Originally posted by: zombie84
The original negative ITSELF was what was deteriorating because of the film stock. Sometime dupe prints are made but in this case the rotting of some sections of the emulsion indicates that it was not a dupe but the original negative. The interpositive from 1985 is fine AFAIK --it was even used for the 1993 Laserdisk.
The original negative ITSELF was what was deteriorating because of the film stock. Sometime dupe prints are made but in this case the rotting of some sections of the emulsion indicates that it was not a dupe but the original negative. The interpositive from 1985 is fine AFAIK --it was even used for the 1993 Laserdisk.
I don't know, but that's not the way I understood it. It's true, that ALL of the film stock (camera negatives, INs, IPs, prints, etc.) is in some stage of deterioration, but from the info I've seen, the elements that were in the best shape were the original camera negs. But even with the original camera negs, in order to make new IPs, they had to wash the sand off much of the film that was collected when they were shooting in Tunisia (which could have only happened to a camera negative) because it was incorrectly washed the first time. They said that they couldn't just use a print (even one in good condition- like the LD prints or IPs) because the resulting prints would end up being to grainy after duplication, to use in theatrical releases. And as far as I know, GL doesn't have Technicolor D-T prints for ESB or ROTJ. Technicolor had stopped making D-T prints in the early '70s in the US, and in the late '70s in England (which means GLs Technicolor print is from England).