Sign In

yotsuya

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
2-Dec-2008
Last activity
13-Nov-2018
Posts
1345

Post History

Post
#1255263
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

The only version that I don’t have a high quality LD archive of is the Definitive Collection/Faces set. In many ways it is identical to the official GOUT DVD, the opening to ANH has been changed and the colors may not be the same after it went through the LD mastering and pressing process. I do have a couple of transfers, but they are older and inferior to what althor1138 has done. About the only thing I am unhappy with is the version that has become the default standard which is the US GOUT. There are frames missing that are in other versions so when I work on anything, I make sure all the frames are there. Thankfully the UK GOUT isn’t missing most of those frames.

And not only has althor1138 done a fantastic archive of the SE LD, but that version was aired on TV in the EU and archived and in most ways is superior to the LD archive version. Between the two there isn’t much need to search out any bootleg version.

Post
#1255089
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

Well, if you are trying to recreate what it looked like when you were a kid, you’ve got it. My goal is to make it look better than I have ever seen it before, except maybe in a movie theater back in 77. And it is possible to restore the blu-ray. It suffers from fading and some loss of information that leads to some of its horrible looks. They over compensated and the yellows need to be enhanced (or in a few shots, recovered from another source). I am getting closer all the time to making it look like my correction of the GOUT (which, after watching the 13 version comparison is pretty close to both the Spanish TXH and the Moth3r bootleg). I still think what you have is too yellow, but this looks better and more along the lines of the 1982 telecine, maybe the 1985. The colors are washed out on the 1985 one and the contrast is too low. I prefer more vibrant colors. Not that Star Wars has a lot of that with the sandy colors of Tatooine and the gray walls of the Death Star, but there is enough if they are properly brought out.

Post
#1255064
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

Well, Ronster, not bad. I think you were listening a bit. But if this is the Blu-ray, your results look more like one of the LD archives. I think it is too washed out. You should up the saturation.and while this sequence looks pretty good, there are some tell take signs that shifting all the colors did not work in your favor. I’d be interested in seeing a different sewuence with these settings. C-3PO is too green and the blue lights are too purple. Chewy is also too yellow. That was the problem I ran into when I tried this. Yes, it corrected a lot of things, but it caused other issues. There are sections impacted by fading that just can’t be fixed and have to be patched. But overall, the skin tones were not bad.

Post
#1254783
Topic
4K77 vs. Despecialized - Tatooine Outdoors
Time

boffy said:

Here’s a relevant quote from an interview around the time of the original release.

George Lucas said:
I visualized an extremely bizarre, Gregg Toland-like surreal look with strange over-exposed colors, a lot of shadows, a lot of hot areas.

I’m not sure exactly what’s meant by “over-exposed colors” here though. It could refer to overall brightness: in digital terms, all channels over-exposed with blown-out highlights. Alternatively, it could mean over-saturated colour: one or two channels over-exposed, e.g. a shot that’s more or less monochrome red with solid bright red highlights.

Off the top of my head and from a look at 4K77’s thumbnails, I can’t think of any examples of the latter in the original Star Wars. So, I think this supports the idea some scenes were intended to be over-exposed.

EDIT: Just re-watched 4K77, and there are some shots in the garbage compactor and Tie fighters with some very saturated coloured lighting. Does anyone more familiar with film-making terminology know which of the above (or something else I haven’t considered) is the most likely meaning of “strange over-exposed colors”?

I think he meant high contrast. Gregg Toland did The Long Voyage Home, Citizen Kane, and Song of the South. I think it also refers to more natural lighting instead of traditonal studio lighting.

Post
#1254766
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

Ronster said:

ZigZig said:

yotsuya said:

They are green in every single transfer that I included. No cyan

That depends on how you calibrated your monitor 😉

How about Calibrate your brain before you open your mouth.

As there are several pages and many people urging you to calibrate your monitor, that was uncalled for.

They are cyan after the shift I have performed and there are many that are close to cyan in those shots rather than totally green hexagons.

What do you consider cyan? It looks green to me in all these shots.

