From: Richard Knoppow (dickburk@ix.netcom.com)
Date: 09/07/01-08:46:48 PM Z
At 04:47 PM 09/07/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>>>FWIW, there were two parts to Technicolor. One was the use of a special
>>>three-color color separation camera to make the negatives. The second
>part
>>>was the printing method, essentially identical to the dye-transfer
>process
>>>for still photography.
>
>True, with a minor nit pick. Technicolor went through different types of
>systems. for example, there was a 2-strip process (1915-1916) as well.
>there were also several other Technicolor Processes that were quite
>interesting.
>
Technicolor history is covered, at least to a certain extent in a couple
of articles from the Journal of the SMPTE which are to be found on the
internet on a web site dedicated to wide screen processes. I can no longer
remember the URL but a search for "Cinerama" will find it.
There are some other sources of much more technical information.
At least some of my info came directly from active or retired Technicolor
exectuives I knew some years ago.
Technicolor's first successful (though not very) process was two color
using bi-pack film and dye imbibition printing. The original version of the
Warner Btother's film "The Wax Museum" was in this process. I saw an
original issue print some time ago. It was quite beautiful, but rather low
saturation giving it a dream like qualilty. The low saturation was
delibrate to compensate for the color inaccuracy, which was quite evident.
The choice of the two colors was made to reproduce caucation skin
reasonable well.
>>>The beam-splitter cameras were discontinued in 1951 in favor of
>originals
>>>made on color negative film. Technicolor had been looking for some
>means of
>>>eliminating the color separation cameras for years before this. They
>were
>>>expensive, difficult to use, slow and were available only in limited
>>>numbers. Technicolor lost business because the cameras had to be
>reserved
>>>well in advance and might not be available for retakes after principle
>>>photography. Producers also didn't like being so much in the hands of
>>>Technicolor as the use of these special cameras made them.
>
>Actually, in 1955, Technicolor introduced Process #5, it was also
>3-strip; 4-strip if you include the Black Printer. To be completely
>accurate, Technicolor has been introduced; again, 3-strip IB. The reason?
>Nothing better. BTW: Producers had little problems getting the cameras
>they needed and technicolor was the standard system used to shoot
>hundreds of films. Walt Disney owned one snd shot hundreds of cartoons in
>Technicolor.
>
Disney never use beam splitter cameras. They used ordinary animation
cameras with filter wheels. They shot all three colors on one strip of film
which was step printed to make the separations. This is one reason Disney
cartoons (and Warner Cartoons too) print well now: there is no problem with
differential shrinkage and conseqent mis-registration, as is common when
trying to reprint from three-strip camera originals.
As far as camera shortages the story is in both Herbert Kalmus article,
mentioned above and gotten first hand from D.P's who worked with it. An
example is "African Queen", made mostly on location in Africa. There were
only _three_ technicolor cameras available in Europe/Great Britian, and
shooting scheduals had to be adjusted around when a camera would be
available.
In the US there were similar problems. The big studios could get cameras
when they wanted, independant producers could not.
Technicolor supplied not only the camera but a cameraman who was a sort
of second DP. Plus a consultant. While Herbert Kalmus's wife, Natalie, gets
credit for every movie, that credit is the result of a divorce settlement
(she was an awful person) and someone else did the actual cosulting. _That_
person got a smaller credit in later movies.
I got conflicting storys about the use of the gray key. One person told
me it was used only for a couple of years after the three-color process was
first released, the other, and equally authoritative, said that it was used
as long as the beam splitter cameras were in use.
I believe that the gray key must have been used into the 1940's. My
reason is that when an early print goes to black (to use a TV term) the
color stayes fairly neutral and the black density is very great. Fades in
later IB prints are apt to go blue and become desaturated. I suspect these
are prints made without the key. There may be some other explaination.
Technicolor was constantly fiddling with the process and used many
different combinations of dyes. They had an especial problem from the time
of the outbreak of war in Europe since all their dyes came from Germany.
Post 1939 they had to find replacements. I gathered from private
conversaions they were really never satisfied with the replacements.
>>>The imbibtion printing process (Technicolor's name for it) was
>>>continued until about the late 1970's. The reason was simply that it
>had
>>>become uneconomical.
