Are All Blu-ray Transfers Overseen By The Director/DP?

[diamondfoxxx]

As I understand blu-ray's are transfered newly from the original film negative. So are they always overseen by the director or DP? The reason I'm asking this is because I want to buy 'To Live & Die In L.A.' on blu-ray. But it is only available in Japan, so I'm doubtful as to whether this particular film is true 1080p or whether a shoddy upscaled version. Can anyone help me out?

[miked924]

I highly doubt directors or dps are present for every transfer unless they're changing the look of the film. During the re-xfer all they really have to worry about is the framing, otherwise it's just a straight transfer to 1080p, 2k or 4k

[DavePS3]

Good question... I'd be really surprised if every DOP or director was involved. I would have figured some big shot at the studio level would be more involved since that's probably what that person gets paid for. I can't see directors and DOP's being readilly available for every Blu-Ray release, since they'd constantly be all over the world working on new films... but I could be wrong.

Maybe they get involved on certain projects like director's cuts.

[davidxiphoid]

I'm pretty sure a lot of titles are NOT overseen by the director other than possible 'final say'? as far as to live and die in LA goes just check around, read the reviews and go by what other people say.

I can tell you I have been pleasantly surprised by a few movies that were supposedly really bad transfers and mistakenly assumed that just becase a movie is newer that it automatically meant it was gonna be an amazing picture. Case in point.. I own both Trading Places and Coming To America on Blu. Both are paramount titles and both were directed by John Landis but Trading precedes Coming to america by about 6 years?

I Watched Trading Places first and was amazed how gorgeous the transfer was. The details are sharp as a nail and the colors just POP! I was convinced that since Coming was a 'newer' release that it would at LEAST be equally as beautiful.. no dice.. The transfer is really good but nowhere near the quality that Trading Places is.

I honestly have no idea just how much input John Landis had in the Blu Ray releases of the two films but they are visually like night and day.

[Lord_Phan]

It's my understanding they can only change a film if the director is involved. Re-cutting etc must done with Directors approval/involvement. other than that I don't think they'd be involved.

[WickyWoo]

DGA rules require director approval of all transfers

[WickyWoo]

"transfer" is when you scan the film onto tape

Nothing should change between that tape and the final in terms of coloration/look, so no, they don't usually supervise it.

The only cases of upscaled Blu-rays have been some anime discs, and if you count 28 days because the source was DV. No theatrical film should be anything less than 1080p scanned from a full res master be it a DI or 35mm film

[diamondfoxxx]

Yeah, but reviews for 'To Live And Die In L.A.' are not on the net. It's release date is to May 2, and it's costs over $30 (on amazon JP)--and that's without shipping. I just want to know if I'm getting my money's worth.

[diamondfoxxx]

What's wrong with 'Pan's Labyrinth'? I though it was a reference quality disc And Warner titles have one of the best looking blu-ray's according to many people: Blade Runner.

[diamondfoxxx]

Yeah, in that article there's the following section:
'All of this was occurring as the fifth version — Scott's final cut — was painstakingly assembled from original elements, including the original 65mm negative. De Lauzirika has been working on it over a seven-year period. “And this time, Ridley approved every single thing that went into it — every single cut, every single effect' he says.
Also: Scott oversaw the color-grading sessions at the Stage 6 facility
So I guess the person who criticized Warner is incorrect.

[WickyWoo]

When Warner pays attention, when thye were dong HD DVD encodes, on big titles like BR or Departed they would spend the time and money to do many many passes to get them looking their best at the low bitrate. Not so much on catalog title

What's wrong with 'Pan's Labyrinth'? I though it was a reference quality disc And Warner titles have one of the best looking blu-ray's according to many people: Blade Runner

It's been smoothied all to hell to fit PiP, lossless and the video in the HD DVD bitstream. Uncompromised foreign versions are far superior

[AlexCruz]

Well what if the director has passed away?

[WickyWoo]

Then they'll get the DP, or they will use the last approved transfer as reference

[diamondfoxxx]

It's been smoothied all to hell to fit PiP, lossless and the video in the HD DVD bitstream. Uncompromised foreign versions are far superior

How do you know that's not what the director wanted? Maybe he preferred a 'smoothied' look?

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by diamondfoxxx

How do you know that's not what the director wanted? Maybe he preferred a 'smoothied' look?

Then it would have been shot that way to begin with.

[diamondfoxxx]

Then you can say the same about 300, if they wanted film grain to make the film look more gritty, they could've just shot it that way. They could've used more grainy film-stock instead of artificially adding it on post-production.

[WickyWoo]

How do you know that's not what the director wanted? Maybe he preferred a 'smoothied' look?

First because every other Del Toro film out there as the same basic look. Grainy and gritty, he's very into texture which the filtering process removes. Secondly because the smoothie is a trademark of when they try to stuff too much into HD DVD bandwidth. You can have good video, lossless, or PiP. Pick 2. Every time they try for 3, we see the same results. Hairspray suffered in much the same way, as have a whole bunch of WB titles

[Daredevil666]

It depends on the discs, there are no rules. I would say most recent movies are director's supervised, tought some version might escape without them being consulted like the bad Pan's Labyrinth discs.

For older films, many BR discs are transferts made from 1996 to today. I find any transfert being older than two years, before BR came out, to be unaceptable and should be redone right, they often have EE, lack of 3D quality, and whathaveyou.

Also keep in mind many times, director's approved transferts that were made years ago, were approved for use on SD discs and HD TV. If the director was consulted today, no doubt things would have been remade and look better, but it only happens when someone like Ridley Scott is involved because he have power over his movies on home video and he cares. Most director's just aren't concerned, their next job and paycheck is their concern, not their legacy.

One of the worst transferts out there is MAD MAX 2 (The Road Warrior), no effort was made to color correct the movie, which results in the skies changing from green to light blue to full blue all in one scene, and intense light and contrast variations from shot to shot. Day for night shots now looks like full on day. It's a travesty. The movie should have been color corrected with all effort made to fix the many problems it has re colors and lights, but they didn't bother.

[syncguy]

There could be cases where DVD quality content is upscaled for blu-ray, especially in relation to foreign productions. I have seen many VHS quality DVDs!