I imagine this will be the best-looking version of the film compared to the 35mm LPP scan?
I’m not very sure of it myself though. From seeing the comparisons of the HD TV/Blu-ray with the 35mm scan, the 35mm version almost looks excessively dark. I gave it a pass until I noticed the same when comparing the 35mm scan of Star Trek III (released by the same group as this project’s 35mm master) with the HD TV cap, the colours look a hell of a lot more muted, desaturated, and dark.
Perhaps I’ve been ruined by all the extremely bright and vibrant Blu-ray releases of classic films and don’t know how they’re truly supposed to look, but are we absolutely sure that the film’s not just faded or weathered after all this time? Is this fairly accurate to the original presentation?
EDIT: Apologies for all the questions, but does anyone know what master this TV broadcast was sourced from?
I can’t speak for ST III, but the brightness of the 35mm Raiders is accurate, it isn’t faded at all. The home video versions are created from low contrast prints or negatives and are overly brightened, have less contrast and more shadow detail. The contrast on theatrical prints is higher so there is a larger extreme between brightest and darkest areas. This is difficult to represent in the more limited dynamic range of HD video without crushing the blacks or blowing out the brighter areas. If you watch the bar scene in motion it looks natural, like a low lit, dingy dive bar. Exactly what the filmmakers intended.
Cool, makes sense.
With that said, you make it sound like scanning from the negative is a BAD thing. Would you think so?
I’m not exactly sure how theatrical prints would have better contrast than the negative itself.
It’s not a bad thing in theory because you get more resolution and more shadow detail. But it can be bad because a completely new digital color grade must be done and often they don’t respect the original theatrical timing. If done correctly, a good digital grade can look like the theatrical and have the benefits of more shadow detail. Too often though, the contrast is reduced too much so the image can be made brighter (like the Raiders blu-ray) and the saturation is over-cranked. And they can’t resist the temptation to change the color and scrub away the grain (reducing the detail they got from the negative in the first place).
Theatrical prints have higher contrast because they are 4 generations from the negative and printed on higher contrast film stock. The details in the brights and darks are reduced with each generation. However you don’t really notice when watching it projected because of the high dynamic range. The range from light to dark looks more natural and less extreme. It is more noticeable on HD video.
Have you seen the new blu-ray remaster of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? Some scenes are darker and have more contrast than any previous home video versions, which I assume more accurately reflects the theatrical version. I think it plays much better and looks more like a projected film, even though they did scrub too much grain. I hope we see this in more film remasters.