>
>True, uneconomical compared to modern color negative stocks. The name is
>still Technicolor IB. The name was never dropped. Technicolor was
>Technicolor and it was all Dye Imbibtion (IB) excepting their other
>processes that were not IB..
>
Technicolor movies were branded "Color by Technicolor" when the beam
splitter cameras were used. Later they were branded "Print by Technicolor"
but I am not sure if the first brand was not continued for IB prints.
Certainly the second was used for chromogenic prints, although I remember
that "2001; A Space Odysey" said "In Technicolor and Metrocolor" on it.
Both labs made the 70mm prints.
>>>The plant which made them was getting very old and
>>>wearing out and could not compete for speed with printing using
>>>chromogenic film. There may have been other problems, perhaps
>invironmental
>>>ones although that was a pretty early date for that.
>>>The dye-imbibition printing process becomes very economical for very
>>>large runs of prints. At the time it was discontinued feature pictures
>were
>>>generally printed in quantities of a few hundred at most. The price
>break
>>>for Technicolor came at 200 prints.
>
>Yup, cost was indeed a factor. These day, it is economical to use the
>process, although still costly.
>
I have no idea what the cost is now. The $200 break point is from my
memory of lab catalogues of the time. There is a "tooling" cost for IB
which is then spread out over the number of prints to be made. Rather a
large number of prints can be made from a single set of IB matrices. There
is still conventional processing involved if an optical sound track is
required since it must be printed and processed on the support separately.
>>>Technicolor is now trying to revive the imbibtion process, using new
>>>materials which are more enivironmentally friendly than the original
>>>>>process. Current practice for Hollywood feature pictures is to make
>>>thousands of prints, so the process is potentially quite competitive.
>The
>>>new prints are excellent. Its hard to compare them to the old prints
>>>because the original films are different.
>>>IMHO, Technicolor's quality for conventional chromogenic prints has
>been
>>>mediocre for some time. These days release prints may be made by more
>than
>>>one lab so sometimes its possible to compare. At least from my
>observation
>>>(which is limited ) labs like Deluxe do a better job. This may be
>another
>>>reason that Tech is trying to resurect the old process.
>
>Technicolor is a very large player in the printing and distribution end
>of the business. Perhaps they are now the largest.
>
I don't know if they are the largest. The big guys are Technicolor,
Deluxe, CFI. all of whome make many thousands of prints every day.
>>>I agree, that when done right, the Technicolor dye-imbibition process
>>>looks better than chromogenic prints, but the difference is less now
>than
>>>when the processe was discontinued.
>
>Actually, if you ever get a chance to see an actual Technicolor print, do
>so. They are terrific. I am glad it is back; although in a limited
>fashion.
>
I agree. I've seen hundreds of original issue prints from either the UCLA
archive or from studio collections. They are unique and IMHO only in the
last couple of years have chromogenic prints caught up.
>>>The color of late 1930's to late 1940's Technicolor pictures, made with
>>>the old type cameras, are astonishing. Its getting hard to see
>originals
>>>anymore because they were all on nitrate stock, now getting very
>brittle
>>>plus there are few places with the necessary fire safety equipment to
>>>project nitrate. The dyes used were azo dyes with very good fading
>resistanc
>
>Not true. Not every Technicolor film was on Nitrate film. And, if you
>want to see the actual film material, search eBay. From time to time you
>can find films listed that are true IB.
>
>HCM
>
I don't know how many IB prints were made on safety stock in the beam
splitter days. Nitrate was discontinued in the US the same year the beam
splitter camera was discontinued.
A large number of prints were made on safety stock during the 1940's
mostly experimentally. The stock available then was no considered very
satsifactory by Hollywood, mainly because it tended to be turbid.
In fact, nitrate has very good optical properties and fairly good
mechanical ones. Its great shortcoming is chemical instability and
inflamibility. It now turns out that acetate stock is no better from a
longevity standpoint although it never becomes explosive the was
decomposing nitrate does.
The moral of the story is that newer is not necessarily better (as alt
processes people ought to know).
---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles,Ca. dickburk@ix.netcom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/01/01-01:41:32 PM Z CST