Doug, what display do you have?
I have an Avia tweaked Mits hc3000U PJ which has a very good rep.
I'm sure my screenshots are not exact in regards to perfectly capturing the color and brightness as I'm indeed aiming a digital camera at a projector screen. All I can say is that in the comparison shots, the differences are valid as I'm in full manual mode. Most people seem to think it's good for a rough "idea" of what the differences are. I am far from the only one seeing radical color differences in only select scenes and a much flatter, washed out look on the BD. Now also, many of these were taken on my first night ever even attempting screenshots. By that 3rd night, I feel I had gotten much better, (but that's beside the point)
An analogy, I am mixing my record at the moment. Now I have excellent, PERFECT flat studio monitors, big ones. I also have perfectly flat, studio level headphones. But when I mix, I also listen to the same tracks through good home speakers as well as other peoples (I often make cds and take them to different people's houses. I listen in the car and I even listen on a couple of boomboxes. Most people when they do professional mixdowns do as well. (You will ofteh see a cheap boombox sitting on the mixing desk as well as sometimes a few speakers aside from the monitors)
I do this so I can hear how the same mix will sound on all these different types os speakers.
Often if a mix sounds great on just the monitors, it will sound muddy as hell on other settups.
I would assume a similar thing should happen when a new transfer is made.
If the new transfer comes out so flat and dark that you would need only the best possible display to see even a remotely satisfactory image then that's odd. How many people have a settup like RAH's...? (And believe me, I am jealous!)
One percent? Maybe less?
I have watched dozens of BDs and now some Hddvds, have had HD for 2 and a 1/2 years as well as having an Oppo player, have watched numerous PAL discs upscaled. I have never seen a disc that so radically looks different than what either a previous media version looked like or what my memory (albeit not totally trustworthy) of a film looked like before this.
Now last thought, if all the theatrical prints were off, the official book of the film's photos were off, the previous video versions including an LD set that some paid $100 for was off, (thinking they were getting an accurate representation of the film) what really is the "accurate theatrical presentation" suppossed to be?
If you bought a new version of a beloved old album but the new mix was radically different in many songs, sounded muddier, the instruments were much less clear and now buried and even some were flipped from left to right, (the color on Dracula turning from blue to green is a nice comparison)
and in your opinion the earlier album, even if not in what's considered the hihest fidelity possible, sounded better to you than might you not be a tad disappointed? (Actually it happens all the time with "remastered albums") Especially if basically you were being told something like, "this is the correct way the album SHOULD have sounded. You just can't appreciate it." Or "Your stereo isn't good enough to make this sound great." and "unless you have $5,000 speakers, don't expect to hear everthing in the mix."
