...anything shot and printed in Eastmancolor prior to 1983 (the year the 'low fade' negative and print stock was introduced) is going to be pretty faded by now. Under the best storage conditions, Eastmancolor negatives were good for around 25 years (depending on the lab that did the processing). Thereafter, it began to fade, first with the opticals (which were on duplicate negative stock which was thinner) and then the rest of it. Sometimes the negatives can be 'tweaked' on video but eventually those video masters will be obsolete or deteriorate too. The exceptions to this color fading problem with Kodak stock are those movies printed in the following release print processes which did not fade or deteriorate: Technicolor dye transfer prints, Cinecolor and SuperCinecolor prints and Kodachrome (16mm and 8mm). These were the only stable color processes prior to 1983.
[...]
Prior to the post-1983 'low fade' color stock, there was a method of preserving Eastmancolor negatives. In fact, it was basically a variation of the three strip camera. The color negative was reprinted on fine grain B&W separation stock. Each color was preserved in B&W which could then be re-combined to make a new color internegative that had all of the hues of the original. This technique worked quite well. The "Spartacus" restoration was derived from the B&W separations since the Eastmancolor camera negative had completely faded.
[...]
It's probable that in the case of "Star Wars" and "Alien" (both filmed on 'quick fade' Eastmancolor), there were separations made of the original versions. Whether they will ever be used to make a new color internegative is the next question. Lucas keeps re-cutting his movies and won't allow the original versions to be shown again.
[...]
Curiously, the original version of "Star Wars" can still be seen but only privately via film collectors. Even though Technicolor had shut down their process in the U.S., they continued to make dye transfer prints in England through 1978, in Italy through 1980 and in China through 1993. Therefore, some real Technicolor (dye transfer dolby stereo) prints were made of the first release of "Star Wars". The color, sharpness and contrast is far superior to the American prints. These copies look even better than the 70mm print I saw way back when. The black levels of space are pitch black and the colors really glow from the screen. It really looked sensational. The American prints have completely faded by now and the 90's re-issue looked somewhat faded with pinkish fleshtones in the first reel (good old 'color by De Luxe'). Lucas is an advocate for digital projection and wants to phase out motion picture film. I hope he has preserved the film elements because digital is not archival. It's a very unstable format and it's easy to erase or degrade digital data. Since there's no 'hard copy' like film, there's no way to restore missing computer information. It just vanishes.

Originally posted by: boris
In Canada? I know that "backing up" a commercial DVD is illegal in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, here, and just about anywhere that respects copyright - I really don't think backing up film would be legal either.

Canada does not have DMCA-style copyright legislation (as it shouldn't), so I don't think you can automatically lump Canada in with those other anti-consumer copyright regimes. I have never read that making a backup of a DVD you own is illegal in Canada. I'm quite sure, in fact, that the 'fair dealing provision' still allows it.

Also I agree with Lucasfilm's right to decline to allow anyone to show Star Wars publicly - I don't agree with the reasons - however it's illegal to show it publicly without their permission, so they can say no if they like. And that makes sense.

For the record, the use of a dye transfer print as a transfer element, would not yield an acceptable image. Any discussion of prints, in general, for transfer would be heading in the wrong direction.

Originally posted by: boris


When the copyright legislation allows consumers to make personal backups as part of fair use / fair dealing, and DRM/DMCA prevents the consumer from making that backup, then that is anti-consumer.

backing up DVD's certainly isn't [legal in Canada] - unless you have intangible legal proof?

Originally posted by: boris

Of course they just own a copy. And that copy can be shown publically, if one obtains the proper license.

And what if someone doesn't want their movie shown on TV? Then that's their right to do so.

Originally posted by: boris


We live in a capitalistic world Karyudo