George Lucas Museum of Narrative Art Star Wars 1977 Ib Technicolor

.: Technicolor I.B. Screening

Floating effectually in the world are a few individual 35mm copies of the Star Wars films. They are on Eastman Kodak film, and, although different individual prints fade at differing rates, would past now exist unpresentable as is. A few weeks ago, I saw a 1975 print of Jaws, and the title carte du jour that was supposed to exist white-on-black was now white-on-red, and then vivid that I idea it was an alternating championship card timed to look like blood. Sadly, the rest of the impress was very pinkish. It was as well scratched to hell from being played for thirty years. Nigh of those private prints of Star Wars floating effectually probably await about the same--even if never played, the photochemical emulsion of Kodak picture show would have turned pinkish by now. Except for one impress. One print is special. Information technology is a Technicolor imbibition dye-transfer print. This means: it has a finer grain and improve picture, but, more chiefly, information technology looks exactly the same as the day it was printed. Properly cared for, information technology volition outlast all of us.

A bit of history is in guild here. When color photography was commencement invented for motion pictures in the 1920s and 1930s, it was accomplished through the use of dyes, and somewhen Technicolor emerged equally the technological leader in this field. They used three strips of dyed black and white pic that recorded each spectrum of colour--ruddy, blue and light-green. When these three strips were combined, a full-colour reproduction was possible, with famously vivid hues. Prints were made through a similar use of dyed strips. By the 1950s, notwithstanding, Kodak had figured out how to practise colour using photochemical emulsions, much like blackness and white. The earliest efforts were murky and crude, merely by the 1960s filmmakers had abandoned the Technicolor 3-strip process because Kodak colour film was and then much cheaper, even if it wasn't as vivid. Technicolor survived a while longer, nonetheless, past offering imbibition (I.B.) dye-transfer prints of Kodak negatives as premium releases.

Regular 35mm prints are fabricated through photochemical means and printed on Kodak Eastman stock.  The grain is much coarser than Technicolor, item not as fine, the colours are less accurate and not every bit bright, and until 1982 would fade after a decade. Why does everyone print on photochemical motion picture then? It'southward really inexpensive, quick and easy. While Technicolor still fabricated dye-transfer prints in the 1960s, the films of the 1970s made the grainy, desaturated Kodak stocks a virtue through the gritty, countercultural films that were popular at the fourth dimension. There was no more demand for Technicolor and by the 1970s it had closed down in the United states of america. In Britain, still, information technology clung to existance for a few more than years. When Star Wars opened in England, there were a couple of Technicolor prints made for special showings. George Lucas had one printed for himself--information technology was used as the reference for the 1997 Special Edition colour timing considering it was fade-free. How many of these existed overall? Certainly not more than a handful. Which is why it is fortuitous than i was--somehow--smuggled or obtained through legitimate ways (which did sometimes happen in rare circumstances--simply probably information technology was just stolen). Technicolor closed down in Great britain non long subsequently Star Wars opened there, and there were no prints made of the two sequels.

Cut to 2010. Pretty much no ane has seen the original version of Star Wars since the 1990s. There are memories of a 70mm revival screening in 1990 in California, but fifty-fifty so the print was starting to become pink, and probably isn't very watchable now. Baltimore'south historic Senator Theatre was getting ready to close downwardly subsequently financial troubles, to be transfered to new managers, and owner Tom Kiefaber wanted to send it off in style. His family had endemic the theatre for 71 years, and in that fourth dimension had made a few connections. On the concluding mean solar day of operations, July 21, 2010, among some moderate media coverage (including ABC news), Kiefaber decided to hold free screenings of Star Wars to a packed house--and not merely the original version. He knew of a privately endemic Technicolor print.

Probably, this is the same one that filmmaker Richard Haines passed on buying considering it had the 1981 crawl spliced onto it, as this 1 does. A print of the aforementioned characeristics was reported to have been put on eBay at one point.

Below are some photos from the night, taken past John Waire. See his photo blog for the full set up.

Beneath is a video clip of the night recorded by a patron. Watch in HD for the full result:

You tin can see how terrific the impress looks. Very few scratches, and no fading at all, plus a swell deal of item apparent. It doesn't await anything like the 1993 Laserdisc or the 2006 DVD, with all of its dirt and grain, and the colours are terrific. The stardestroyer wing-by looked pretty pink, as it is from a 1981 photochemical splice-in for the re-release that twelvemonth. ABC news correspondant Christian Schaffer proclaimed "information technology looked fantastic on the Senator'southward xl-foot screen!" Owner Tom Kiefaber says during an introduction before the screening:

"This is a I.B. Technicolor print. Let me only give you lot a little technical thing. This is a stunning print. I just couldn't believe it before when I saw this. This print is from 1977. Now, regular film emulsion, yous know like 35mm film, it would be pinkish right now. Just not worth watching. But this is what nosotros telephone call dye-transfer, which means they put layers of dye on this film. And every bit long as you take care of it, the colours will not fade at all. I mean it's got a few dings here and there that gives information technology a certain amount of character, just this is the original."

It is rather lucky that the screening happened at all--Adywan, creator of Star Wars Revisited, told of how he saw Star Wars at his local fine art theatre in 2006 and when Lucasfilm found out they confiscated the impress. The Senator was not very well advertised, and almost non-locals did not know almost it until later information technology happened, so perhaps they simply flew under the radar. Possessor Tom Kiefaber says during an introduction before the screening:

"[Fans] came upwards to me and said, 'You lot know, George has kind of crossed over to the nighttime side a lilliputian bit, are yous sure there's not Lucas[motion-picture show] people out hither with a jet coming across the land to get this print?' Because, essentially, y'all know we honey George Lucas, only there'due south been kind of an effort to not have this detail version exist any more. I remember it's a mistake, personally. In particular, when you see this you'll realize. Because this is the original."

