I found a version on myspleen but this is not the one listed here i think 😦
The only upload we have done is to MySpleen. There are likely other sites hosting it but I don’t have any links or information about that.
I’ve seen this discussion (yellow/gold tint on Raiders blu ray) on various sites, and I don’t want to get into a big discussion or step on any toes, but I’d like to relate my experiences with this movie as I was 18 and saw it when it first came out, and people who saw it in theaters should relate their experience for how it looked originally. If no one wants to hear another raiders color experience, by all means, ignore me.
When I first saw the movie, the one thing that stood out immediately was a very warm tint, and I may have remarked to my date (now my wife) how warm the movie was. Now mind you, I wasn’t into video or audio hobbies or equipment at this point in my life, but the warmth was immediately apparent to me. It looked like most outdoor scenes were shot in morning or evening light, but bright as normal daylight. The Nepal bar scenes were definitely warm looking (yellow/red tints). I saw the movie a couple of times in big theaters and it was always the same. When it first aired on television, I thought how it already looked old and faded and cold (no warm tint). Every release I’ve seen since then (only vhs and dvd) looked as if it was taken from an old faded videotape of the movie. It never looked right (or like I first saw it in theaters). It always seemed cold and somehow faded, and looked like a 50’s or 60’s faded movie.
When I first saw the 2012 Blu ray, I thought to myself, “Finally, this movie looks like I remember!” It’s warm and friendly looking again. Just my 2 cents, but the (2012) blu ray version looks closest to what I remember seeing in theaters. Now I’ll grant you, the cave shots may be a bit brighter, and some scenes look blurry (the spiders on their backs), so maybe not perfect, but good.
I’m not going to argue if someone wants the yellows toned down a bit, or darkens the movie a tad, or even if they want to perfectly correct the colors, but the blu ray is essentially the experience I had in theaters if you want the original theater look. With all the home releases viewed over the years, even people who saw it in theaters may have skewed memories of how warm this movie was, but my memory of how warm the movie was has actually stuck with me all these years, even before there was a yellow tint/no tint debate. Again, just my $.02.
Leo
With all due respect, your recollections are wrong. While some original prints may have looked warmer than others (Fuji prints in particular) absolutely none of them looked like the blu-ray because it was digitally color graded from scratch using a scan of the original negative. What many people don’t understand is that the negative DOES NOT have the theatrical color timing. It is low contrast and designed to be printed to interpositive film that will then show the correct contrast and that is where the color timing happens. Each shot is carefully color timed and balanced to have the correct exposure and color so scenes shot on different film stocks and cameras match. The interpositive has the correct look, not the negative. Prints are made based on the interpositive. So scanning a negative requires digitally recreating (or reimagining) the original look. In the case of Raiders, they took creative license and applied an orange/teal color scheme that would have been literally impossible to create with old photochemical color timing. So you definitely never saw that in original prints. A bit warmer, maybe, but not like the blu-ray.
All video releases up to the blu-ray were created from an interpolative, so they reflect the original timing to varying degrees. The faded look you mention would be more related to standard definition not having the best color reproduction and older scanning technology. The 4K release is based on the same negative scan used for the blu-ray, but they went back and removed the worst (but not all) of the revisionist color. They also did a lot more digital fixes and tweaks including one glaring error. But nothing approaching the changes in Star Wars.
The print this 35mm restoration is based on is an original Kodak print and reflects what most people would have seen back in 1981. Depending on the temperature of the projector light, the warmth could have varied, but would never have resulted in anything like the orange/teal look. I have also seen scans of 2 original Fuji prints, which are warmer, but look nothing like the blu-ray. There is some evidence that the color timing was tweaked in the 1983 re-release resulting in the bar scenes being warmer, so if you saw a release later than 1983 that could have been the case. But again, just warmer, not the blu-ray color grading.
Your general idea is correct, but at the very technical level, the original negative is the un-colorcorrected original. The color timing is done from the negative. They use it to make presentation prints (taken directly from the negative so a higher quality with less grain) and interpositives. The color timing is baked into the interpositive which then creates the internegatives (this is usually where subtitles are added, which is why the Star Wars GOUT is subtitle free because it was taken from a newer interpositive). The internegatives strike all the prints. so on a popular movie like Star Wars, the negative gets some heavy use as they have to make more interpositives.
35mm print preservation archives what the prints originally looked like. So viewing them is as close to going to the theater to see the original again as you can get. There is some interpretation, but in general they are very well done.
That is basically what I said. The negative is direct from the camera and the color timing is done at the interpositive stage (or, to your point, any print that is struck from the negative). Color timing and color grading are 2 different things. Color timing is done to balance and correct colors and brightness so shots look consistent. Color grading applies to the digital realm and the process of digitally creating a “look” for a film (like the over used orange and teal look). This is not really possible in standard photochemical color timing. The look needed to be created on set with lighting, set design, film stocks and filters.
