Batesy1970 said:

I hope this isn't too much of a digression but I just wanted to point out something that has been running through my mind whilst following/supporting this most excellent effort.

I have owned and/or had access to multiple Star Wars (the original) 35mm prints and screened numerous others as well (been in the theater exhibition biz for a long time). I remember seeing SW in the theater probably a dozen times during its 77-82 runs. The one fairly unifying factor in all of those prints (including mine) was the muted colors and almost greenish hue. There were a much smaller percentage that had excellent color that was more robust (but never popping mind you).  But by and large, especially at the smaller theaters, the prints always looked more muted.  The one fairly decent print I owned (which has since succumbed to vinegar syndrome) had a very faint, overall greenish hue.  Very strange. I have talked/emailed with a few other people over the years that had similar copies. It's been a kind of urban legend that Star Wars was mostly printed on Eastman stock so that George could count on them to eventually fade badly and keep collectors from having good copies. Indeed, back in the day SW prints were always around the collectors market but almost always a slightly faded Eastman.  Every once in a great while a fuji color print would show up for big bucks.

I say all this because the colors of Star Wars, to me, have always been a kind of rabbit hole. As I have read through this and other threads, the one thing I always think is "as long as it is close I am happy".  I am so pleased with the effort and, more importantly, the intentions of everyone involved. At the end of the day, I know it will look really, really good.  I remember sitting in a theater after hours and watching a well-worn Eastman print of SW with the color almost gone and hoping it could be better.  It's already there for me. Thanks Harmy.

My Stepfather was an engineer at Eastman-Kodak in Rochester,NY (Kodak's birthplace) for 30+ years during the time period when the Star Wars trilogy was released.  Among other things he designed dark rooms where motion picture film was developed.  After seeing your post on your observed quality difference between Kodak and Fuji film, I wrote him an email asking if he could state why this was.  Here is his reply, great insider information if you ask me. Hope you enjoy.

That was the period when Fuji was becoming increasingly recognized for improving quality, and Kodak was slowly becoming recognized for faltering quality.  (Previously, Kodak had earned and maintained fastidious quality levels, but beginning in the 70’s their monopoly made them complacent, lazy, and cost cutting measures that were not thought through, and all the while they kept “banging the drum” about what high quality they had.  Sadly delusional, like a very aged actress who is reclusive and out of touch, and thinks everyone still worships her.

Some of the problems that fellow observed likely came from relaxed safelighting standards (or non-observance of them) in that production area, an area I provided engineering support to and knew very well.  The safelights, if you didn’t already know, were green luminescent strips and shapes, used to mark machine and room features.  I did not design that darkroom, but I did design others, some for the high-end motion picture films (e.g.: 70mm, 65mm) and was very careful about lighting, noise, and dirt considerations.

The fading is a chemistry thing.  I’m not a chemist, but knew many engineers and technicians who were involved with the emulsions and coating part of the business.  They, too, were under heavy cost cutting pressures (not smart cost cutting pressures, but heavy lay-on cost cutting pressures).

Yep, it was a lot like ancient Rome . . . hard work > success > prosperity > comfort > idiocy > ruin.