Chewtobacca said:

poita said:do you want to see every last jot of detail that was on the neg, or on the IP or do you want to see what the director intended to be on the screen in the cinema.

By this, do you mean things such as detail in dark areas being intentionally lost/crushed?

I know it sounds odd, but yes.

Yes, detail is often intentionally lost or crushed, dark areas may be made darker still, 'crushing' the blacks to intentionally create mood or contrast. Light areas may be burned out to give an ethereal feel. A scene may be made darker, or noisier to hide the fact that it is mostly a matte painting or an effect that wouldn't quite pass the scrutiny of a well lit shot.

An area may be darkened or lightened to attract the eye to a particular area of the screen etc. etc.

That is the colourist's job, to work with the director to adjust the image from the negative to capture the desired emotion of each scene. On the set, the DoP will usually try to capture as wide a dynamic range as they can, so that the options are there in the edit/colourist sessions later.

Also, makeup was applied, matte paintings were done, set colours chosen with the generational loss in mind. So Leia had the makeup-gun set to 'whore' as they knew the generational loss would mute the colours and look natural on the final print. On the neg though it would look overdone.

Restoring film is never straightforward, especially if coming off a negative, the scan will not look anything like the prints of the day. It is best if you have access to the artisans that worked on the film, or their production notes, as you effectively have to re-grade and re-grain the film to match their intended imagery, usually using a good quality print as a reference if there is one.

I do find it interesting to see what may have been hiding in the shadows, it is fun working with a neg as you get to literally see the film in a different light. But it won't be the film the director 'made'.