I’ve seen this discussion (yellow/gold tint on Raiders blu ray) on various sites, and I don’t want to get into a big discussion or step on any toes, but I’d like to relate my experiences with this movie as I was 18 and saw it when it first came out, and people who saw it in theaters should relate their experience for how it looked originally. If no one wants to hear another raiders color experience, by all means, ignore me.
When I first saw the movie, the one thing that stood out immediately was a very warm tint, and I may have remarked to my date (now my wife) how warm the movie was. Now mind you, I wasn’t into video or audio hobbies or equipment at this point in my life, but the warmth was immediately apparent to me. It looked like most outdoor scenes were shot in morning or evening light, but bright as normal daylight. The Nepal bar scenes were definitely warm looking (yellow/red tints). I saw the movie a couple of times in big theaters and it was always the same. When it first aired on television, I thought how it already looked old and faded and cold (no warm tint). Every release I’ve seen since then (only vhs and dvd) looked as if it was taken from an old faded videotape of the movie. It never looked right (or like I first saw it in theaters). It always seemed cold and somehow faded, and looked like a 50’s or 60’s faded movie.
When I first saw the 2012 Blu ray, I thought to myself, “Finally, this movie looks like I remember!” It’s warm and friendly looking again. Just my 2 cents, but the (2012) blu ray version looks closest to what I remember seeing in theaters. Now I’ll grant you, the cave shots may be a bit brighter, and some scenes look blurry (the spiders on their backs), so maybe not perfect, but good.
I’m not going to argue if someone wants the yellows toned down a bit, or darkens the movie a tad, or even if they want to perfectly correct the colors, but the blu ray is essentially the experience I had in theaters if you want the original theater look. With all the home releases viewed over the years, even people who saw it in theaters may have skewed memories of how warm this movie was, but my memory of how warm the movie was has actually stuck with me all these years, even before there was a yellow tint/no tint debate. Again, just my $.02.
Leo
With all due respect, your recollections are wrong. While some original prints may have looked warmer than others (Fuji prints in particular) absolutely none of them looked like the blu-ray because it was digitally color graded from scratch using a scan of the original negative. What many people don’t understand is that the negative DOES NOT have the theatrical color timing. It is low contrast and designed to be printed to interpositive film that will then show the correct contrast and that is where the color timing happens. Each shot is carefully color timed and balanced to have the correct exposure and color so scenes shot on different film stocks and cameras match. The interpositive has the correct look, not the negative. Prints are made based on the interpositive. So scanning a negative requires digitally recreating (or reimagining) the original look. In the case of Raiders, they took creative license and applied an orange/teal color scheme that would have been literally impossible to create with old photochemical color timing. So you definitely never saw that in original prints. A bit warmer, maybe, but not like the blu-ray.
All video releases up to the blu-ray were created from an interpolative, so they reflect the original timing to varying degrees. The faded look you mention would be more related to standard definition not having the best color reproduction and older scanning technology. The 4K release is based on the same negative scan used for the blu-ray, but they went back and removed the worst (but not all) of the revisionist color. They also did a lot more digital fixes and tweaks including one glaring error. But nothing approaching the changes in Star Wars.
The print this 35mm restoration is based on is an original Kodak print and reflects what most people would have seen back in 1981. Depending on the temperature of the projector light, the warmth could have varied, but would never have resulted in anything like the orange/teal look. I have also seen scans of 2 original Fuji prints, which are warmer, but look nothing like the blu-ray. There is some evidence that the color timing was tweaked in the 1983 re-release resulting in the bar scenes being warmer, so if you saw a release later than 1983 that could have been the case. But again, just warmer, not the blu-ray color grading.
Hi All, I don’t have a direct link to a torrent or download for this project. It is hosted on MySpleen per my group’s policy and I am guessing it is also on other sites and usernet. But I don’t have links so you will need to do some searching to find it if it’s still out there. So please don’t PM me asking for links because I can’t help. Sorry about that.
With our luck it’ll most likely use the same 4K master as the previous Blu-ray with all the changes intact, and the “extensive visual effects work” might just be code for “more changes”…good thing this project exists at least!
I am crossing my fingers and toes that they have fixed the color grade. This may be the last chance for Raiders to get mastered correctly. If it does turn out to be the blu-ray grade, we’ll be starting a new version of this project to try and get a good 4K theatrical experience finished. But I am really hoping the 4K release knocks it out of the park.
The 1990s reissue print looks closer to the blu ray. If not as orange in the skin tones.
I have seen film cels that look closer to the blu ray than the 35mm scan.
I wish i had them in hand and a scanner but i don’t.
Really makes me wonder what the color looked like in 1981 if there was a non faded Eastman print.
