Carcosa, I have already said that as far as I am concerned this discussion is over. It is over because I don't want to deal with people like you who continually confuse a factual argument (based, in this case, on a point-by-point comparison of two DVDs, my knowledge of the film and my love for the film) with a personal attack and willingly misinterpret everything I say. You are on my Ignore List from now on, so you'll just have to cease and desist from your cross-thread stalking and perpetual character assassination. If you persist, I will have to take other action. Nice knowing you.

This quote from you seems to indicate that you actually do believe that the Dracula transfer is as the director Coppola intended it to be. Otherwise, how would it jeopardize Harris's relationship if he criticized it?

I imagine Harris knows a thing or two about video transfers of films, since he's seen several of his film restorations transfered to video. And I don't see how it's "out of turn" for him to provide his point of view and knowledge while it's perfectly fine for you to provide your opinion of the video transfer, since your specialty isn't DVD authoring either.

I really don't see what someone else's opinion, someone completely uninvolved in the transfer process, and with no firsthand knowledge, has to do with anything.

You brought it up. If you didn't want to get "drawn into this discussion again," don't bring it up. Citing it as an example of "computer nerds" given "carte blanche" to radically alter film tones without any input or oversight from the director or other supervision was just asking for the discussion to be brought up again, especially since all the evidence in this example points to the people in charge of the transfer trying to follow the directors intentions, and not simply changing the colors willy nilly on a whim.

Jay G, I will simply point out that you didn't see the transfer you're talking about and leave it at that.

What the hell does that have to do with him tearing apart your argument (and rather well, I might add)?

A point-by-point comparison of two DVDs doesn't provide any fact other than the DVDs provide differing images. A comparison between the DVDs doesn't even prove that either of them has the correct image; it could well be that they offer different images that are both incorrect.

The rest is just your subjective opinion, not "facts."

Jay G-

Thank you for picking up on that point and running with it. I'm pretty much done with this particular topic. You are by far more eloquent than I could ever be in this discussion. The poster in question has accused me of "stalking" him and of assassinating his character...both absurd. I've simply been responding to a series of posts plastered all over these DVD TALK boards by him and others that I strongly disagreed with. He has accused me of the very thing he has been engaged, as you can see if you read the postings in the original thread. It was the very inflammatory nature of those posting that got me involved to begin with.

But at this point, I’m done. I will let my last post be my last word on this subject…

Not that anyone really cares anyway

Once more into the fray...

I have already explained, as have countless others, why the new transfer is very far removed from Coppola's "original intentions", which is the whole point of the debate. It wouldn't have been "nice" and it would have been "in poor taste" for Harris to call attention to the incompetence of the transfer and that Coppola lost control of it to Sony, as it would have reminded everyone how Coppola has already lost control of the original film elements of The Godfather and allowed them to almost turn to dust in the hands of Paramount before they were rescued by Spielberg/Dreamworks and Harris got a multi-million dollar contract to salvage them. It would also have been bad for business. Friends don't tell on friends. Furthermore, Harris started by saying that the new transfer was as close to the film's original look in theatres as it could possibly be and later backtracked to say the way a film looks in theatres doesn't matter at all. Something is very fishy here, to say the least.

I find the following Blu-Ray review a good illustration of that point (the director's intentions), even if you might want to dismiss it because it is written by a "non-specialist" in transfer technology ( http://www.dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/2692.shtml ):

I think if you are going to have an opinion on this debate, it is advisable to not just take somebody else's word for it (cough, Harris!) and familiarize yourself with the evidence firsthand, in this case how the film looked in theatres (some of us are still old enough to remember and to think it matters), the previous transfers (especially the Superbit, which is a transcendantal experience) and the recent transfer. You could also read the 1992 book Coppola wrote on the subject or watch the extras on the new DVD, which are very informative, or listen to the commentary Coppola recorded for that edition - while evidently watching a previous transfer - where he lovingly describes the "old time" look he went for, the subtle shades of colour, the in-camera special effects and details and even the special subtitles he chose that have all simply disappeared from the new transfer. An appreciation for the film and the director's work also helps. If you did this, you would understand why some of us - including the majority of reviewers who saw the previous transfers - honestly think this new transfer is tantamount to throwing ink on the Mona Lisa.

