886 L'argent

[Michael Kerpan]

I liked "gnome video"... ;-( (edited -- because now the post has replaced this with the correct word)

[MichaelB]

And of course there's also the mystery of what the cinematographer is signing off on when they're consulted. Are they seeing the same colours as the home viewer?

Ran, for instance, just looks plain wrong in the latest version - I've seen it in 35mm many times (I'd often screen it in rep and would pop in to watch favourite scenes), and I'm prepared to swear under oath that it did NOT look like that: I remember the reds and yellows being much punchier, and no teal tint. And yet the restoration was cinematograpber-approved.

[tenia]

But was the final restoration approved ? Did he see it ? And if he did, did he see the final version as on the disc, or something intermediary ? For instance, Don't Look Now was supposedly restored with Roeg's approval when it got released in the UK. But did he approve the DNR ?

I mean : at some point, there's got to be SOMEONE SOMEWHERE that look back at this and wonder "was it that yellow when I was in the lab ?"

[jsteffe]

And of course there's also the mystery of what the cinematographer is signing off on when they're consulted. Are they seeing the same colours as the home viewer?

Ran, for instance, just looks plain wrong in the latest version - I've seen it in 35mm many times (I'd often screen it in rep and would pop in to watch favourite scenes), and I'm prepared to swear under oath that it did NOT look like that: I remember the reds and yellows being much punchier, and no teal tint. And yet the restoration was cinematographer-approved.

I also have seen RAN in 35mm many times over the years from when it first opened in Los Angeles. That new Blu-ray of the restoration absolutely does not match what I ever saw on the screen. I am also prepared to swear under oath on this point!

I strongly suspect that it was also a case where Eclair applied a LUT for technical reasons, and that what the cinematographer Ueda approved in the grading suite does not look like the end product that we are stuck with. Besides being too teal, it is often way too dark. Many of the outdoors scenes were shot in bright sunlight, a point which really stands out when you watch the film on 35mm. (I am not talking about the siege of the castle, of course.)

To echo what Tenia has been saying, why does the restoration of RAN resemble other Eclair restorations (such as L'ARGENT) more closely than it does the 35mm release prints of RAN that I and so many people have watched over the years? Even though the older Blu-ray master of RAN looks pretty weak, at least the color is closer what I always loved on the big screen. The Criterion DVD edition is also good, and worth holding onto if you have it.

[nitin]

I wasn’t sure where the best place to post this would be but since the last post in this thread was about Ran, and because the preceding posts were about the LUTs applied by Ritrovata and (since 2013) Eclair, the Camera Obsucra insider’s latest comment on the topic is here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php? ... unt=182795