All the film copies i have seen for sale or film cels from the original release are red and pink.
I haven’t seen any 1990s era prints. Film prints made 2012 and later are from the blu-ray master, not the original timing, I have snippets of a print.
The 35mm release here:
is from an unfaded original Eastman print.
Here are a few comparisons between the original print, 2003 DVD, 2011 30th anniversary restoration and 2012 blu-ray. The blu-ray is likely based on the 2011 version, but they have brightened it and applied orange and teal filters. The color is fundamentally altered, some shots more than others. The shot of Indy and Marion is an extreme and almost absurd example. And many shots have overexposed elements such as the shot of the angelic apparition.
The group I work with only posts on MySpleen and I have to honor that rule. The goal is not a wide release but to get it out to fans who really care about preserving what these movies looked and sounded like in the theater. The vast majority of people will be happy with the digitally scrubbed, revised, re-colored and remixed blu-ray version of Raiders.
That said, I am guessing it has been posted elsewhere. It might be helpful to look for Raiders.of.the.Lost.Ark.1981.35mm.LPP.1080p.Dolby.Stereo. Even a whiny, entitled millennial can manage that 😉
35mm Telecine HD
https://streamable.com/vu9koThat is a nice looking print! Can you tell us a little more about where it came from? What year is it? Is it kodak or fuji film?
Hi, this is film material is ORWO, is it from Czechoslovakia 1985. This copy is from professional telecine studio.
Looks very nice, any way you can make it available?
Thanks 😃
Hi, yes, is possible doing a copy.
I am very interested in a copy
35mm Telecine HD
https://streamable.com/vu9ko
That is a nice looking print! Can you tell us a little more about where it came from? What year is it? Is it ORWO film stock? Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, I strongly suspect that the color timing was slightly altered for the 1983 re-release and 1984 home video release. Spielberg said at the time he had certain sections brightened for the home video release and that would have been done photo-chemically back then and then the video master would be made from an interpositive. So if this is a 1985 print, it would be that version.
I managed to get this from an alternate source. Pretty nice. Does litemakr still post here and if so can you give a status update on version 2?
Also I saw somewhere the folks that worked on 4k77 were going to take a stab at Raiders too, anyone have any info on that?
I’ve been out of the loop on this for a while, but I am interested in starting version 2.0 this year. No definite plans yet, but the first step would be to find a print to scan the damaged/missing sections. I’d certainly be interested in anything TN1 came up with.
I have a partial scan of the last 10 minutes from 16mm.
Also, some of it is color, but the rest is red-faded.
It is very sharp though.Will post some samples when I get a chance.
I’d love to see that scan if you are still planning to post it.
It is available on MySpleen.
I don’t see teal in the regrades at all.
I didn’t mean to come off as negative, I think Dre is really talented with color. It looks good.
Here’s a second set of regrades with the same settings.
Bluray:
Bluray regraded (warm):
Bluray regraded (cool):
Definitely improved. But there is still too much orange and especially teal. But not sure if you can actually get it to the right balance without a huge amount of work because it is inconsistent.
Although the BD does restore some shots that are digitally altered in the WOWOW such as the plane in the image above and the red ‘travelling line’ sequence. So given the choice between the two sources in terms of a single-pass colour correction, I would probably opt for the BD.
That being said, the BD has the digitally illuminated lamp in the ark-opening scene which is properly off in the WOWOW so a best-of-both approach would be amazing.
The BD has too many issues which can’t be fixed. Some things are too altered color wise or overexposed to the point of obliterating detail. The orange/teal color is inconsistently applied, sometimes to the point of erasing the original colors and some detail. The opening of the ark sequence in particular is recolored and overexposed beyond salvaging. It’s truly one of the worst examples of a famous scene being completely effed up. I can’t believe Spielberg ever approved it. The couple of re-composited shots you mentioned could be taken from the blu, but I would use wowow for everything else. And even that has a few problems. The only properly exposed official transfer of Raiders is the DVD, but there isn’t a good enough HD transfer of that available.
Hey Dre, glad to see you back at it. But it’s really a mostly pointless exercise to try and recolor the blu-ray. The colors are too altered to fully fix without a lot of work, some of the original textures and colors are just gone. More importantly, the highlights are clipped in many places, then dulled to try and cover it. So you will never be able to recover some of that detail or get to the original contrast. I would personally much rather see you continue with the Wowow recolor. That is in much better shape color wise and is only overexposed to a minor degree. Or maybe a hybrid with the best sections from each version.
Compare my new scan project Raiders of the Lost Ark (left - no color correction. Color its same like my film print) and Raiders of the Lost Ark 35mm LPP Theatrical Experience - v1.0 (right)
What is the origin of that print? What year? It looks waaay too warm compared to any print I have seen on super 8mm, 16mm or 35mm. Is it from 1981-82?
