Is it meant to be so washed out? I have the DVD-18 Special Edition and every review of the disc I read before purchasing would just rave on and on about how the colours are so rich and how the picture transfer was near-perfect.

Did I get a dud? My blacks are a shade of light grey, Superman's suit looks sky blue with a pink cape. There seems to be a washing of white light over everything that blurs edges and makes the entire picture look terribly soft -- hardly vivid, rich colours. Is this how the film looked during its theatrical run? I can not, for the life of me comprehend how this can be considered a good transfer?

I think it was filmed that way, because evertytime I have seen it on TV it also looks this way.

Pink cape? Maybe you should have your television calibrated. The colors on Superman's costume are vivid on the DVD.

Bear in mind too that what was considered a spectacular transfer in 2001 isn't going to be held to the same standards in 2006.

Ditto.

For a 1977(?) movie released on DVD in 2001, it's a pretty damn good transfer.

Will the SE coming out later this year have a new transfer?

Sounds like it's your t.v. settings.

I don't think it's my TV settings. Firstly, the picture looks the same on my computer as it does on my TV's. Secondly, I have a few other DVDs whose original movie is around the age of Superman.

The Godfather, Part II
Apocalypse Now Redux
Star Wars Episode IV
Jaws

And all of these movies have rich, deep colour reproduction. Superman's "Special Edition" has washed out colours. Maybe describing the cape as pink was a little bit of an exaggeration, but it's definately not bright red as it should be. I found a few screenshots on the net which look like what my DVD looks like:





As you can see the picture seems as if the camera is looking through a haze, and superman's suit looks decidedly washed out.

Pink cape? Yah sure you got the right Superman video?

First of all, those pictures don't really help prove your point, because I think they look just fine. Second of all, the "haze" is intentional, as stated in the extras on side 2 of the DVD.

The video never bothered me. What bothers me about that DVD-18 SE is a common DVD-18 problem (it freezes up/sputters).

Yeah, there's some stuff that looks washed out but it can't just be the DVD transfer. Yeah, they'll probably really digitally remaster the hell out of it and release it in a marvelous looking edition and all but, the actual screen image itself is a pretty marvelous looking picture for a film of its age, and for a DVD from 2001.

Do you have the original laserdisc version to compare it to? The difference is night and day. His costume looked green and pink on the laserdisc.

Well, the green was because blue wouldn't have worked because the special effects shots were against bluescreen, so for the restoration they changed it to the proper blue color.

This has always stuck me as odd. Why didn't they use greenscreen so as not to interfere with the blue suit?

Green screens weren't used then; they're largely a product of digital technology, which can be used to remove any chosen color. For example, in some cases, orange screens are used.

But when "Superman: The Movie" was made, the process was optical in nature, and for various technical reasons, blue was the required color.

This is a bit of an over-simplification, but you get the idea.

Other than a bit better compression, I'd be surprised if Superman looks much different than the current version. Didn't they do restoration work for the current version? I'm looking more forward to see how much better Superman II looks and sounds (current sound track is so anemic).

I think they should both take a leaf out of Lucas' book in terms of print restoration and have Supes I and II released as 2-disc sets sometime near the release of Returns on DVD.

I think they should go all out and release multiple discs for every film in the series. I think 14 or so should cover it.

So I never really got a definitive answer ... Superman's transfer is supposed to look as bad as it does, correct? that's the way the picture would have looked in theatres, washed out and hazy?

Stop saying washed out! It's not washed out.

That's the look of Geoffrey Unsworth's photography. It's intentional and, I think, absolutely beautiful. Superman II looks the same way because he shot most of it prior to his death.

There's no reason I should stop saying washed out when IMHO it is washed out and not at all "beautiful". But if it's intentional, then that's all I wanted to know.

I'll side with the people who think it looks beautiful.

The style of the movie has a deliberately hazy glow to emphasize the fantasy aspects of the story. It was also useful in blending the special effects of the time. You may not like it, but it's the way the movie is meant to look.

While we're on the subject, The Matrix is supposed to be greenish, Saving Private Ryan is intentionally grainy, and Schindler's List isn't very colorful.

Damn. I had my television calibrated so that The Matrix is regular tones. No wonder the rest of my DVDs look like they are on acid.

Geoffrey Unsworth (along with many cinematographers in the late '60s and throughout the '70s) used heavy diffusion filters on the camera lens to give it that hazy (not washed out; I'm with those who maintain you're using poor word-choice) look. Have you seen films like BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, or M*A*S*H, even most of the Tatooine footage in the original STAR WARS? This look was, to one degree or another, the standard back in the day.