The screening was a terrific adventure for fans to encounter the film as it was meant to be seen. "Let'south turn down the lights and accept a magical journeying together," was Keifaber's final words before the reels began.

Attendee Peter Gaultney used the occassion to take photos of the screen using his new camera. Y'all can see what Kiefaber is talking almost--the velvety Technicolor texture, the clarity and detail and the brilliant colours. It'due south likewise valuable equally a colour reference. Now, every Technicolor print is slightly different because of the dye balances, but this is even so the best reference for how the film is supposed to look. You besides have to business relationship for the fact that the camera photographing the screen volition never be 100% faithful to the contrast, intensity or color residual of the print--simply it'due south a good indicator nonetheless. Linked beneath is his collection. The full images are 8-11MB in size, with the complete collection weighing in at 312MB, a great resources for purists.

Below are a few option samples, which I have redone to be more viewable. They take been reduced in size by about 55% (they will withal fill up your screen), and are between 600kb and 1MB in size. I have not contradistinct colour, brightness or contrast, so as to keep the original photo qualities intact, although occassionally a flake of cropping or baloney was necessary due to the perspective correction.

Run across Peter Gaultney's page for the total drove of 40 loftier-res pics:

http://petergaultney.smugmug.com/Movies/historic/Star-Wars-at-The-Senator/13089279_nXePV#948662138_wuqj9

Three things are apparent from this screening.

1) The R2 canyon scene with the Jawas is supposed to be dusk. There was some contend about this since earlier home videos had the scene in bright twenty-four hours, as it was filmed. In 1993, it was re-timed to be dim and sunset-tinted, which was then profoundly embellished in the Special Edition. It was reported that the earlier video versions were mis-timed. While the 1993 telecine might seem to exaggerate the sunset hue a fleck, the scene in 1977 is definitely as dark as it is in current versions. In that location is a tiny green shift in the I.B. print, indicating it is really slightly warmer.

ii) There has too been much debate about how the binary sunset scene should look. Earlier home video versions had the scene very brilliant, and more subdued in its coloring. From 1993 onward, it has gotten significantly darker and more colourful. Based on the photographs here, it appears to take been actually in betwixt the two extremes. It is adequately brilliant--which makes sense since it is a sunset, lit by direct light, not twilight--and colored a moderate amount of pink/orange. The 1993 transfer darkened it to twilight levels and introduced blueish into the timing, providing lots of blueish and purple gradients in shots, which the Special Editions have embellished. This 1977 print is basically consistent with the 1977 telecine bootleg, which wasn't reliable because of colour and contrast degradation over the generations of copying.

three) Also, there has been some debate over what colour the Expiry Star interiors should exist. Nigh fan preservations endeavor to become information technology greyness; Adywan was famously a stickler to get totally neutral colours. The 2006 DVD and 1993/5 Laserdiscs sports this, but the 1985 impress used is so done out and pink-shifted from fading it would have undone any mild colouration that was originally there. This Technicolor transfer is interesting however. While there is ever some discolouration or tinting in prints, and the white balance of the camera photographing the screen may shift things further, in that location is a consistency here in that the Death Star is rarely a neutral grey. It seems to have green in it in well-nigh shots to varying degrees, and blue in other shots, with poor consistency. Yous can tell it is on the print and not from the camera past the consistency and naturalness in skintones, which look far superior than whatsoever abode video telecine. This is similar to the 70mm cells drove, which also was very green, and occassionally blue. In their book, The Pic Brats, from 1979, the authors refer to the Death Star as a "gray-greenish" world similar to the Nazis. Coincidence? Not likely. The 1977 telecine bootleg has a similar expect. The residue of light, balance on the film stock, and timing of private shots produced an surroundings that, even if it were actually painted pure grey (some colour photos from the set look suspiciously grey-green also, which becomes blueish under certain lighting conditions) is tinged. This should be considered a valid element of the film's original cinematography. I confirmed this by taking the 2006 DVD/1993/5LD and pumping up the saturation to the Technicolor levels and then dialing out the pink shift (which ways calculation greenish and some yellow) until skin tones looked natural every bit they do in the Technicolor print--the result was identical color balances. Beneath are examples of the blue and dark-green tinting on the Technicolor print. You tin encounter that the impress and camera is responsible for some of it, simply past the natural color of the skin tones y'all can tell that it could not possible business relationship for the entirety of the tint.

A final question is: what happened to the print after the screening? It didn't self-destruct when the Senator closed its doors. This print is really the holy grail of public Star Wars sources and it is sitting in some cans as you read this.

Below are various links, videos and photos on the screening:

http://johnwairephoto.com/web log/2010/07/21/the-stop-of-an-era/

http://charmcityshinobi.tumblr.com/post/844008406/got-to-see-star-wars-a-new-promise-on-the-big-screen

http://world wide web.chicagotribune.com/videobeta/?watchId=6152dbd4-ae00-4fee-988d-2e3f9f05a3f7

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/region/baltimore_city/curtain-closes-on-kiefaber%27s-run-at-the-senator-theater

http://www.youtube.com/watch?five=OEctWVF4J_w

http://petergaultney.smugmug.com/Movies/celebrated/Star-Wars-at-The-Senator/13089279_nXePV#948662138_wuqj9

Share this post