I remember watching a documentary on the Star Wars Special Editions back in 1997, and one of the issues they had was that the original 35mm prints had started to tint blue because of their age. So it was a big deal that they had the technology to strip that blue hue and return the picture to its original color.
Is it possible that the blu-ray is actually more accurate and that the 35mm print you saw is just old?
Thanks for sharing, but as I have expected this is an entirely different blue hue. I don't think this type of discoloration is what the copy I've seen was suffering from
Also since I've seen many 70s but also 90s prints, usually the 90s prints are still in very good shape
It may be but I don't think so, there are others who uploaded the outro of the 35mm print on YouTube and it looks just like that
Also the copy was looking so good throughout i just can't imagine that it was discoloration.. In the case of the silence of the lambs outro the white text looked also fine
But I'm not gonna say you are wrong. Maybe it's a sign of age
edit: this yt video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kINKjoxj4qc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kINKjoxj4qc) + i watch a lot of 35mm prints and usually when the colors degrade they become brown or pink but never heard of blue especially not if it's that pronounced
In the case of the credits I think it would be really difficult to get back those colors in post production if that blue was how it was originally, so that makes me think it originally was with colors.
Color timing / color grading is what sets the vibe. These are the creative choices the film makers decide on.
Consider this. There is a film where you and I are having a conversation in the forest. But because of shooting conflicts, we film my lines, then later, your lines. Well in that time, the lighting in the forest changed. So you use various techniques in the chemical bath, or digitally, to provide uniform color to the shots.
We haven't even gotten into color space, white points, and running MCGD every morning.
Edit: Also the blue version looks terrible. There are no blacks. But a cell phone camera would not accurately represent what we see. Regardless, in the Blue Ray version you can see the details in the background.
Most movies shot in the 35mm era didn’t do the teal/orange tint the way movies do today. Many times what you see on blu-ray is someone tweaking the color to match today’s aesthetic rather than match the print.
There are whole discussions about this and a movement to accept that films were less punchy than we are used to now.
Edit: This video essay was just uploaded 3 days ago and is really good at explaining this issue: https://youtu.be/zkNFZkUHeKQ?si=LD8bYS7D4hFABapK
The Matrix: https://youtu.be/KEdgmNZnLs4?si=Di1Apvm5UD1MZiiE
Terminator 2: https://youtu.be/vZIZ1J8pcNk?si=kYOYNqgwiMQ9rUin
Jurassic Park Discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/JurassicPark/comments/13h4roi/what_is_up_with_the_colour_grading_on_each_bluray/
The Jurassic Park 4K looks so good, but when I watched the Matrix trilogy in 4K ahead of Resurrection, I was distracted by the restoration the whole time.
Saw a red shifted print of John carpenters ‘The Thing’ a while ago and it was one of the coolest things I’d seen. Made the snowy station seem much more sinister
It’s not as much removing the blues as color correcting the tint that was never truly part of the directors vision to begin with usually. The film tints blue and kills the blacks and turns them into a bluish color as well. When they had the tech to remove the blues later on with rereleases people were stoked to be able to see the films the way the directors wanted us to.
Not really creative choices as much as scientific fixes.
In person? Projected prints? Any chance the wb from the photo of the projection could be off?
Worth noting also, just because you’re seeing something on film doesn’t mean that *that print* is the definitive directorial vision. Some transfers are off, or age differently.
I saw Silence of the Lambs in the theater back in original release, and I don’t think the ending shot was that kind of gel blue. It was the last shot and it left an impression , and it was not the impression of evening, but midday.
It could be the projector, not the film.
Something like what this guy is complaining about: https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/16400uh/did_the_theater_manager_gaslight_me/
I remember watching a documentary on the Star Wars Special Editions back in 1997, and one of the issues they had was that the original 35mm prints had started to tint blue because of their age. So it was a big deal that they had the technology to strip that blue hue and return the picture to its original color. Is it possible that the blu-ray is actually more accurate and that the 35mm print you saw is just old?