Post
#1254757
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

RU.08 said:

yotsuya said:

RU.08,

What Mr. Cook said was that they would find the best settings for a film and then hope they didn’t stray while they monitored the transfer to check. The machine was a best to change the settings on (an hour and a half at the start of the day) and between the two comments and many others in the 90 minute interview I understand that they did not tweak the scenes but rather looked for the best settings for the entire film (not sure if he meant for each reel or for the entire film).

That’s not what he said. He said they had to calibrate the machine every morning, and that they had to fine-tune the settings for every film they transferred because they were all different. Nothing about that suggests a transfer as straight-forward as you’re imagining.

He never mentions using a special telecine film. He never talks about 16mm. He talks about interpostives and internegatives which are the two intermediate steps in chemical processing from o-neg to release print. Both are lower contrast than the release prints.

When he talked about using an interneg he said “the interneg is actually another film stock …” I’m not sure exactly what he meant, but when he talked about the film being too fragile to fast-forward on the Rank II it was in the context of using internegs.

And according to the man at BBC interviewed about the next generation machine (Mr. Cook was using a Rank Cinetel 2 and the man at the BBC circa 1990 was using Rank Cinetel 3), it could do release prints, negatives, and intermediates. I conformed that with an independent source. So it can do anything on 35mm or 16mm from the o-neg to a release print. Please refer to all his comments about the 1982 telecine that happened right before he joined the team and refer to the images of the LD archive of that telecine that I have included. It is a fine transfer that really contradicts what you are trying to say. Per Mr. Cook’s interview, it was a release print that was turning green and they had to restore the color rather than just do a straight transfer. From how it turned out, they didn’t do a bad job and the dark areas contain far more detail than the Technicolor prints.

We’ve been over this already. If release prints worked so well why were they using dupe-negs and interpositives?

Just because it can do something doesn’t mean it does it well or that it is designed for it. Blackmagic claim their $30K BMD 4K scanner is designed to transfer prints - but it’s a complete lie. I can show you samples I have from positive prints transferred on it - they come out noisy as fuck. Anyone in the business could tell you the same thing - you would not use that scanner to transfer theatrical prints, and there may be other types of film it struggles with as well. Now does that mean that everyone does the right thing? Of course not - I have no doubt that some small companies have installed these and are using them to transfer prints - but as Ian Malcolm would say “just because you can doesn’t mean you should”.

And you are incorrect about prints not having crushed blacks. Please refer to the Technicolor scans. Either Mike Verta’s samples, DrDre’s scan, or the full film release as 4k77. It is full of shots where the dark areas are just a blob of darkness where all the telecines show an abundance of detail. We know that at least one telecine was from a release print (1982), at least two were from interpositives, and some from internegatives (interpositives would not have the reel change cues and internegatives would). Not one of them is from a special telecine transfer (not surprising since none of these are TV station telecines which is where you might find a special 16mm telecine print).

As I said, prints don’t hold as much detail in the dark areas, not even IB prints. It’s not because the blacks were “crushed” (the black point being set lower than shadow detail).

Your theory of the nature of the source of the telecines is not born out by the abilities of the machines used, the interviews with two different telecine operators, or the accounts of the sources of other telecines which agree with what Mr. Cook has said. I think the evidence presented makes it very clear how Fox did telecines and that it was from a release print or intermediate (the O-neg was too precious most of the time except when no other prints were available such as the Chaplin films). That matches what I have always heard and observed from watching movies on various movie channels from across the years. A great many telecines are made from theatrical prints, especially for older technicolor films where a full restoration would have to be done to realign the 3 strip Technicolor negatives - pretty cost prohibitive for a telecine for TV viewing. We could continue to discuss this, but I think the horse is dead and the evidence I have posted is pretty clear cut. Fox never used a special print for the Star Wars telecines. It was always a print on hand. Even the print used for the Definitive Collection was not one done specifically for that and was a standard interpositive.

We’ve been over this, I already said that negatives and inter-positives and other lab film would transfer just as well as a telecine print, but be on much more fragile film. I’m not sure what you think this proves… you only have the accounts of one distributor, and they were not using release prints as matter of course. Lab film is not referred to as “prints”, so the film they used for the DC was an interpositive film not a print.

Your continued comments about a low contrast print match the nature of interpostives and internegatives so I don’t know why you keep insisting that it had to be a special print when the evidence says otherwise.

