Why some 4K restorations have a yellow tint?

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Yes, I know but still I'm not convinced.

Well, what would it take to convince you that the warm look is indeed part of the original cinematography?

I have seen The Lover theatrically multiple times, and while I am not one of those "experts" who claim to remember exactly how a certain film looked 20-30 years ago, I can tell you with absolute certainty that this film has always had a warm yellow period look.

Actually, the German disc we reviewed, which is quite decent, does retain the yellow period look. Do you have it? Have you seen it? These two captures from it (below) clearly show it:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...42&position=10

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...142&position=2

The 4K restoration rebalances the entire color scheme. Additionally, the screencaptures you posted actually make it very obvious that the old color scheme is inferior because the whites are pushed up too high and as a result the tiny clouds that are visible in the background on the 4K restoration are wiped out (see upper left corner).

The restoration is very good.

Pro-B

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Some great points here. I highlighted this one because this one stands out as very depressing to me. If Hollywood studios can't be bothered to hire or train skilled technicians who know what they're doing with film, then we've all lost. I mean we're talking about movies - this is what Hollywood is all about - yet they seem more and more incompetent with releases as time moves forward. The technology improves but the skill level drops so the releases are handled improperly.

These aren't small changes - they affect films in a major way and can ruin the experience for fans who are used to seeing it so many times in the past.

I am in full agreement with you

But I would like to mention this as well: What has become painfully obvious during the last 5-6 years is that the people that used to be responsible for major restorations can no longer be the voice of authority.

The reason why is simple and obvious: Traditional film restoration and digital restoration are two entirely different animals. Additionally, there used to be cycles during which technology evolved and matured and these people were able to improve their skills. Nowadays technology evolves so quickly that the overwhelming majority of the "experts" are simply behind. This is the truth.

Very similar is the situation with cinematographers, as digital technology has completely changed the way films are lit and shot. There is an excellent interview with the great Vilmos Zsigmond on Criterion's release of The Rose in which he addressed in great detail this very issue.

There is another terrific interview on Criterion's release of Hiroshima mon amour with Renato Berta, who also addresses the massive challenges digital technology presents to restorers/experts today. Many of his points, however, contradict the ones Mr. Zsigmond makes.

Originally Posted by CinemaScope

When they do a 4K scan of the original negatives, they have to colour grade the picture from scratch, & I suppose it depends on who is the colourist. I get more annoyed by the cool look a lot of them love so much these days.

Yes, that's pretty much it

Pro-B

[filmmusic]

Ok, Pro-B let's say I take your word and I'm convinced about The Lover.
What about the Bear?
Do you have any idea on this what is the most accurate version?
Because the new 4K shows the same level of "yellow-ing" as The Lover.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Dear God, why? I couldn't wait for it to end the first time round!

I love the movie, epecially the general atmosphere (settings, cinematography, music etc.).
The only thing that spoils it I think is Jane Marsh.
I don't think she's a good actress.

[RudyC]

i think they change the color to make it stand out from the previous blu-ray or dvd on purpose.

a lot of people dont see the difference from dvd to blu-ray....these huge color shifts are just a way of getting people to see the upgrade.

sometimes the changes work...sometimes no.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Which is more accurate? It's impossible to say - because only three people were present at the original colour grading sessions, two of them are now dead, and the third has gone blind (and that was a decade ago: he may well have died since). And of course 35mm prints aren't reliable because the film is half a century old and the colour dyes will have faded since 1964 - as demonstrated by the fact that the prints that Criterion and the BFI used clearly look different.

I think that's a different thing and perfectly understandable, you guys are striving to do your utmost to restore and preserve the original artistic intent, but you have little to go on, so even if two teams with the same standards tackle the same film, we may see different results. It's educated guesswork from two different sources. You're not trying to impose your personal tastes onto another persons work, you're just trying to represent it the best you can.

