Originally Posted by s2mikey
And herein lies my biggest issue with all of this: How the heck do you or can you guys remember what a film released in 1970 looked like at the theater? I mean... the technology was not even that great then so I highly doubt it was THAT good in the first place. And, lets be realistic.... 30 plus years is a LONG time. Do you really recall what it looked like at the theater?
Yes, and if the screen shots are accurate, which based on Xylon's previous work in this area would be the case, then the Patton Blu-ray transfer is a disservice to the original film.
So, whats the deal here? Are you just trying to rekindle or justify your OWN personal movie experiences or are you basing this stuff on tangible facts that us newbies just dont get?
As has already been explained, we simply want the most accurate reproduction of the original film presentation as possible.
I have a funny feeling that directors want their movies to look as good as possible. I mean... isnt that just common sense? Did Kubrick or whomever come out and say "Nah, lets make it dull, lifeless, grainy, and flat."
Please edumacate me.
Who decides what 'as good as possible' is? You? No, the director has already made the decision what he/she wants the film to look like.
Your funny feeling is completely off base. Directors don't want their work 'to look as good as possible'. They want it to look like what it looked like when they created it.
Film is a very flexible media, with which the film industry has extensive long term experience. It can be technically manipulated using a wide variety of techniques, which result in a wide variety of visual results. When you are viewing the film theatrically (short of a technical issue at that specific theater), you can be 100% sure if it looks 'dull, lifeless, grainy, and flat' to you, that's the way it's intended to look
. The same film on Blu-ray should be an accurate reproduction, nothing more, nothing less. It's that simple.