2022-07-22, 08:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 2022-07-22, 08:55 PM by The Aluminum Falcon.)
(2022-07-22, 08:04 PM)PDB Wrote: Fairs points. See this is sort of the problem I am having and probably will have with this whole project. Do I skew close to print examples in the regrade or do match the color as best as possible but tweak to be more like a modern home video transfer? So do I push for colorful, contrast, etc or flatten the picture? I'm hoping to get sort of a "half-way point", whatever that might be. I did a tiny bit of tweaking but nothing major, I'll post some more hopefully this weekend.
First of all, sorry to hear about the emergency! Real life stuff always comes first, thanks for taking the time to respond. But hope all is well.
re: T2, my personal opinion for these sorts of regrades would be that you should always go for a print-type contrast (maybe with the highlights qualified/retained and a little more shadow detail, to be fair). I totally respect that some people like the lower contrast look they're used to, but, frankly, until home video came into being in the 80s, there wouldn't be really any reasonable expectation of seeing something with the low contrast of an IP unless you flashed the film, which would be a very specific creative choice.
There also exists a danger that an in-between compromise between this and film contrast just isn't an aesthetically pleasing look. YMMV.
To go to a broader topic, commercial modern restorations are also starting to avoid the low contrast IP look and get back to a more authentic filmic contrast. The latest restorations of Double Indemnity; The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; Casablanca; The Apartment; Thief; Pulp Fiction; and the Indiana Jones movies all have higher levels of contrast then previous restorations, presumably to better emulate the generational contrast that a DP would reasonably expect and for which they would consequently set up their lighting.
Why do all this? Possibly to honor the filmmaker's intentions. But probably... because it looks better and helps the eye focus on what's important. When you increase the contrast on your favorite movies shot on 35mm, you normally find that what should be lit stays lit and meaningless detail falls to the wayside because, again, this would be what would naturally happen when a print was struck; phrased another way, it was the DP's job to make sure crucial visual information was sufficiently exposed to survive the generational process (even without fancy digital masking or windowing
).Sorry that was a bit of a ramble, again this is all 100% my opinion, pls feel free to differ. In your specific case @PDB , I've greatly enjoyed your releases like Die Hard 3 that emulated a print level of contrast.
That being said, if you want to proceed with this lower amount of contrast, then I'd say you should probably neutralize the extreme highlights and shadows by desaturating them. You wouldn't really see many official home video releases where an image is completely veiled blue, green, or yellow. As would happen naturally with a print, the highlights/shadows usually are neutral to give the eye a better sense of color.
[Only exception is some early digital color grading which veered towards blanket tints, but, to be honest, this isn't as popular a practice nowadays.]
EDIT: On the topic of James Cameron, word is that in 1986, he collaborated directly with the color labs in charge of striking the main prints of ALIENS because he wanted more control than usual over the grade. So, to that point, James Cameron would be a director I'd trust to fully understand the generational process associated with striking film. Why he didn't pay more attention to his home video transfers... who knows?


![[Image: T2-Boosted.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/fWdZXCS7/T2-Boosted.png)