What I said was that theatrical prints transfer poorly, and are more difficult for the telecine operator. As for what the telecine machines were designed to handle, you just have to listen to what Mr Cook said - the machine would tear apart lab film if used to fast-forward and stop. This is undoubtedly because when the Mk II was designed (in 1964) it was designed for TV broadcast not for home video. They didn’t imagine having to routinely work with lab film.

For a huge film archive like Fox, Paramount, MGM/Republic, WB, and Universal each have, having to make a special print for each telecine would become costly. Why do that when you can just buy a machine that can do anything. The Rank Cinetel was just that - a machine that use any source material.

Striking a low-contrast 16mm print for telecine would be a lot cheaper than having to replace a worn out 35mm interpositive. As I’ve already been over this, just because you can transfer theatrical prints on a telecine doesn’t mean they are easy to work with and produce nice results. They don’t. I’m sure the distribution company was not asking the film studios to send them theatrical prints, that would be almost last on their list of preferred film to work with.

Please listen to all 90 minutes, paying attention when he talks about the work he actually did and the work just before him. He very clearly says that they would calibrate the machine and put on a reel and hope the settings didn’t slip during the telecine process. He never mentions color changes outside of finding the best settings that would work for the entire reel/film. If you pay attention to what he says, it is clear they did entire reels with a single setting on the machine that was a compromise based on problem scenes. It is really clear.

Also, download a copy of the 1982 telecine (the one from a release print) and watch it. It shows a lot of detail in the dark areas that the technicolor print is missing. So a lot of what you are saying is making no sense as we have the evidence of how a telecine from a release print looks and it is not what you are saying. And yes, technically anything that isn’t a viewable copy is not a print, but I fall into the habit of using print for anything that isn’t the o-neg.

But Mr. Cook goes into detail in several places about what he worked with. The BBC telecine operator lists what he has worked with. I’ve seen what they have worked with on Doctor Who to try to restore the film prints to look more video, starting with a telecine (they watched it while it was happening which means at playback speed rather than a slower scanner).

And you are missing the point about quality. Even for a low res SD telecine, they wanted the best copy available and that is an interpositive. The negative should have been in storage so the interpositives (there were many) are the best copy for telecines for a high quality home video release. And for most films, after their initial release, the interpositives have done their job and if the film was getting a rerelease they would strike new interpostives from the negative. But in cases of subtitles and some other features, they would turn to an internegative. I believe both the French Pyramid Boxset and the Spanish THX were done from internegatives due to the reel change marks. And you know, for comparison we do have our own scan of a release print (well, a compilation of several prints) to compare and the detail level is amazing. While not as sharp and crisp as the Technicolor print, the color depth is better and more details are revealed.

This shot is the prefect example.

Just look at the shadowy area behind the two men. In the technicolor print it gets dark and there is little color variation. In the SSE scan the shadow is more varied and there is a wider range or color. And in the 1982 telecine of a different print, the color range is even better. What we see in the technicolor print (and this goes for the 4k77 project, Mike Verta’s samples, and the frames DrDre has scanned) is classic crushed blacks. This is normally what you get when you optically copy a release print. So whatever they did to produce the Technicolor color separation was a very flawed process that resulted in the loss of a lot of information in those dark areas that was maintained in the typical release prints. The SSE print source is probably suffering from fading and the details have been lost to time rather than in the optical printing process. There are only 30 years between the 1982 telecine and the SSE scan and correction after all. And it isn’t like it is this one shot. This is all over the film. I first noticed it in the shot of Threepio looking at the falcon that Mike Verta made a video detailing the quality of the technicolor. I noticed when I took a closer look at that frame that the shadow detail was lost compared to other copies. And that is shot after shot in the entire film. Other shots are washed out and the color levels are not comparable to any of the other copies. And our members have been very accurate in archiving LD’s and VHS, flaws and all. In one shot it looks like the Moth3r has the same colors and in the next it doesn’t. And the Technicolor is the one that changes from all the other versions. That many telecine operators can’t make the same mistakes and with Mr. Cook stating they used a single setting for each reel/film, we can be certain that telecine does not have shot by shot color correction, only pan and scan.

Post
#1254619
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

Ronster said:

If you watch the Gout Dvd when 3p0 is going in the tub from a dissolve in…

Look at the cyan hexagon lights behind him. They go from being Cyan to red once the disdolve effect is done.

