I've heard people say they were disappointed in the 1997 theatrical prints because when they saw Star Wars the color was so vivid and the SE prints looked comparitively subtle. Maybe it's just memory, or maybe they just saw poor SE prints, or maybe they are correct. My impression was that Gil Taylor's pallete was rather pastelle in tone, but there are some moments of vividness (mainly in small details, like lazer blasts, pilot uniforms, background decor). I always thought the SE was a bit oversaturated because of the new color timings in some scenes. I don't know. I have a collection of high res 70mm scans, the color is a bit shifted, but in general it looks like it is between the DE and Japanese version. Which makes sense if the DE is over-saturated a bit, and if the Japanese version is overly bright (brightening brings down saturation, aside from the fact that saturation in older home video releases was generally poorer), which is what I suspect.

Also, I have concluded that the 1993 photo is a scan from the film. Its too perfect a replica of the exact framing of the screen. That its a hair's width open in visual information tells me it is a scan as well, an open matte scan of the film itself. Which is interesting. I don't know how much I should read into the coloring, but it conflicts with all the other material I have seen. I mean, if the Japanese LD is overlit by my estimation, that means the true print should have more saturation, and the photo has half the saturation, not more.