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.
As far as I know, the negatives were never meant to be seen when these films were made and released (before the digital projection era, that is). The wide release of any film was going to be on a third or fourth generation 35mm print, with a limited release on 70mm prints (which, while holding some more detail than 35mm prints due to larger film, would still suffer generational loss).
Also, because it was something that couldn’t be worked around back then, generational grain and contrast was sometimes used to the advantage of the filmmakers; for example, to cover up special effects.
Take a look at this shot comparison:
Notice how obvious the matted background is in the HDTV version, compared to the properly lit print image.
EDIT: Sorry to butt in here, haha 😄.
Not at all, those are great points. Films were shot and processed at the lab with this in mind. They were never intended to look like the negative looked. They knew the prints would have higher contrast and less shadow/bright detail. Generally speaking, scenes were shot brighter than they would eventually play out, because they had the option of making them darker if needed. It was much easier to make them darker than brighter in the lab, because brightening (called pushing) made the shots more grainy. You can see a number of pushed shots in Raiders during the opening temple scenes. They stand out as grainier and with washed out blacks. Home video versions correct these shots but I left them looking as they would in the theater.
Your screencaps are also a good example of how scrubbing grain and increasing brightness can reveal things not intended to be seen in effects shots. That shot is even brighter on the blu-ray. The opening of the ark scene is the most botched sequence on the blu. MUCH too bright, with some shots which are supposed to be dark looking like daylight. Some of the ghost shots are absurdly overexposed. Inconsistent color from shot to shot. I can’t believe Spielberg ever approved it.
I was shocked when I saw how it looked in the theatrical version. Dark and moody. Mostly dark backgrounds with bright objects like ghosts and fire. It looks great projected and was hard to get right in HD. The wowow is better but still too bright. The DVD is closest, because nothing is overexposed, with more detail than even the theatrical. But it doesn’t get the contrast right.
Another annoying thing about that shot - they digitally altered it to turn on the light.
35mm
WOWOW
Blu-ray