Um… not quite. It happens in the middle of that fade in and in all the subsequent shots the two affected lights are green.

these are shown as Green hecagon lights now in later transfers but I think they are actually that cyan color in reality.

They are green in every single transfer that I included. No cyan

but the sudden change in color would probably be the telecine machine starting it’s settings which was not possible to do on the actual dissolve effect. Hence cyan suddenly became red all of a sudden on this shot.

This is also the reel change so the fade is is the start of a new session.

Vader with pink lights on his belt rather than green when he enters the Tantive.

Vaders chest plate…

On and on weird and unusual and impossible without something altering the image in an extreme way. But it’s also probably something that improved the way the film looked in many ways.

I appreciate the effort but would like to improve upon that effort.

Everything you are talking about could be an artifact of video processing. They telecined the film to a master tape. Then they sent it off for duplication where it was copied again, adding any pre-film items like the CBS Fox logo adds or trailers, and then duplication to VHS or LD. If you are familiar with video processing, such strange color changes can crop up. Take a look at the French Pyramid Boxset and its odd color issues. Those didn’t come from the print used and they aren’t an indication of color shifts on the film or in the telecine or changed settings in the telecine. Take a look at the shot at the end of reel 1 and the shot the starts reel 2. There are a lot of details we don’t know about some of the transfers, but the three direct from film transfers for the Puggo Grand, 4k77, and SSE are very well documented from the raw scans through the clean up and color correction process so we know there are no major color shifts in those. Here is the shot that ends reel 1 and the shot that starts reel 2 (where you spotted the error - which I now must fix in my correction).


There is not much of a change other than the overall image is darker because the scene went inside from outside. There are no changes in color in the GOUT at this point, only those two isolated lights on that panel that inexplicably blink red all of a sudden. No other areas of the image change color which would happen if the telecine machine settings changed. The color slant of each print is maintained. Some are reddish, some are yellowish and the color slant carried over from the end of reel 1 to the start of reel 2. The error in the GOUT has to be a video artifact for that to happen like that.

Post
#1254613
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

RU.08,

What Mr. Cook said was that they would find the best settings for a film and then hope they didn’t stray while they monitored the transfer to check. The machine was a best to change the settings on (an hour and a half at the start of the day) and between the two comments and many others in the 90 minute interview I understand that they did not tweak the scenes but rather looked for the best settings for the entire film (not sure if he meant for each reel or for the entire film). He never mentions using a special telecine film. He never talks about 16mm. He talks about interpostives and internegatives which are the two intermediate steps in chemical processing from o-neg to release print. Both are lower contrast than the release prints.

And according to the man at BBC interviewed about the next generation machine (Mr. Cook was using a Rank Cinetel 2 and the man at the BBC circa 1990 was using Rank Cinetel 3), it could do release prints, negatives, and intermediates. I conformed that with an independent source. So it can do anything on 35mm or 16mm from the o-neg to a release print. Please refer to all his comments about the 1982 telecine that happened right before he joined the team and refer to the images of the LD archive of that telecine that I have included. It is a fine transfer that really contradicts what you are trying to say. Per Mr. Cook’s interview, it was a release print that was turning green and they had to restore the color rather than just do a straight transfer. From how it turned out, they didn’t do a bad job and the dark areas contain far more detail than the Technicolor prints.

And you are incorrect about prints not having crushed blacks. Please refer to the Technicolor scans. Either Mike Verta’s samples, DrDre’s scan, or the full film release as 4k77. It is full of shots where the dark areas are just a blob of darkness where all the telecines show an abundance of detail. We know that at least one telecine was from a release print (1982), at least two were from interpositives, and some from internegatives (interpositives would not have the reel change cues and internegatives would). Not one of them is from a special telecine transfer (not surprising since none of these are TV station telecines which is where you might find a special 16mm telecine print).

