BAD wrote:Well, all reviews are a fine line between guess work and objectivity, unless you actually have access to the original masters, which is the extremely rare exception.
Or, alternatively, you could simply ask the people who created the disc - they're not exactly hermits who shut themselves away from the world. Indeed, in my experience (because I usually do this myself with my own professional reviews), they're usually only too happy to be asked, not least because it prevents the spread of misinformation.
And you have to admit that suggesting that a Blu-ray transfer is not just digitally reprocessed but "heavy-handed" at that is seriously misleading, especially given that the target audience is the kind of people who are fussy about such things.
(I don't know whether you were sent an unaccompanied checkdisc or the final package, but BFI DVDs and Blu-rays usually include detailed technical notes on the transfer towards the back of the booklet.)
I was in fact sent a pre-release disc.
But, outside of what is an obvious typo (because I know the difference between DNR and DVNR)
Ovbious tpyos are those where the underlying meaning is still perfectly clear. Your typo ended up making another erroneous claim. In fact, while I note that you've since rewritten that paragraph, I would still take issue with the phrase "a lack of excessive processing", as it implies that there was still some DNR applied to the telecine, albeit not to an excessive degree. In fact, there was no DNR applied at all.
maybe you can point to what are all the evidence is in all my reviews, since you suggest I "make so many elementary technical errors that his assessments are currently pretty worthless." and that I know "very little about the telecine and encoding process." Are you basing this solely on two reviews, or the nearly 200 I've written for three different sites?
I made it clear that I based my comments on the two reviews that I cited, which both resorted to erroneous guesswork. I'm sure the other 198 are paragons of the reviewer's art and flawless in every particular - it's clearly a hugely unfortunate coincidence that I stumbled across the two bad apples.[/quote]
I'm not really sure how saying "a lack of excessive processing" implies that there was DNR applied specifically when "processing" could refer to any number of things in the chain. A film being transferred is always going to be processed in some way. Did you ever consider that "a lack of excessive processing" simply implies that although the film was cleaned up it DIDN'T have its grain futzed with. Herostratus
was "processed" in that it had DVNR applied (as did Man of Violence). This can sometimes be even worse than DNR (depending on your point of view) as, if improperly used, it can flat out remove objects that BELONG in the picture, rather than simply softening the detail. The question is, is it or is it not excessive? But, no, your two comments did not make it clear that you based your entire assessment on two reviews that you take personal exception to. Of course, since you just seem to be looking for something to find fault with, you'll obviously read everything in a negative way. As for two bad apples, you're entitled to your opinion, but I stand by the reviews, which I say are hardly "bad apples" as you want to claim.
But, you know, I'm sure that you have an absolutely impeccable record when it comes to your own work, a perfect eye, a completely flawless grasp of grammar and
can spot a DNR'd or non-DNR'd transfer at a glance, in fact, I'm sure you can even tell the difference between a Super-16 filmed movie heavily processed in the DI stage and an original HD recording, like, say Alien Trespass
Anyway, off to spread some more erroneous information to the masses before heading to a press event. Nice butting heads with you.