2017-04-07, 02:03 PM
Again? Yep!
I think there is a general consensus that, using a negative as master, then regrade it digitally, is not possible to achieve the same color fidelity than, for example, using an interpositive (or a release print).
Of course, using the negative would retain the best resolution possible (6K or maybe also 8K).
The best choice, IMHO, would be to use the negative for the luma, and an interpositive (or several release prints, median'ed and/or averaged) for chroma.
Am I wrong? If not, why don't they do that? Colors would be closest to the theatrical prints, and I'm pretty sure it will be easier than color grading digitally the negative - don't know how much would it cost to scan both negative and interpositive, but I don't think would cost much than the negative scan + all that time spent to regrade it (with imperfect results, too)...
Opinions?
I think there is a general consensus that, using a negative as master, then regrade it digitally, is not possible to achieve the same color fidelity than, for example, using an interpositive (or a release print).
Of course, using the negative would retain the best resolution possible (6K or maybe also 8K).
The best choice, IMHO, would be to use the negative for the luma, and an interpositive (or several release prints, median'ed and/or averaged) for chroma.
Am I wrong? If not, why don't they do that? Colors would be closest to the theatrical prints, and I'm pretty sure it will be easier than color grading digitally the negative - don't know how much would it cost to scan both negative and interpositive, but I don't think would cost much than the negative scan + all that time spent to regrade it (with imperfect results, too)...
Opinions?