I'm going to bring up something that I've suggested in the past, but apparently cannot be performed.
One of the major problems with the Blu-ray format is its ability to properly replicate the look and texture of the cinema in a home theater environment. It can do this better than many a 16mm print from an original release, and within certain parameters of size, can hold its own against a properly struck 35mm print. And all on a tiny disc, and without scratches, splices, jitter or bob and weave. All within a 1920 x 1080 format.
Blu-ray, much like HD, was sold to the public for this purpose.
And many, many home theater enthusiasts have become fans of the format.
But Blu-ray is very much a two-edged blade. It has the ability to expose a film's technical deficiencies.
Encode it with something that is properly prepared, from a correctly selected element, and with image and audio handled in the correct manner, and we have something really remarkable -- that look and feel of cinema.
I've referred to Blu-ray as a "bucket," which is what it is.
It can be filled with anything. Still photographs, music, or alternatively, motion pictures, whether they be sourced from a scratched and splice-ridden 16mm dupe intended for VHS, or from an original 65mm negative, with an image properly harvested at 8k.
It is what it is.
In the early days of Blu-ray, which aren't long ago, errors were made, as the studios learned how to use the format. WB mistakenly used some 1080i masters, and then quickly set about pulling titles from the release schedule, and replacing with 1080p. We would (and still do) see window-boxed main titles, without necessity. Audio formats occasionally get reversed. Errors occur. Growing pains.
Titles such as The Gangs of New York, Patton, The Longest Day were released, as studio execs were sold snake oil by vendors who proclaimed that they could get rid of the grain that was inherent in all "old" films, which was the destroyer of images, especially in the days of 480i, making compression difficult. Vendors sold their wares, and actually got unwary execs to believe that they could take an old transfer, run it through proprietary software, and out would come a perfect 1080p HD master, which would turn on the kudo machine when seen by the public.
This situation was not necessarily based upon execs attempting to short-cut the system, or not spend the funds necessary to create proper transfers. These vendors were paid well for their snake oil.
As far as I can tell, only a single recent Blu-ray fits into the category of "let's spend nothing," or "let's see if we can pull one over on the public," and that would unfortunately be that disc that should have been lovelier than ever.
With that singular exception, most recent problems come from negligence. QC people, if there are QC people, not knowing what a film is supposed to look like, as opposed to simply QCing to make certain that audio does not disappear for a minute or two, or that odd digital patterns do not run down the center of an image.
It seems that the concept of having a human who actually knows the product being QC'd is a novel event for some.
You won't find this occurring at Columbia, or Fox, as they have set up their corporate functions so that real eyes view product before it is approved, beginning with the selection of elements, and ending with approval of a Blu-ray disc.
Let's return to the point that I mentioned at the start of this piece.
What I had suggested several years ago, was some sort of situation similar to "No wine before its time," or "The quality goes in before our logo goes on."
Some mechanism within the Blu-ray marketing and licensing arena, which would prevent situations such as those with West Side Story from occurring. Some sort of overall quality control for the bucket. Lucasfilm used to have TAP, which was a very workable organization. making certain that theatres were technically up to snuff before a major release went into the field. We used them for several 70mm releases, and the results were generally always positive. They were a force (no pun intended) actually visiting venues, checking equipment for sound and image quality, and sitting and viewing every print before it was shipped. They were dis-enablers of potential problems. And they still have my gratitude.
How can this affect Blu-ray?
I'm not certain that it can, as the format is out there in the wild, available for use by anyone who wishes to use it.
The problem is that all those Blu-ray "buckets" can be filled with either rocks or glory, and sometimes a bit of both.
So that concept would seem unworkable.
There is no Blu-ray Board of Examiners, checking film-based releases. DI-based productions should not need it.
The only other means of getting things correct is to somehow restrain the release of product that falls below standards with proper education at the studio level. But let's be honest. What 25 year-old doing QC actually knows what a film like West Side Story looks like. Anyone? This is where Fox and Columbia have their act together.
This means that those above need to do proper due diligence, actually pulling an original print, creating a properly prepared continuity, having elements examined by people who know precisely what those tiny scribe marks outboard of the perforations on original negatives mean, and then relating them to the continuity and to that properly anointed reference print.
If all of that is done, a major release, the cost of which should be in decent six figures, will come out the other end with all of its quality intact. In the end, this is the easiest and least expensive means of getting a quality Blu-ray out to the public. The other problem, of course, is that a major classic release should begin with newly sourced data. Old data can only lead to problems.
None of this is terribly difficult. Nor terribly expensive.
"It's only a matter of going."
RAH
![West Side Story: 50th Anniversary Edition [Blu-ray]](http://cdn.hometheaterforum.com/4/45/50x50px-ZC-45c7d41e_B005BDZN62-51SuBPpqLgL.jpg)
