Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,867   Posts: 1,583,279   Online: 1102
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    Heres something from 1927, let's see if one can find out the process used.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwahIQz0o-M
    That's a two color process, probably a two strip camera printed onto duplitized print stock with emulsion on both sides with a dye in between that blocks the light and allows the red and blue-green records to be printed on each side in sync without interference.

    There were quite a few of these processes.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by tiberiustibz View Post
    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.

    edit: AHA! http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/kinemaco.htm
    That would be Kinemacolor. National Cash Register in Dayton, Ohio had a in-house Kinemacolor plant to make educational and sales films for their brass cash registers back in the 1910's.

    They even shot color film of the Wright Brothers flying their airplane around Dayton, but bulldozed the film vault with the theater in 1984 to make way for an... empty field.

    The mind boggles at what might have been in that vault...

  3. #33
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,863
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    That's true, but I sure wouldn't want a dyslexic flying an airplane.
    It would not make a difference. Dyslexics flip around the out of place parts in their brains so fast, you cannot detect the time it took to make the correction.

    Would you rather have the inarticulateness and stupidity of Baby Bush?

    Steve
    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.

  4. #34
    DanielStone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,031
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Would you rather have the inarticulateness and stupidity of Baby Bush?

    Steve
    bush flew planes, maybe only for the reserves, but he flew. his dad IIRC, flew in combat in WWII.

    regrettably, he made some poor decisions. Just as everyone, even me(I make quite a few gaffes) does.

    please can we leave politicians out of this forum? You may not like Bush, but there are things that can really get me mad about this current administration(obama).

    photography, not flying or healthcare or politics. of course, unless it restricts our creative freedom or artistic abilities and processes.

    -Dan


  5. #35
    DanielStone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,031
    Images
    1
    btw, I'm not trying to argue with you. just ask.

    thanks

    Dan


  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,091
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by John Shriver View Post
    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 can see why it fell out of favor it sounds asinine.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    I don't think asinine is accurate. Fact is, the process worked and it worked well. Witness some of the older Technicolor films. Often they were beautiful with very rich saturated colors. That's a far cry from the monotonous B&W fare most movie goers were used to, and must have been quite a thrill to see. Despite the high production costs, there were profits to be made and a market demand to fund R&D on better and more efficient processes was created. What's asinine about that?
    Frank Schifano

  8. #38
    robertjonesphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, Minnesota
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4
    As a movie reviewer, a few years back, I saw a projection of the film "Miss Potter," which starred Renee Zellweger as children's book author and illustrator Beatrix Potter. From the moment the opening titles ran, and Zellweger dipped a brush with blue paint into a glass of water, I instantly knew the print was made by Technicolor, because no other process I've seen is capable of rendering that precise hue of royal blue with such luminous clarity. As I watched the rest of the movie, I was likewise astounded by the rich saturation and brilliance of the film's colors. Of course, when the final credits rolled, I was not at all surprised to see "Prints by Technicolor."

    Knowing that they no longer manufactured the old three-color prints, I called Technicolor and was informed by an executive there that they are now using a proprietary photochemical process that recreates the original Technicolor "look" with amazing faithfulness to the Technicolor IB process.

    I have been equally impressed with any number of recent releases printed by Technicolor.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,075
    An important point got lost here - Technicolor was a company and also a series of processes. I'm afraid all are gone now. "Color by Technicolor" simply tells you that they did the processing. The most famous Technicolor process used their patented three strip cameras to produce direct separation negatives on black and white stock. These were printed by a dye transfer process onto the release film. This process did not need masking to produce reasonably accurate color. Many variations on this process were also used. Later in its history, Technicolor made separations from color negative (or sometimes even positive) film and printed them by the same method. I've heard that masking was used to produce the separations on some of these, but that seems like a very difficult process. The color quality of this work seems to be quite variable. Late in its life Technicolor even made direct color prints, like what is done today. An interesting sideline (not much used, unfortunately) was to make separation black and white films from color negatives for archival purposes.

  10. #40
    dr5chrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    448
    Images
    12
    From a direct copy 'film to film' aspect Pos-pos of coarse would not be a good method of reproduction. "The Print" from negative film stock was easier adapted for cine use due to obvious reasons. Also, the 'shooting latitude' is broader with neg stock in cine use. Neg stock became the standard due to the copy aspect even though positive stock is and was preferred by most cinematographers [we have several Hollywood clients]. Cinematographers not worried about short exposure latitude call us all the time for small B&W projects. Without the latitude issues, today positive stock produces a better image on screen & simply because the positive stock is easier to scan into post. The lack of positive services in the cine industry is the lack of use, not quality. EVERYTHING in cine today is scanned into post, so once the original is shot and scanned it is never used again. We're not in Kansas anymore...

    dw


    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    To reproduce accurate color, the capture process needs to include some method of masking to correct for unwanted color absorptions of the dyes. No positive system, to my knowledge, uses one. IDK if Technicolor did.

    But, in addition to that, Pos-Pos reproduction is a "lossy" system that compresses data in the toe and shoulder during the print process. Neg-Pos processes are not and therefore survive multiple duplications without loss.

    So, in regard to the OP, the color is not more accurate, but rather less accurate from a color rendition and a tone scale standpoint.

    PE

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin