Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,550   Posts: 1,573,073   Online: 813
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    Chris Nielsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Waikato, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    490
    Images
    22
    Since you're talking about cine film, maybe you could answer a nagging question for me... I recently watched the 5 Dirty Harry movies back to back. These span from 1971 to 1989 and it was interesting looking at the different "looks" the films from the different years had. The 1976 movie just "looked" 70s but the 1983 one looked just like modern films. Any idea what happened in between 1976 and 1983 to the movie films they used? Seemed like completely different looks and I assume some revolution happened at Kodak :-)

    cheers

  2. #12
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,804
    Images
    60
    Chris:

    Did you watch the movies in a movie theatre, or were they on videotape or DVD (or...)?

    If in a movie theatre, the quality of the prints used could vary wildly. If the prints were made from something other than the original masters (most likely) you could also get a wide variety of results.

    If the movies had been transferred to video, the quality of the original source, and the duplication process itself can certainly affect the results.

    I won't comment on what watching 5 Dirty Harry movies back to back might have done to your powers of perception .

    Have you ever seen a good print of Gone With the Wind or The Wizard of Oz? Those films are old, but when the prints are good, they are still pretty impressive.

    Matt

  3. #13
    Chris Nielsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Waikato, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    490
    Images
    22
    Umm, I watched them on DVD.. What I was meaning was the older movies had a sort of 60's or 70's movie look to them, dunno what it was, maybe the colour or contrast? They certainly looked very different to each other. Cool movies though, and aside from any deleterious effects watching all five at the same time had on me, it was very interesting to compare them. The first 2 were just awesome, and the quality of the final 3 sort of tapered off, much like Clint Eastwood's career

  4. #14
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    I know that aroundabouts 1983 kodak switched couplers and made films much more stable. Before that films typically faded quickly, sometimes within a year. Either the prints faded or the film stock looked different, or both.

    That's why technicolor dye transfer prints were irreplaceable: they were archival. The Wizard of Oz does not fade, but many movies made 30 years later did. Another example of quality versus convenience.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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