@ poita

Spaced Ranger said:
[strike-out] Later (one of the GL re-releases) they tried to fix it up as best they could. Did they “invent” what we just found out? That making a deliberate mis-registration, and/or altering the brightness/contrast of the R-G-B channels, with hiding all the rough edges in the size reduction to consumer-grade releases, would result in a “passable color” shot? [/strike-out]

So , as this earliest film has the shot clearly having some color(ing), that disproves my above newer theory of original film B&W and later colorization.

[strike-out] It is interesting supposition that the early shot may have actually been B&W, by mistake (lost/damaged negative with only B&W dailies remaining) or deliberately (for a “monitor shot”). In the editing it was either lose the B&W shot (no time/budget for a monitor effect nor a re-shoot in color) or use it as is because it was such a good shot. [/strike-out]
Still … Look at every other shot of children in the movie – strong and saturated photography. But this shot stands alone in it’s oddly weak and unnatural color/tinting. … It still bothers me. Must work up a new theory . . .

What’s old is new. I guess that puts me back to the original theory of production B&W and release colorization … if I can demonstrate adding color to B&W using only digital techniques that translate to analogue ones available to the Lucas crew in 1970. (The original demonstration used my standard paint program techniques, which probably would have been beyond the tricks in their toolbox.)

So, exactly what could they do? Obviously changing brightness of the printer light (by us sliding end-points up or down, in sync? or using gamma?). Changing film stocks? or using neutral filters then upping the brightness? (by us changing contrast). Also, printing Technicolor, or using color filters, for individual R-G-B manipulation (by us working on R-G-B directly)?

Any clarifications or other digital manipulations that could be duplicated in analogue adjustments?