That's all I'm saying. And you are right that I did bring it up because I think it ties in with what I'm saying in this thread that what is happening to the colours in recent films and/or transfers probably has more to do with the complexity of the technology or the "video game nerds taking over" (if you'll pardon the expression) than the directors' actual intentions.

Don't say you didn't ask for it...

Not very well, I must say, especially if the crux of your argument is that Harris and Aubrey are lying.

Would it have been any less "nice" or "good for business" than Harris criticizing Sony for the DVD transfer they did of his restoration of Laurence of Arabia? He's obviously not afraid to speak his mind on poor transfers when he sees them.

Also, your explanation of Harris's motivations as not wanting to speak ill doesn't explain why he then threw his hat in the ring in this debate. He's not speaking as a representative of any company or anyone other than himself in this discussion. If he wanted to simply "not call attention" to the transfer, he could've not said anything at all. Instead, he's done the opposite, and vigorously defended a transfer he had no personal involvement on

That's because you're misrepresenting what he said. He said that the new transfer accurately approximates what was intended to be seen in theaters. He also wrote that many theaters likely showed the film in a form that came close to the original intentions.

However, he did point out that you can't just trust any theatrical presentation to be accurate. That's partially the point of the answer prints, as a point of comparison for the release prints to try and come as close to. However, even if the release print was accurate, which due to varying quality and car put into them they may not have been, it's still possible that the film was projected incorrectly. If you want to talk about people without any oversight on how they alter the image, take a look at the projectionists at modern theaters, if they even have someone that can be called that. How many times have we heard of errors with theatrical presentations, films out of focus, framed incorrectly, etc.

I remember when Mulholland Drive was released on DVD, people were upset about David Lynch blurring Laura Harring's vaginal area for the release. When it came out that he did so because he didn't want home computer nerds extracting something from the image that wasn't meant to have been seen, but hidden in shadow, it became clear that many people had seen the film projected too brightly, because they had seen her naughty bits in the theater. Dracula could've easily suffered the same fate, with the projectionist dialing up the brightness because the film appeared, to them at least, as "too dark."

I'll dismiss the review because it doesn't have any info on the director's intentions. It's simply comparing the DVD to the reviewer's memory of how the film has looked previously, which is most likely based on previous home video releases, which, as it has been pointed out, can't be trusted as "accurate" anymore than this release can, in and of themselves.

....Like your's, for example?

I'm not saying that Harris and Aubrey are infallible. I am saying that they are far more knowledgeable than the majority of people are, and more so than anyone on the opposite side of the debate, on how the film is supposed to look. Also, as professionals, I have little reason to doubt their word. You, on the other hand, can't even accurately regurgitate their arguments that you read a few days ago.

Memory is a tricky thing. Some people are "still old enough" to remember seeing the scenes with Biggs in the original release of Star Wars, or remember seeing the "To be continued" at the end of BTTF in theaters. It's very likely that anyone who saw the film in theaters has that memory merged with their memories of viewing it on home video later, and given your overriding preference for (over)saturated colors, in your case I think it's an absolute certainty.

As I pointed out before, comparing the releases does nothing but confirm that they're different, and that you prefer one over the other. It doesn't prove that either is accurate, although Harris and Aubrey have provided a reasonable explanation based in fact about why previous home video transfers shouldn't be trusted, an explanation that I haven't seen anyone refute.

Ha! So now even the commentary is lying! You have absolutely no proof that what you say is true, other than the fact that you don't agree with Coppola's assessment of the action on the screen.

Your opinion is just that, your opinion. You have no evidence that the current release is not what the director intended other than your own desire for it to not to be so.

Jay G., please don't start twisting my meaning. This debate is murky enough. Of course I didn't say (or mean) that Coppola's commentary is lying. I'm saying that his commentary, which was recorded months - maybe years - before the new transfer was ready, mentions elements, values, colours, tiny details, shadings and whole special effects that are simply not visible on the latest transfer.

