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.
Originally Posted by Rhodes
There were quite a few of these processes.
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.
Originally Posted by tiberiustibz
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...
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.
Originally Posted by fschifano
Would you rather have the inarticulateness and stupidity of Baby Bush?
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.
bush flew planes, maybe only for the reserves, but he flew. his dad IIRC, flew in combat in WWII.
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
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.
btw, I'm not trying to argue with you. just ask.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I can see why it fell out of favor it sounds asinine.
Originally Posted by John Shriver
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?
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.
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.
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...
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer