Originally Posted by dvdmike007
Because its shifted, that was not done photo chemically and does not look like that in 35mm
I don't know exactly how green or red it was in 35mm. And I doubt anyone who hasn't seen an original 35mm print in the last year or two would have such details committed to memory. But there's nothing stopping that particular shot from looking 90% like than in a photochemical process (again, assuming the loss of texture is youtube compression rather than DI filtering).
People have some odd memories of what films looked like before DIs. For example, a brand-new example of a photochemically printed movie, The Master
, the trailer ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ1O1vb9AUU
) looks absolutely dead-on color wise to the photochemical 70mm prints I saw, but I bet if people were comparing it to some old-school flattened video transfer of the film, they'd complain about contrast boosting and the various odd hues and horrifying shades of teal, resultant from a completely analog process.Edited by 42041 - 11/9/12 at 2:12pm