dvdmike said:

Synnöve said:

Y'all need to keep in mind that none of the transfers are really representative of a release print or negative simply due to the drastically different color spaces consumer video and film use, and the evolving methods of mapping film colors to consumer video color spaces. These sorts of factors will drastically effect the look of the resultant transfer.

That was what I was saying!! using the workprint as it is closest to an actual print and in BD's colour space already

No that's 100% wrong. The workprint is not even close to a release print. That is not the way making release prints works. Synnove is talking about digital formats. We are talking about chemical timing of a release print, workprints rarely have any chemical color timing. I quote wikipedia:

A workprint is a rough version of a motion picture, used by the film editor(s) during the editing process. Such copies generally contain original recorded sound that will later be re-dubbed, stock footage as placeholders for missing shots or special effects, and animation tests for in-production animated shots or sequences.

For most of the first century of filmmaking, workprints were done using second-generation prints from the original camera negatives. After the editor and director approved of the final edit of the workprint, the same edits were made to the negative.

If anything the workprint is closer to the negative then a release print. It was a quick rough print made for a preview. Thats why they used 70mm, to perverse as much detail as possible given the quick nature of the print. It was never meant to be seen again. Release prints are timed after the ip as a result of answer print. The are already a few generations removed from the ocn and their colors can be radically different then the negative. Negatives are great for seeing details but release prints are best for what a film should look like. Workprints are in no way the true color and look of a film.