jero32 said:

Who says I'm defending the bluray? I just see a lot of people bashing on it, and I'm just asking questions to try and figure out what the correct color timing should be.

The info you just posted is actually a great example of an argument I LIKE to hear, because its thought out and explains the process of making a film (Which I love to read about).

But about the negative, even if effects are cut in seperately. The negative stil isn't timed right? On top of that wouldn't generational loss cause a bit over overexposure? It's very obvious on star wars near the wipes sometimes.

Could be that they were keeping that in mind?

(edit: Unlikely though if thats not what it looks like on your super8 print)

Granted, in this case I agree it's most likely that the bluray took some liberties with these things. (I stil don't agree that as a whole the bluray is a bad release though)

I wasn't trying to call you out, I enjoy the spirited discussion here ;-)

The Raiders effects were done on Vista Vision (35mm shot horizontally for a much larger and sharper widescreen image) so that they would have less obvious generational loss and less grain. I believe Star Wars did this as well, but could be wrong. Transitions like wipes and dissolves use regular 35mm elements, so the dupes won't look as good. There is a Cinefex article where the artists bemoan losing some of the fine detail on the ghosts during compositing, so I find it hard to believe they would intentionally overexpose to remove even more detail. Still the look would vary from print to print. My super 8 print is more overexposed on some shots than the DVD version (which was made from an IP) but not to the extent of the blu-ray.