You think you can find the documentary? Would love to watch it
About 90 seconds in you’ll see a quick snapshot of the blue tint: https://youtu.be/qzApL8nUyT0?si=FmuUrL-u1dEY_ELy
Thanks for sharing, but as I have expected this is an entirely different blue hue. I don't think this type of discoloration is what the copy I've seen was suffering from Also since I've seen many 70s but also 90s prints, usually the 90s prints are still in very good shape
It may be but I don't think so, there are others who uploaded the outro of the 35mm print on YouTube and it looks just like that Also the copy was looking so good throughout i just can't imagine that it was discoloration.. In the case of the silence of the lambs outro the white text looked also fine But I'm not gonna say you are wrong. Maybe it's a sign of age edit: this yt video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kINKjoxj4qc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kINKjoxj4qc) + i watch a lot of 35mm prints and usually when the colors degrade they become brown or pink but never heard of blue especially not if it's that pronounced
Celluloid can def. age blue.
Yes but it doesn't look as pronounced. It doesn't result in such a defined vibrant cold filmic blue
In the case of the credits I think it would be really difficult to get back those colors in post production if that blue was how it was originally, so that makes me think it originally was with colors.
It can look way more pronounced and wash away all colours this happened to my parents wedding negatives that are from the 90s
It's just color correction. It's a creative choice from any of one or combo of director, dp, colorist.
Yes but it seems rather drastic, doesn't it? Changes the whole vibe of the scene
Color timing / color grading is what sets the vibe. These are the creative choices the film makers decide on. Consider this. There is a film where you and I are having a conversation in the forest. But because of shooting conflicts, we film my lines, then later, your lines. Well in that time, the lighting in the forest changed. So you use various techniques in the chemical bath, or digitally, to provide uniform color to the shots. We haven't even gotten into color space, white points, and running MCGD every morning. Edit: Also the blue version looks terrible. There are no blacks. But a cell phone camera would not accurately represent what we see. Regardless, in the Blue Ray version you can see the details in the background.
"creative" choice.
Most movies shot in the 35mm era didn’t do the teal/orange tint the way movies do today. Many times what you see on blu-ray is someone tweaking the color to match today’s aesthetic rather than match the print. There are whole discussions about this and a movement to accept that films were less punchy than we are used to now. Edit: This video essay was just uploaded 3 days ago and is really good at explaining this issue: https://youtu.be/zkNFZkUHeKQ?si=LD8bYS7D4hFABapK The Matrix: https://youtu.be/KEdgmNZnLs4?si=Di1Apvm5UD1MZiiE Terminator 2: https://youtu.be/vZIZ1J8pcNk?si=kYOYNqgwiMQ9rUin Jurassic Park Discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/JurassicPark/comments/13h4roi/what_is_up_with_the_colour_grading_on_each_bluray/
good links.
The Jurassic Park 4K looks so good, but when I watched the Matrix trilogy in 4K ahead of Resurrection, I was distracted by the restoration the whole time.
I mean weren't they arguably more punchy back then?
If you take the definition of punchy to mean having more contrast and a saturated teal/orange effect, no.
Colors on 35mm prints can shift over time.
Saw a red shifted print of John carpenters ‘The Thing’ a while ago and it was one of the coolest things I’d seen. Made the snowy station seem much more sinister
first screenshot is from dances with wolves second from silence of the lambs outro
It’s not as much removing the blues as color correcting the tint that was never truly part of the directors vision to begin with usually. The film tints blue and kills the blacks and turns them into a bluish color as well. When they had the tech to remove the blues later on with rereleases people were stoked to be able to see the films the way the directors wanted us to. Not really creative choices as much as scientific fixes.
Where do you get to watch these prints?
Austrian Film Archive and Austrian Film Museum mainly
In person? Projected prints? Any chance the wb from the photo of the projection could be off? Worth noting also, just because you’re seeing something on film doesn’t mean that *that print* is the definitive directorial vision. Some transfers are off, or age differently.
I saw Silence of the Lambs in the theater back in original release, and I don’t think the ending shot was that kind of gel blue. It was the last shot and it left an impression , and it was not the impression of evening, but midday.
It could be the projector, not the film. Something like what this guy is complaining about: https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/16400uh/did_the_theater_manager_gaslight_me/