Just to clarify, the print you saw was an original one and not a 2001 re-issue?

Yes completely original, I can confirm it did not have the Donna Smith or Harlan Ellison credits.

The big issue I have with what you say about the Blu-ray’s accuracy is that there is evidence that the Blu-ray’s color biases in some scenes are not always consistent with the original prints.

None of those scans look anything like projection. Just taking the second one as an example - Reece was nowhere near that dark, he was clearly visible in that scene.

Anyway, I’m glad you weighed in here. By the way, what did you think of my old regrade?

It was better, but I can’t say it’s an improvement on the bluray. The bluray looked spot-on. I don’t think it is completely spot-on mind you, but it’s very faithful.

That was the latest update I had made when kaosjm posted about the print he saw and said that I was spot on for most of the film. He did note that the beginning and future war stuff was sometimes very cyan and teal, which I acknowledged, but I never ended up implementing any changes like that because until now I was set on doing a single global adjustment for the majority of the movie. That’s why the shots in those comparisons have inaccuracies, too.

There is less colour in those scenes which is why they look more blue, besides that they have the same teal/cyan/green hue as the rest of the film’s night scenes.

I find it hard to believe that the print you saw had a yellow/green push in the highlights like the Blu-ray does, but I haven’t had the opportunity to see a print in person, so I can’t say anything from experience.

I’m sorry to hear that I hope you do get to see it sometime! Last year I saw T2 on 35mm. 😃 The really funny thing was when I was leaving the cinema, literally in the company of just two strangers, they were talking amongst themselves about how it was interesting they saw a print rather than a digital projection.