Your theory of the nature of the source of the telecines is not born out by the abilities of the machines used, the interviews with two different telecine operators, or the accounts of the sources of other telecines which agree with what Mr. Cook has said. I think the evidence presented makes it very clear how Fox did telecines and that it was from a release print or intermediate (the O-neg was too precious most of the time except when no other prints were available such as the Chaplin films). That matches what I have always heard and observed from watching movies on various movie channels from across the years. A great many telecines are made from theatrical prints, especially for older technicolor films where a full restoration would have to be done to realign the 3 strip Technicolor negatives - pretty cost prohibitive for a telecine for TV viewing. We could continue to discuss this, but I think the horse is dead and the evidence I have posted is pretty clear cut. Fox never used a special print for the Star Wars telecines. It was always a print on hand. Even the print used for the Definitive Collection was not one done specifically for that and was a standard interpositive.

Your continued comments about a low contrast print match the nature of interpostives and internegatives so I don’t know why you keep insisting that it had to be a special print when the evidence says otherwise. We can talk in general about the entire TV industry and print distribution, but that is a separate topic. This is specifically about how Star Wars was telecined and from what source and how that relates to the colors. There is zero evidence that any major Star Wars home video release was transferred from anything but an extant print (interpostive, internegative, or release print). I myself have plenty of evidence that 16mm films were the norm for distributing TV content around the world to TV stations and I’ll take your word that they are low contrast positive prints (which fits with the look of the Doctor Who prints recovered). But that is TV station distribution not major network or home video transfers. The higher end machines are clearly designed to transfer from any source from o-neg to intermediate to release prints. For a huge film archive like Fox, Paramount, MGM/Republic, WB, and Universal each have, having to make a special print for each telecine would become costly. Why do that when you can just buy a machine that can do anything. The Rank Cinetel was just that - a machine that use any source material. We have two users of those machines that say it could and the stats on the machines say they could so why do you keep saying they can’t? I really don’t get it.

Post
#1254525
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

Ronster, the Technidisc was a new pressing and correction of the Fox Video Special Widescreen Edition. It was not a new transfer and it was not from a Technicolor print. It is virtually identical to the Japanese Special Collection. Due to what had to be fixed it would be the same telecine and is just a better transfer from the master tape to LD. The colors aren’t any different except if the new transfer eeked out some subtile improvements. It is the same telecine which is what matters to me as that determines what the transfer looks like.

The SWE is in the middle of the second row. The one on the top far right is my tweak of the 85 LD to restore the contrast, levels, and saturation. The untouched 85 LD is next to it for comparison. That is also the only one we have info directly from the operator of the telecine equipment.

Post
#1254520
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

RU.08, if you don’t want to listen to it, you’ll need to take my word for it. No telecine prints. Not a single one in over 200 movies he transfered. The studios didn’t use them for home video transfers. That would be a TV station specific thing. I terpositives and internegatives work white well. And the lightened black level would hide any variation so it would be pretty forgiving. Plus, the shadows are all very bright and full of details. The black levels of the Technicolor print and Blu-ray show both of them have crushed blacks while the release prints (see the 1982 LD) and interpositives don’t. So there would be no need to make the tweaks you think were made and that he denies making.

Post
#1254430
Topic
FINALLY watching the GOUT Trilogy properly
Time

Fang Zei said:

Speaking of which, did we ever determine what film element the unaltered GOUT crawl would’ve been scanned from?

Lucasfilm’s form response letter at the time stated that existing prints were in “bad condition” or something to that effect, but they didn’t exactly help their case by splicing in a newly transferred piece that looked just fine to me.

Well, if you have seen Empire of Dreams, it was probably done from that. So whatever one they scanned for that is the one they probably tacked on to ANH (while leaving the 1993 sound mix).

Post
#1254334
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

Ronster, to harken back to your first post, I see an issue with some of your image choices. althor1138 has done a magnificent job archiving the LD versions and what is often called the Technidisc is a reissue of the 1989 Special Widescreen Edition (middle of the third row). I believe this is the original release with the creeping letterboxing, but I think the colors remained the same. the Technicdisc reissue was just a superior transfer of the telecine. But you posted an image in your original post that does not match any of the versions I have. It certianly does not match the SWE as captured by althor1138 (shown in these images un-altered from his capture).

And the blu-ray has noting on the French Pyramid Boxset when it comes to magenta and purple.

Post
#1254326
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

But down to business.

