WatchingTheAerial's disingenuous video about how " 35MM scans lie to you "

Didn’t know where to put this , but seems appropriate as this video touches upon Project 4K77 as well as other fan restorations that may have been made by users of this forum . Sure , he tried to sugar coat it for the fan restorationists , while at the same time calling them " amateuers " I for one pushed back in defense of the fan restorationists in the comments . ( I go by DarkEmpire37 on Youtube) . I am curious to hear this communities thoughts on this video , especially those of you who had a hand in creating these projects …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQwQRFLFDd8

Yeah, the video title is a type of clickbaity / algorithm-friendly one all to familiar of late on youtube.

Many good and agreeable points are made in the 15 minute video - yet I do have the feeling he was approaching the subject as a ‘gotcha’ at fan preservationists - rather than presenting a balanced essay on the topic. That’s a pity - but it is just one person’s opinion… and that of someone who has seemingly struggled in doing their research and in portraying much equilibrium. (The other attempt at a ‘gotcha’ by the video maker certainly backfired when reading VennyRestore’s comments on that particular topic.)

For me, the claim that print scans are “lies” is… inane to the point of being disingenuous. Followed by the lip-service at the end of the video is an all too familiar cop out (and a poor attempt at a disclaimer).

Agreed with your, tamir, bilditup1, and VennyRestore’s posts in the comment section of the video (still making my way through others).
 

Dek Rollins nailed it on the head for me in his post in the video comments section…

The issue with the Se7en 35mm scan comparisons is that this scan was actually calibrated, but the version of the scan in your video, that people are using as a reference point against the new UHD, is a regrade and doesn’t represent the actual calibrated scan. The print that was scanned is darker for one thing. Now the UHD still doesn’t look like the calibrated print scan, but the comparison is itself flawed because of what you discussed in the second half of the video. Many of the scans that get out in the wild are graded entirely to one person’s apparent preferences. But there are also many scans that use some sort of proper calibration.

I disagree with the premise that print scans are always “lying” and that directors/cinematographers should be trusted to be telling the truth in this regard. Subjectivity to some extent will always come into play when color correcting something, but calibrated print scans (of low-fade/unfaded prints) can at least reveal when an official remaster is way off base, by providing a ball park estimate of what the projected prints looked like.