I'll agree with that. "Pearl Harbor" was a terrible film, flawed with numerous technical and historical errors. Just about the only thing they got right was the insignia on the uniforms.
Originally Posted by DanielStone
A couple of quick examples: at the beginning of the film, just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, Jimmy Doolittle is commanding a fighter squadron. He never did that; in fact, I believe that he was in the U.S. Army Air Corps reserve, and was not on active duty.
They have Navy nurses giving Army pilots physical exams. The Army had their own nurses, and during peacetime, didn't require help from the Navy!
And, one of the Army pilots says he has trouble reading; if he was dyslexic, or illiterate, he wouldn't have been a pilot. Prewar Army pilots needed a minimum of two years college or university education, and the Navy required a university degree to be a pilot.
A much better film about the attack on Pearl Harbor, and much more accurate, is the 1970 film, "Tora! Tora! Tora!"
Here's a couple of links about Jimmy Doolittle:
From what I can tell from the Technicolor Wiki page (which is very good), the Technicolor three strip process was really just two strips in the camera. The beam splitter formed two channels to illuminate the two strips. One of the strips was a sandwitch of two films with their emulsions facing each other. One of the beamsplitter channels was filtered for the green channel and illuminated one strip and the other illuminated the sandwitch which formed the Red+Blue channels. The Red and Blue sandwitch was latter stripped apart.
*** Enter Conjecture ***
Something tells me that Technicolor films are really more like automatically colorized black and white movies where the luminance information is taken mainly from the Green channel and the color is overlaid from all three channels in the dye transfer process. It would seem to me this would prevent the need to micro-register the luminance information in the two strips (three channels) separately formed by the beam splitter. Otherwise it is hard to believe they could keep the process tolarances tight enough to register all three channels without leading to a fuzzy print.
Heres something from 1927, let's see if one can find out the process used.
I think the film in the three-strip Technicolor cameras was Super-XX. But as you see in the Technicolor page on Wikipedia, with all the light losses in filters and beam-splitters, the effective film speed of the camera was ASA 5. It took a lot of light.
They could obviously make whatever masking they wanted to when making the matrices from the camera negative. They also controlled exposure, called "timing".
There was a "colorist" on the set of three-strip Technicolor movies who made sure that the colors were "in gamut".
As for contrast build-up problems, the folks who light movies control contrast ratios very carefully. Nothing is shot in natural light. So they can cope with film processes which have very high contrast by dialing down the lighting contrast ratio.
I don't remember the name of the process but it involves shooting alternate frames through red/green filters and then projecting them through their complimentary filters. You can see a flicker between the two colors and notice that when someone runs across the screen they blur into red and green people because the frames were not exposed simultaneously.
Originally Posted by Rhodes
edit: AHA! http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/kinemaco.htm
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Ehehehe! I also tried, but with out looking for info about the dicrector. Wiki has the infor about the technique used. I was in doubt bettween kinemacolor, two color kodachrome or cinecolor!
Actually dyxlexics have, can and do graduate college. Some with Masters of Science and PhDs.
Originally Posted by Terrence Brennan
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Steev, one cannot alwyas edcuate ingorance.
Prewar Army Signal Corps pilots did not even need a HS education. All they needed was a GED equivalent and to pass the flight physical and flight exam and solo. My dad, stationed at Wright Field right after WWI, said that many pilots were enlisted men and had little education beyond what I have stated. When the USAF was formed, then the rules changed, but even so, in the USAF, no pilot is enlisted and all pilots must have a college education but, this is still not so in the Army and Marine Corps where enlisted, non-college pilots are still in action.
I have not known of any dyslexic pilots per se, but do know that a lot of very highly educated people are dyslexic. Ignorant people can come in all types. There are some PhDs that wear aluminum helmets.
That's true, but I sure wouldn't want a dyslexic flying an airplane.
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass