Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Forgive me for jumping in here, but one fact needs to be made clear, and I believe this was what Mr. Pereira was trying in say.
Our reference were dry transfer prints stored at the Academy from the Technicolor reference collection. These prints carried the signature of Mr. Willis dated 1972 and 1974. Mr. Willis was kind enough to screen the 1972 print with cinematographer Allen Daviau at his side, to confirm the print as consummate reference.
Nothing was left to memory.
Memory is of little value, when it comes to the complexities of color and density.
Sorry, you're not going to convince anyone - they will either ignore this post or just willfully not accept the information contained therein. Personal preference is not the point, will never be the point, and is extremely silly. The ONLY point is how was the film shot, how was it approved by its DP and director, etc. That is the ONLY look that is acceptable. What some home theater enthusiast and expert prefers is the height of something or other - if one prefers some other look to the one that the director and cameraman delivered, then one should only buy films with that look or, better yet, go out and make their own film with that look.
I don't know why it's so hard to understand what Mr. Harris is saying here: An IB Tech reference print was used for the timing. No guesswork, no memory, an actual print from the original release. But I suppose it's easier to disappear rather than acknowledge (even begrudgingly) that what the man who DID the restoration is telling you - which is that this Blu-ray looks as it should look. And from what I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the person to whom Mr. Harris is responding hasn't even purchased and seen the Blu-ray disc, but is basing his comments on - screen caps? Or am I wrong there? Anyway, it would be truly nice if that poster came back and acknowledged Mr. Harris' factual and correct information. I'll check back in a few years to see if that happened