Ok, OZ. We will not question the man behind the curtain with all the blustering smoke and mirrors.
“I now have heard about the transfer - definitively. It's new. It was supervised by DP John Bailey and done with his usual team of telecine people. So, it would seem to me that this transfer is perfect in terms of being what the director of photography thinks it should be. I know the experts will poo-poo it and not believe it, but, again, those who know me will know that I do not post anything like that until I know it for a fact. I think the responses to this will be predictable, but I thought the information was worth sharing.”
For the sake of discussion we accept this unreferenced and unsubstantiated narrative. The supervision of the telecine process in of itself does not guarantee he also worked on the master that would be used for the BR.
Assuming he was involved throughout the whole process that does not negate the possibility of changes enacted by him. In fact there is plenty of current precedence of filmmakers changing their work, ranging from mild to drastic, for new transfers that end up on BR.
An egregious example of the Director making terrible choices but thankfully rectified by the DP is “The French Connection”. Or a minor but no less absurd is the aspect ratio revision by the DP of “The Last Emperor” who now claims that he always intended all his films were framed to be 2.00:1. The new framing clearly was not always his original intent.
When the original filmmakers are involved in the changes of their own work, for better or worse, it is a different scenario than decisions made by individuals who were not part of the initial creation of the film. Especially obnoxious when a fool hardy studio DNRs or contrast boosts other peoples work without their input.
If JB was indeed in fact involved, a boutique distributor would be remised not to mention the DPs involvement and supervision of the mastering of the transfer; it is an excellent selling point for its intended market.
“I know the experts will poo-poo it and not believe it, but, again, those who know me will know that I do not post anything like that until I know it for a fact.”
Except for the past week you did not know for a fact who supervised the creation and progression of the transfer but you asserted as though it were the case anyway. Which casts all your unsubstantiated assertions as dubious.
“As I said. There is no winning.”
When you make claims that cannot be verified apart from your word, of course any sensible individual will rightfully be skeptical of the validity of those statements.
“Sony is in the business of doing new HD transfers of all their titles”
Except when they don’t or repurpose an old transfer and ‘improve’ it with revisionist changes. Such as with Ghosbusters when the DP had approved one transfer used for the anniversary DVD but was later changed without his involvement for a new DVD release and later found on the BR.
“People always point to several Blu-rays from the very first wave as proof that it's not always stellar over there - but those were done before this began happening. If John Bailey was involved in this transfer at Sony, that is good enough for me and should be good enough for everyone, but alas, it isn't and never will be - no one will ever admit they were in error or that the look of the film on this Blu-ray is what its DP wanted and approved. And so it goes. I've stated the necessary information - that the usual suspects were not going to have any of it was expected. There have, however, been an equal if not larger number of people who think the transfer is top-notch. Hence, horse racing.”
Some of the examples mentioned were not at the dawn of BR and even then there were plenty of fantastic transfers from all the studios. The problem arises when some over eager folks ‘improve’ things by changing the image. The reason I have brought up certain transfers is because they are the most notorious and adequately rebuke some of your comments.
Such as many long time reviewers have an extensive history of praising lackluster work that they would not admit to until in rare cases superior transfers were released that irrefutable proved them wrong. Afterwards there was plenty of backpedalling and saving face rationalizations.
Or the fact that their criteria for quality video are the lack of grain and contrast that pops even if it is all incorrect.
There is another recent example I could delve into that supposedly did not use DNR, least of all with the live action portions of the film even though those filmed elements have no visible grain at all and now has rather pasty and plasticene qualities in appearance. Rather miraculous trick that one.
I recall several major cases throughout human history when the majority has been resolutely wrong, do I need to recount them? The point is there are reviewers that have no clue about film and simply rely on their own preferences. No grain, ‘inky blacks’, and contrast that pops.
Back to AGAIG, is it an atrocity? No. The main point has always been that there have been adjustments made to the image; regardless of who made those decisions things have been changed and in several instances it has resulted in formerly visible information to be gone now.
Again there are several people, whom profess not to weight much merit with screen caps, who own the disc, seen it in motion and they also note the issues you refuse to acknowledge.