These three shots show very clearly the variation in the Technicolor print. Not only are the blacks crushed (and I’ve compared several really good scans of a number of scene and found the same crushed black on all of them) and the brights consistent across these three neighboring shots, but the contrast varies. In the wide shot of the cargo hold, all the shots look pretty similar, but when it cuts to Ben, the shot is dark.



And this variation in image continues through out the film. The two pan and scan LD captures show very pale images. The Moth3r and Puggo widescreens tend to be dark. The Technicolor goes from matching one to the other. And thanks to that interview, we know the 1982 LD was telecined from a release print. The 1985 telecine was from an interpositive. The GOUT is from an interpositive. The SSE is from release prints (varying sources color corrected to match using the GOUT as a reference). If the Technicolor print is definitive, these others should not vary so much. But in some shots the darks are green and crushed and in others the contrast is low. Some shots are highly yellow. This shot has some good examples of the crushed blacks. Compare to the 1982 LD release print.

This shot leans blue in the Technicolor print. The details of the blanket next to Threepio and the wall behind Luke and Ben are muddled or gone.

This shot leans yellow.

This shot looks great.

Post
#1254301
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

In regards to the conversation about the Technicolor prints, I decided to sync 12 different transfers so I could see the colors side by side. I tweaked a few (such as minimizing the Technicolor green shadows and magenta highlihts and the overall red tone to Puggo Grand). I decided to check one of the scenes that was changed (between the limited and wider releases I believe) and found this shot to highlight the differences. The one labeled 2006 UK GOUT CC is my color correction and I pulled my 1985 version which happens to have this shot taken from the JSC since I was trying to match that. The UK GOUT has is identical to the US GOUT, but I am not using that due to the missing frame. But the versions with the fully white frame are the shot as it has been in all the newer prints (Definitive Collection, Special Edition, up to Blu-Ray) and the others are all older. Specifically the Moth3r the Puggo versions which have the original crawl, different end credits, and a mono soundtrack that is a fold down of the stereo instead of the actual mono mixed soundtrack. I take that to mean that not long after the May 1977 initial release, the movie was edited resulting in all following copies to have the 3 new FX shots and the new end credits. When Fox sent over copies for home video, they sent an odd mixed copy that had the new opening crawl and the new end credits, but still had the original 3 FX shots. That makes sense because that interpositive might not have been used after May 77. When the struck and new interpostive that was used for the Definitive Collection and GOUT, the new FX shots were there. Only this one is still there because the other two were changed for the Special Edition.

Post
#1254181
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

Ronster, I have mixed feelings about pissing you off. Did you finally calibrate your monitor? How about this, have you checked the lighting where your monitor is? That can change how you see colors. Check every variable. I check mine with photos, videos, paper prints. I compare with real life and how photos I take look. For instance, I check that shot of Leia facing Vader against other movies Carrie was in, videos, old and new. I check it with people around me with similar complexions. I consider the light on set and all the other vaiables. I look at all the old transfers. I look at the professionally printed posters and stills, such as several books and the original 1977 soundtrack LP and story LP. I found the Blu-ray of American Grafitti to be very enlightening in general for colors. No weird colors there. But you have to be sure your monitor is showing the right colors. Flesh tones are the hardest thing to get right. You have to balance red and yellow to get the right peach/tan/brown color.

I would really like to see what you can do, but if you stick with what you have posted so far, you have taken away too much red and screwed up the skin tones. Something hasn’t been right and many of us have urged you to start with calibrating your monitor. If you don’t do that, we can’t help you isolate the error in your setup.

Post
#1254091
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

Well, if you listen to the interview, he was the one doing it and they set the setting at the beginning if the day and only changed things if the machine started to drift. That probably was between reels. From what he said, the machine was too strong and if you moved the film you risked breaking it. So I believe that his telecines on that machine had a uniform setting for every reel and they tried to stay consistent between reels. When you really think about it, there shouldn’t be any need to change the settings in the middle of a properly timed and processed itermediate.

Also, I just tried to match his transfer to the other transfers and after a few tweaks to adjust the contrast, levels, and saturation (reversing the settings that made it compatible with the old home video standards), it looks quite good for a pan and scan. And it looks so different from the 4k77 no-dnr release (which is pretty faithful to the Technicolor print). So my feeling that the color timing on the Technicolor prints is very screwed up is only reinforced.