby Pro Logic - is a decoder, that decoded Dolby Surround encoded material; there is no DPL encoded soundtracks.
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com
The new Blu-ray colors are crappy, I'm all in for a fix to the 1999 THX colors which makes justice to this fantastic film. On the new Blu, all the daylight scenes look grey and dim. The movie is not enjoyable that way. There's no contrast between the autumnal community and the terror of the night, it's all just bland.
Also, mono Criterion not the fake mono (which is not a folddown of the 7.1 track but a fold of another remix, probably one they released over the last 15 years).
Is the mono track on the criterion laserdisc different to the one on the THX DVD?
^^^To add to that...are those different than the mono track on the initial Blu-ray release?
“Alright twinkle-toes, what’s your exit strategy?”
The way it looked in 1978 is not "definitive" because it was a crap, ultra low budget film that barely allowed the filmmaker to fill up their intended look, the prints were probably made with the cheaper prints factory out there, why would anyone want to preserve the cheap look? This is BLU RAY we don't want a preservation of the cheap, we want the BEST PRESENTATION.
1999 THX got it right.
Stamper said:
The way it looked in 1978 is not "definitive" because it was a crap, ultra low budget film that barely allowed the filmmaker to fill up their intended look, the prints were probably made with the cheaper prints factory out there, why would anyone want to preserve the cheap look? This is BLU RAY we don't want a preservation of the cheap, we want the BEST PRESENTATION.
1999 THX got it right.
Could the same be said for Star Wars too?
Seriously...aren't we in this to preserve the original look, even if it was shit?
“Alright twinkle-toes, what’s your exit strategy?”
You're certainly welcome to re-create the experience of a cheap print. There are preservations of all stripes.
“That’s impossible, even for a computer!”
But calling something definitive brings certain connotations. I guess I'm arguing more semantics than anything. If folks want to preserve the 1999 look, that's totally cool. But calling it definitive isn't entirely accurate if you ask me. Sure Cundey approved it, but he also approved the latest Blu-ray.
Sadly, I'd venture to say most prints are pink by now so who knows.
“Alright twinkle-toes, what’s your exit strategy?”
_,,,^..^,,,_ said:
Usually "2.0 surround" is encoded in Dolby Surround...
Oh, okay. I thought maybe that's what it was, but I wasn't sure.
This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
Just picked it up. Haven't done a close look at the image, but seems good to me. Better for sure.
The mono audio though. Holy shit it sucks. It's not original at all as folks have said. Wow. A fold down and a really bad one at that. Just abominable.
The original Blu-ray mono sounds like the Criterion to me. That is, at least period accurate.
If the LaserDisc audio doesn't surface, I'll just sync to the old blu-ray audio.
“Alright twinkle-toes, what’s your exit strategy?”
The old BD audio should be fine as long as it isn't compressed poopy 192k DD. I would assume it is some form of uncompressed?
By the way, at ten million dollars, STAR WARS was not an ultra low budget film and Lucas had proper control of how the prints looked.
Carpenter and Cundy had no such freedom on the 350k budgeted Halloween, which is why they both have stated the 99 transfer was what they would have done had they been given the time and money to properly color time the film.
Heck, I understand. My first short film was shot on 16mm and I could only afford two passes at color timing and that was that. Despite it not being what I wanted we were out of money and pretty much said 'it is what it is.' When I was finally able to scan the negative for an HD transfer I had it tweaked to the max, making it look like I had always intended. It wade a huge difference.
Did some comparisons:
Projector: Optoma GT-750. Matte white wall. 2.21 (yeah, I use the old 70mm ratio). Appox. 11 feet wide. I sit 12 feet away.
Original Blu-ray: PS3
New Blu-ray: Oppo BPD-93
Both outputting 1080p60
Criterion CAV LaserDisc: Pioneer Elite CLD-79. Composite to a DVDO IscanHD. 720p60
Audio is all bitstream to a Pioneer VSX-1121, set to THX mode. Klipsch SC-1 center speaker (this is mono after all)
Results: to my eyes, the LD and 35th look very similar in tone and feel. The old Blu-ray feels like it has boosted colors, the wrong colors. Seems smoothed and not as detailed as the 35th. The LD actually looks terrific.
Audio: The LD wins. Just has clarity the lossy original BD doesn't. Seems like the same mix. It works. The 35th disc's mono is a fold down and useless. The 7.1 track is fun. Nothing more. Not suitable for a presentation.
I only used side 1 of the LD, so the comparison covers the opening to Loomis finding the matchbook.
Sadly I sold the 99 DVD off years ago. I replaced it with the LD actually. :)
Totally.
“Alright twinkle-toes, what’s your exit strategy?”
Flexicon9 said:
The '99 THX DVD color-timing just makes the film, for me, so much creepier and foreboding. I think Carpenter said in the original commentary that Halloween 1978 owes a lot to Suspiria. In fact he definitely stated this in that Criterion commentary track. It's like an homage of color to Argento. Now I am no authority on Suspiria or Argento, having just been recently exposed to his work. But I now more fully understand what Carpenter was getting at. Modern technology may have allowed him to more fully realize that vision. It may not be definitive or correct, but it sure is awesome to behold. It's really my favorite version of Halloween.