Also please reflect on the level of abstraction to which you are raising - or lowering - the discussion by simply comparing words on paper with other words on paper. This discussion whould take a whole new dimension for you if you could actually refer to the evidence of your own eyes by actually watching the transfers we are arguing about instead of hypothesizing on people's intentions, the probability of one statement being true and the other one false and the general logic of the situation. Until you do, I think this discussion will remain sterile.

So the bottom line is if you never owned this movie and you wanted to buy it.
And just want the best transfer and don't care about extras buy the Super-Bit.
Right?

Yes, buy the Superbit by all means, especially if you have a high-end hi-def system and you never watch movies in Torch (or Standard) Mode.

If you miss the extras, get this book - It has everything contained in the new extras and more: http://www.amazon.com/Bram-Stokers-D...2549617&sr=1-4

The very point is that the answer is subjective. It's a matter of preference. Lots of folks are happy with the SuperBit disc it seems. I haven't bought it yet myself. I watched a bit of the new one and I did not find it objectionable....

As Carcosa pointed out, the bottom line is that what is "best" is an entirely subjective and personal opinion. Plenty of people are fine with the most recent release, some prefer the previous releases that are brighter and more saturated.

However, if you want the transfer of the movie that most accurately represents what was intended to be seen by the director, we have testimonies by two respected professionals in the field, one of whom actually worked on the DVD, who say that the most recent release is that one that's correct.

Personally, I'd say look up the comparison threads here and at HTF, read up, and make a decision for yourself. If you end up preferring the Superbit, hey, whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to delude yourself (and others) that it was intended to be seen that way.

You said that the commentary is misrepresenting what's on the screen, that the words in it are falsehoods in regards to this transfer. I didn't say you claimed that Coppola was lying in the transfer, but that you don't think what he says is true in regards to this transfer.

You have absolutely zero evidence on when the commentary was recorded. It's only your subjective opinion that the commentary couldn't have been recorded why Coppola was watching the new transfer.

There are several reasons why Coppola could be commenting on elements "not visible" to you, and he still could've been watching the new transfer:

1. He was watching in a better viewing environment than you. - You know, dark private screening room, big screen, etc.
2. He was watching on equipment that's better and/or better calibrated than yours. - Tied to the "better environment," he likely viewed it on top of the line equipment calibrated correctly for getting the best out of a properly graded image.
3. He was watching the HD version. - The details, colors are all there, in the HD version. Harris pointed out that previous transfers had the brightness and color saturation of the film artificially heightened in part to compensate for the limits of SD video. Ironically then, watching the newest transfer downsampled to MPEG2 SD may impair the most "correct" representation of the film on video so far.
4. He was watching the answer print. - This is only thrown in as another counter to your foundless claim of the commentary being recorded "long ago and far away." The answer print was owned by Zoetrope, and since the new transfer was going to be based on it, it stands to reason that a session recorded "far in advance" could simply use the print the future transfer was to approximate. Of course, a film print would be a far better presentation than even what the HD transfer can approximate.
5. You are just mistaken. - Plenty of other people in the other threads have personally attested to seeing the effects, details, and colors you claim are just "not visible." They're there, just not as pronounced as previous releases.

What paper?

So.. if I watch the transfers and still disagree with you, you'll concede the argument?

You're the one hypothesizing. I don't need to hypothesize, I've got two quotes from two respected figures in the field who have knowledge of both the film and the transfer process who both agree that the most recent transfer is what was intended to be seen. You're the one hypothesizing that both of them are liars, for various hypothetical reasons you can't defend, and that the current commentary track is hypothetically commentating on something other than what it's attached to.

The bottom line is that all the real evidence we have points to the newest transfer of Dracula being the most accurate one so far, and that there was a clear effort that it be so. That doesn't mean that you have to like the newest transfer. However, it does mean that declaring that the transfer was created by "computer nerds" with zero oversight, that Harris and Aubrey are liars, and that the Coppola commentary is incorrect, based on nothing but your personal preference, is incorrect and irresponsible.

Jay G., I agree with you that Coppola must have been watching a much better version of the film than the new transfer when he recorded his commentary. He could have had the original interpositive projected directly on his brain stem for all I know.(1)

But from everything you write, I get the feeling that this issue is very important to you but not so important that you are willing to condescend to see the new transfer you are defending. From what I gather, you have never seen the Superbit either, and possibly never even seen the film at all, for all I know, and if you did, you don't particularly care for it. So what are we arguing about exactly?