On the other hand you'll have technicians that see trends forming or directors that like the look of a modern movie and they tweak the colour to match their contemporary tastes and original artistic intent gets thrown out the window in favour of new and shiny.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by chip75

On the other hand you'll have technicians that see trends forming or directors that like the look of a modern movie and they tweak the colour to match their contemporary tastes and original artistic intent gets thrown out the window in favour of new and shiny.

yes, the sad thing is that all Blurays start to look alike with this universal color grading, and each film loses its individual character.
That's why i said i don't mind it it's in one film or two, but when you start seeing it everywhere....

[Geoff D]

Cineteca di Bologna also seem to have a major hard-on for the modern yellow look, along with very thin blacks. I wonder if 'contrast' is a dirty word in Italian? Still, it's just the modern way. Stuff generally got timed with a very warm hue for home video a couple of decades ago, now it's moved on to this cooler bluey-green/yellowy sort of look.

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

Aren't prints often faded a little yellow anyway? Could be the source.

The yellow layer is usually the first to go but that results in an overemphasis of the magenta layer underneath, hence why older non-LPP/IB Tech prints often have a distinct pink hue to them. They don't normally use prints for home video transfer though, not unless it's literally the last resort, but the same sort of fading affects many a colour film negative, especially stuff from the '50s and '60s.

[Trax-3]

Originally Posted by RudyC

i think they change the color to make it stand out from the previous blu-ray or dvd on purpose.

a lot of people dont see the difference from dvd to blu-ray....these huge color shifts are just a way of getting people to see the upgrade.

sometimes the changes work...sometimes no.

I don't think so. In the old days proper references just wasn't used much and replicating a film print was technically impossible anyway - so why even try?

Torsten Kaiser writes here how sometimes even a DVD or Youtube video is offered as "reference".

[chip75]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

yes, the sad thing is that all Blurays start to look alike with this universal color grading, and each film loses its individual character.
That's why i said i don't mind it it's in one film or two, but when you start seeing it everywhere....

It does slightly get depressing when films lose their individual character in favour of new trends. Either they should try and preserve the artistic intent or reproduce it the best they can, there shouldn't be any other options.

It's not just Blu-rays either, but with movies it's at least the director and cinematographer making the decisions even if they're not immune to getting onto the band-wagon of other artists.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by chip75

It does slightly get depressing when films lose their individual character in favour of new trends. Either they should try and preserve the artistic intent or reproduce it the best they can, there shouldn't be any other options.

It's not just Blu-rays either, but with movies it's at least the director and cinematographer making the decisions even if they're not immune to getting onto the band-wagon of other artists.

The only problem with that "artistic intent" angle is that the look of film is a moving target and always has been, as mentioned by Mr B with the differences between two editions from the same scan because of the different prints used for reference. There are so many variables at play that I'm usually okay with most modern timings, unless they're the overtly murky & jaundiced Italian restorations or a Friedkin Pastelvision brain fart.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The only problem with that "artistic intent" angle is that the look of film is a moving target and always has been, as mentioned by Mr B with the differences between two editions from the same scan because of the different prints used for reference.

That's okay too, it's understandable, results may vary!, but their intentions are honourable.

I'm not so keen on the "this is how I would have liked it to look ..." approach we often hear about or changing things because that's what modern movies are looking like.

The problem is that physical media is a set place in time, the film, the artists and technology all change through time and are in constant flux, but our DVDs and BDs are locked-down and with the costs negating re-issuing balls-ups becoming a factor these days, we sometimes get stuck with something less than stellar.

[AaronJ]

OK, I'm certainly no expert on these types of things. And we're talking about a LONG time ago, so maybe I'm just mis-remembering. But the yellowish screen grab of Indiana Jones is exactly how I recall it looking in the theater.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

OK, I'm certainly no expert on these types of things. And we're talking about a LONG time ago, so maybe I'm just mis-remembering. But the yellowish screen grab of Indiana Jones is exactly how I recall it looking in the theater.

I saw Raiders about 12 times between 1981-1982 and I will not pretend to remember exactly what it looked like, but I know what you mean. I was always under the impression it was supposed to have a warmer look to it much the way it does on Blu-ray - and Torsten Kaiser pretty much confirmed that in his comments about the disc.