Hi, material is ORWO and it is 1985. I have promised two more film copies so I will make a comparison but will also be on ORWO material.
Thanks, I’m very curious to see those. I wonder if some timing changes were made for the 1985 prints, because it certainly looks more like home releases that came after the initial releases in 1981-1983. Do you have any screenshots from the ark opening sequence in reel 6? Would like to see how that looks on this print.
Here’s the full comparison of the last part of the 16mm (top) vs 35mm (bottom):
http://dai.ly/kAKBVmvdr9zHatnh5xm
The bottom print good to me. The top one is a bit faded and red shifted. What are the origins of each print? Does that 16mm print have the alternate soundtrack?
Compare my new scan project Raiders of the Lost Ark (left - no color correction. Color its same like my film print) and Raiders of the Lost Ark 35mm LPP Theatrical Experience - v1.0 (right)
What is the origin of that print? What year? It looks waaay too warm compared to any print I have seen on super 8mm, 16mm or 35mm. Is it from 1981-82?
Is there any need to get Crystal Skull scanned? Do the prints look any differnt than the blu-ray? It was color graded digitally, I doubt there is much, if any, difference.
This film copy has a single problem. It’s a combined copy. 2 in 1. When you play at the projector on a large screen, everything is fine, but as you scan it, there are differences. It’s a shame but the copy is in good shape. Sorry my english but I use google translator 😦
It is very hard to get an accurate representation of a theatrical print in HD video because of color space and dynamic range limitations. HD video simply doesn’t have the range, so a lot of tweaking must be done to squeeze the range in. HDR video goes a long way towards getting us much closer, but it is a ways off from widespread adoption (if it ever is).
Can you tell me any more about the scan? Was it done in RAW format? Do you have any video samples?
Hey, that looks amazing! We’ve been having some discussion, because the Raiders scan I’ve been using has some color balancing issues (litemkr said a number of scenes were green shifted), leading to many shots having a magenta shift, caused by a slight over correction. I was thinking of putting the regrade on hold until we can figure out what the color balance should be (litemkr is looking for a 16mm reference print for projection). However, this scan is looking pretty sweet, and the print looks to be in excellent condition…😃
The first pic from the temple looks good, but its a bit off color wise in the second and third frames (not surprising since he said it wasn’t corrected and a lot depends on the settings for the capture), but seems in good shape. Certainly better than most prints I have seen.
I’d definitely like to know a lot more. What is the origin of this print? Is it from the original run? Is the entire print scanned and in what format/quality? It would be great to replace the damaged second reel and missing bits from our scan.
To be fair, the color seen here does not necessarily reflect the scan raw, it uses an LUT based on litemakr’s input on how the color should look going off of projecting his unfaded(?) Super 8(?) print.
Perhaps litemakr can weigh in?
The print is an unfaded 35mm LPP. I’m not sure where Super 8 came up. But yeah, you are correct in that litemakr adjusted the raw scan’s color to approximate the projected print, as he said that in the original post.
The print is an unfaded LPP, but the scan has to be corrected to match the print. Litmakr used his Super8 print to correct the scan, but it appears a slight color imbalance remains.
The main color problem with the scan was a slight green tint on some reels. I may have slightly over compensated in some places. At any rate, the goal was to get to the right look, not necessarily a perfectly balanced picture. That said, when I (hopefully) work on version 2.0, I will keep that in mind. I know there is room for improvement. I’m hoping to get a good 16mm print for reference as well at some point.
I’m not aware of any LD release beyond the 1992 version, I would have definitely bought it. I did get the letterboxed VHS released around 2003 because it said on the back that the effects were “newly enhanced”. Of course it was the same transfer with no enhancements. I think their marketing people got confused because Raiders WAS supposed to be re-released theatrically in a Special Edition and I believe some preliminary work was done. The rumor was that the submarine scene would be finished and added. However, they cancelled it when special editions fell out of favor with fans after the 2002 E.T. special edition.
Personally I would have loved to see an updated edition of Raiders with added deleted scenes and updated effects, as long as the original was also available.
I suppose the 2008 HDTV master with the CGI cliff scene, contains the remnants of what was supposed to have been the Special Edition.
Can you elaborate about the submarine scene please? What would it have entailed?
I don’t have any details, I remember reading it somewhere but it was speculation. Seems like it would be a good scene to be finished with CG. The CG cliff scene makes sense as a remnant. And probably the re-comped matte paintings, snake reflections, etc. I always wondered if they finished other shots (like the ark opening effects) but just never released them due to perceived hostility towards special editions. This was after the admittedly stupid changes to E.T. (guns to walkie talkies). After the Raiders special edition was announced, the South Park episode Free Hat came out, which I think probably persuaded Spielberg not to go through with it.
Of course the irony to this is that every shot in the blu-ray is changed and the sound is remixed.