If you want to go on with the debate, as I said before, there are two threads that are just waiting for new information and new insights on this question from people like you. Please join them. And don't be shy: I'd say roughly 45 % of the contributors to those threads (those who defend the new transfer "just on principle") haven't seen either version either. So you'll be among peers and your sterling objectivity and your stalwart defense of Harris and Aubry will not be questioned or hampered by pesky, subjective details like what the transfers actually look like.

(1) According to this post by Davy Mack ( http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.ph...1&postcount=87 ), Coppola mentions in the commentary that he is talking in 2006, long before the latest HD/Blu-Ray transfer was done. All that we know about FFC's whereabouts is that he has been in Buenos Aires for most of 2007, preparing his film Tetro, that he's had his personal computer with the only extant copy of the script stolen in September 2007 and that now is maybe not the time to ask him pointed questions about a possibly botched Blu-ray transfer.

Nowhere did I say he was watching a "better version." In fact, only one of the explanations I gave was even a different version of the film, and that was of the answer print this transfer was based on.

This is the important bit: for all you know, which is very little. What we know is this: According to two highly regarded professionals with knowledge of the film as it was originally meant to be seen, one of whom actually worked on the DVD, the newest transfer is the closest to matching the director's intentions of any video transfer so far, per the answer print. Everything else you've stated isn't known, but conjecture.

Also, while it's nice to know the rough date of Coppola's commentary (sometime in 2006), that doesn't preclude it from being recorded while viewing this transfer. You don't know when this transfer was made. The only definite thing you can say is that the new transfer was likely made (or at least finished) after the Superbit DVD release, which was in 2001.

I'll be more than happy to start condescending if you want me to.

Again, if I see the new transfer, and still disagree, will you concede the argument?

That the most recent Dracula DVD isn't an example of "computer nerds" run amok, changing the color scheme of a film will nilly and without oversight, but rather that it's an example of at the least and attempt to follow the director's wishes, as based on a film print approved by him. I'm not trying to argue such subjective terms as which release is "best" or even "good."

Like I wrote: Don't say you didn't ask for it. As long as you continue to use Dracula as an example in this thread, this debate belongs in this thread as well. If you decide to drop it as an example in this thread, then I'll let the debate continue elsewhere.

Pardon me for assuming that a transfer copyrighted in 2007 was made in 2007, especially when every indication was that it was rushed to production without any quality control, which would explain the skipping/pixilation issue with the SD.

Of course not, but I will respect your opinion and defend your right to have one.

Well, if that's all it takes...

I was wrong to question the quality of the HD/Blu-ray transfer of this film, heretofore referred to as the 2001-2007 transfer. I was blind but now I see. It is the best possible transfer that anyone could have hoped for in a "When You Wish Upon A Star" daydream. The colours are exactly as I remember them. The shadow detail is magnificently luminous and couldn't be improved upon. I guess that's what happens when an attentive director puts his many business entanglements on the back burner, abandons everything and directly flies up from Buenos Aires to personally supervise the quality of a transfer. And Mssrs. Harris and Aubry were so right to assuage the misgivings some ill-intentioned Doubting Thomases could have had about the absolute correspondance of this latest definitive home video edition of the film with Coppola's wishes and intentions. And it was certainly ill-advised of yours truly to use this pristine transfer as an illustration of the theme of the present thread, which is that technological mishaps can sometimes alter the appearance of a film on DVD or even in theatres. Not one of my most inspired moments, I admit.

And you can quote me.

You're forgiven. It's not surprising that someone not knowledgeable on how the entertainment industry works wouldn't know that copyright notices are often registered to the year of publication, and not necessarily the year of creation.

That would be an DVD authoring issue, not a transfer issue, especially since the BD doesn't have those issues.

Oh, I will

You didn't have to write that, you know. By "drop," I simply meant admit that the Dracula transfer is, at least, highly debatable, and that more clear-cut examples of your theory of computer nerds run amok would better suit this thread. But your admission of incorrectness is much better.