I always intuitively felt the DVD was just wrong in terms of color. There was too much of a cold look to it that was just off in some way.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I saw Raiders about 12 times between 1981-1982 and I will not pretend to remember exactly what it looked like, but I know what you mean. I was always under the impression it was supposed to have a warmer look to it much the way it does on Blu-ray - and Torsten Kaiser pretty much confirmed that in his comments about the disc.

I always intuitively felt the DVD was just wrong in terms of color. There was too much of a cold look to it that was just off in some way.

OK, so there's a chance that I'm not completely insane. That's good to know.

[willbfree]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

OK, so there's a chance that I'm not completely insane. That's good to know.

And also as evidence, Duran Duran's Hungry Like the Wolf video, which tried to copy Raider's aesthetic, also chose a warm, yellow-ish color timing.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Trax-3

I don't think so. In the old days proper references just wasn't used much and replicating a film print was technically impossible anyway - so why even try?

Torsten Kaiser writes here how sometimes even a DVD or Youtube video is offered as "reference".

There's something TK says there which I've come to accept over time - there's a pretty large element of trust involved.

People say to me that Blu-ray X looks nothing like it should...I really don't know how anyone can say that.

The other thing I've come to accept, and it's linked, is that I've got to learn to be happy. The one that sticks in my mind is TGTBATU. The director is dead, the cinematographer is dead, all they have is the assistant cameraman. But you know what, even if he was only a very average assistant cameraman, he'll have forgotten more about film, and that particular film, than I'll ever know.

If it's good enough for him - even if it's wrong - it's going to have to be good enough for me. Because if it's not, then the vast majority of catalogue Blu-ray Disc releases are far more likely to be wrong, as most don't reference anyone who actually worked on the film.

And if I can't trust those releases, then I might as well stop collecting discs.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

One of the great advantages of digital media is that you can be absolutely precise about your requirements, and reasonably sure that they'll be exactly repeatable for as long as the materials survive.

But with photochemical media, there are always going to be significant variations. Decades later, the original colour timing is most likely going to have shifted either slightly or seriously, so you can't even rely on the sources - and if everyone involved is dead, there's no alternative to educated guesswork.

Even if you claim to have good recall of how it looked in a cinema, there might have been local factors affecting the colour temperature - I recall one London rep cinema that must have had different bulbs in their twin projectors, because the films they showed always noticeably "cooled" at the halfway mark.

I remember Robert Harris noting how, in the old days of smoking in cinemas, the 'white' screens will have been nicotine stained.

One of the other things that TK mentions there is that one print could differ to another. It's all well and good going back to earlier materials to see what a director intended, but if the director knew that there'd probably be no such thing as a perfect print, and that colours would inevitably vary, one wonders just how accurate a colour they could be possibly be intending in the first place.

Surely, at best they must have known that they were never going to be able to guarantee accuracy past a certain point.

Ultimately, if it looks good, and the disc's producers have done their best to present a title as accurately as possible, that's all we can really hope for.

I remember noting at the time with TGTBATU, the assistant cameraman colour timed the new 4k disc. Imagine if they'd looked at what he'd done and thought it wouldn't wash, and reverted to the colour of the old DVDs...and then, three weeks after the disc came out, it was leaked that they'd ignored the only surviving crew member's notes.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Steve W

[Professor Echo]

We might imagine that all the work for a presumably definitive Blu-Ray transfer is supervised and executed by people like us, those who are invested in fulfilling primary expectations and considerations and who endeavor to do nothing more than create an ideal product which will reflect on not only the artistic legacy of the title, but also the esteemed heritage of the studio who originally produced it.

Unfortunately, that isn't always the case. Instead, what we seem to encounter is a lot of new technology being employed by unsympathetic executives and creatively frustrated technicians making their own artistic decisions not because it is necessary, but because THEY CAN.

[Geoff D]

Re: Se7en, I read that Fincher wasn't happy with the ENR prints anyway because of how hot the developing baths were in the name of expediency. Then there's the three very different transfers that he supervised for the Criterion LD, the SE DVD then the Blu-ray. Moving targets, people...