Star Wars (1977) original Blu ray. Crappier than ever.

Was the light so bright on Indy's face when "Raiders" was originally screened, or on the laserdisc? Hence my doubt.

 

I always thought it was light reflecting on his face since I saw it in 1981.

 

I found this screenshot online reportedly taken from a 35mm lowfade positive print and that's closer to what I've seen on TV and VHS ( I know, lame example ) before the DVDs. I get the light reflection, but here's different.



and imho it's better than the BD brightfest

 

He is significantly brighter than the background and it's not a great print. You can even see that they have a light source in front of the pedestal to create that light on Indy. It's definitely there.
That isn't what I would call a solid source image for the Blu-ray either.

 

Yes, blacks and details are crushed in the print

 

The print isn't of course pristine, my main problem with the BD is its generally warmer palette. But I'll go ahead and say this is a pet peeve of mine, eg I don't really like the gold tint on "Spectre". In this case, I prefer the cooler color grading of the print and would be interesting to know if that's really how millions saw it in the 80s.


Anyone with the laserdisc or a laserdisc rip of "Raiders" could post a screenshot of this scene? Thank you

 

Here's what it looks like on the 2011 master:

 

I think the problem with the bluray is, that it looks flat, oversaturated, and orange. I would go for something in between the 35mm and the 2011 master:

 

By reducing exposure a bit and desaturating all colors except the oranges, yellows, and blues you can get a more cinematic feel:

 

That was exactly my point. Too warm.

That second image you posted with less exposure and saturation is much better

 

My suspicion is that the Blu-ray was graded to make the gold on the statue really pop, though I do think the picture is intended to bias more towards a warmer palette. They are after all in the middle of a jungle or something.

 

I remember seeing Raiders Of the Lost Arc in the theater and the scene with the gold "Spectre" was more of a yellow gold than orange or reddish, but I do recall a bright light shining on Indy's face as a reflection off the skylight shining down on the gold statue.

I have the 2003 DVD and the reddish orange tinted 2011 BD and took shots of each shown on my eyeball calibrated 32in Samsung HDtv showing the differences which match up pretty well with DrDre's postings.

 

Thank you! Heck; those Ford and Molina frames look nicer on the DVD.

 

Hopefully if there is a 4K now or in the future, it uses the DVD color grade which I prefer as well. Ford has a kind of terracotta tan, not a reddish sunburn.

 

The 4K version will be released this summer.

On that DVD screenshot, Indy's leather jacket is just like a leather jacket should be. And on the blu ray the shirt is horrible. Let's also look at the pocket on the shirt, the small folds are visible on the DVD; on the BD there should be more detail BUT a combination of presumably small DNR and the yellow/red/orange tint makes all those small details almost invisible.

 

I've noticed a lot of Blu-ray transfers seem to make skin tones more orange and saturated. I'm hoping the 4K prints reverse this.

 

Just a note about skin tone expectations shot on film as far back as the '70's onward and restored for Blu-ray is that one would need to know the complexion differences between actors and whether they had make up base to conceal it more or less. The shot I took off my Samsung of '80's "Used Cars" movie BD is such an example. We all know that Kurt Russel has been sportin' a tan since I remember him kicking Elvis in the leg as a bit player in a '60's movie I now can't recall. Jack Warden has been on the pinkish side but some of his promo head shots online has him with a tan.



How would you fix the skin tones on this shot? Maybe it was intentional or maybe the film stock, processing or lighting caused it.