What Carpenter was talking about was the repetitive quality of the musical score which functions in a similar manner to what you hear in Suspiria. But you can sort of see the influences in other ways too - the way they shot and lit the escape of Myers in the beginning of the film comes to mind, reminiscent of the beautiful cinematography you see in the taxi in the opening scenes of Suspiria.
As a huge fan of Carpenter's work I've managed to see Halloween several times in the theater and both the Criterion and THX DVD does not strike me as anything very far removed from the prints I've seen, (but I'm going from memory and I know that's a dangerous thing). I have not seen the new BD but the way I understand it, the '99 THX transfer was made from an Interpositive timed by Adam Adams and approved by Cundey, whereas the new BD is said to be a scan of the original negative and approved by Cundey. The iconic blue night scenes should definitely be there, it's a well known fact and it's also present on the negative B-roll footage according to Don May, and it should be as it wasn't done in post but specifically lit that way by Cundey. For this release it seems the daylight scenes is what causing the controversy instead and I must honestly say that the "fall colors" I'm seeing on various screencaps doesn't jive with my memories of the "true" look of the film and neither does the new BD. I would bet the true color timing is somewhere in between the two as I recall some scenes being a little too saturated on the '99 DVD whereas the BD caps I've seen look a little too muted, but then again I've not seen the new BD so I shouldn't really speak my opinion about it.
borisanddoris said:
Stamper said:
The way it looked in 1978 is not "definitive" because it was a crap, ultra low budget film that barely allowed the filmmaker to fill up their intended look, the prints were probably made with the cheaper prints factory out there, why would anyone want to preserve the cheap look? This is BLU RAY we don't want a preservation of the cheap, we want the BEST PRESENTATION.
1999 THX got it right.
Could the same be said for Star Wars too?
Seriously...aren't we in this to preserve the original look, even if it was shit?
Indeed, this is sending the wrong signal. And amazingly Carpenter didn't get this film processed by some cheap labs despite its low-budget origin, that's one of his trademarks and what's so unique about him, he can make the cheapest low-budget film look like an expensive hollywood production. And this was just one of the steps he took:
Tommy Lee Wallace in 2010 - "He (Carpenter) made damn sure that three things happened - that the film got shot in Panavision with the best lenses they had, that it was processed at MGM labs which is the best around and that it's doing its post production at Goldwyn Sound, which was the best sound-house in town. That meant our crappy little three hundred thousand dollars could look like millions."
No matter what people think about Cundey's timing on the new BD, the release is still ultimately a big failure due to not including something as simple as the films original audio mix. And I do wonder why some still asking about the audio, matt_stevens posted a link in the first post of this thread that clearly explains it for those who are uncertain about its history. The changes done are very subtle yes, but if you know your Halloween it's easy to tell the difference. This new BD does NOT contain the films original audio and that's a real damn shame.
NeonBible said:
Is the mono track on the criterion laserdisc different to the one on the THX DVD?
One is a LPCM track and the other is a AC-3 track, otherwise they both contain the true and IMO only way to listen and see this film. If not Anchor Bay suddenly decided to change the audio on their re-pressings of the '99 disc you should be able to hear the film as it was meant to be heard.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
MGM did the initial 400 prints that went out for the original release. How well they were done is something that I have no knowledge of.
Any able to do some screen caps with the 99 DVD, the Blu-rays, and the Criterion LD?
“Alright twinkle-toes, what’s your exit strategy?”
I was thinking about doing some comparison shots of the THX DVD vs. 25th Anniversary DVD. There's a couple out there, but not very many.
I also have that Shout! Factory Halloween II, AluminumFalcon keeps mentioning the featurette on it. I haven't watched it yet, but I can take some caps of that.
borisanddoris said:
The original Blu-ray mono sounds like the Criterion to me. That is, at least period accurate.
So what's the story on the original BD? Is it all DNR or something?
This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
The original Blu-ray is a recycled DIVIMAX transfer supposedly. In other words, it's wrong. To my eyes, lots of detail is missing and the colors are way way off.
The new disc, to me at least, is more representative of what that LD looked like. According to the jacket, that disc was scanned from a "35mm Panavision print minted from the original negative."
The audio was from the "35mm magnetic master mono soundtrack."
I'd love to get my hands on a sycn'd track of the LaserDisc. It sounds wonderful on my system. I wish I had the tools and talent to get a bit perfect rip.
I sadly don't have the 1999 disc any longer for comparison.
“Alright twinkle-toes, what’s your exit strategy?”
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?art=part&x=520&y=270&action=1&image=4&hd_multiID=1303&cap1=28532&cap2=28516&disc1=3100&disc2=3099&lossless=#vergleich Actually the original BD looks more like the THX disc