Talk:Technicolor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Technicolor article.
Article policies
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Natalie Kalmus

"One major drawback of Technicolor's 3-strip process was that it required a special Technicolor camera. Film studios were never allowed to buy these cameras. Instead they had to hire them from the Technicolor Corporation, complete with a number of camera technicians and a 'color coordinator', more often than not, Natalie Kalmus herself. Natalie's name appears in the credits of virtually every Technicolor film made to 1950, in spite of the fact that she was frequently banned from film sets because her concept of color coordination usually differed from that of the artistic directors."

I can only guess that Natalie Kalmus was the wife or daughter of Dr. Herbert Kalmus. This should be made clear. TheMadBaron 07:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The article says "... wife of Herbert Kalmus". She was actually his ex wife.

[edit] Whitney article

The John Hay Whitney article should be truncated, with any important information of that article grafted to the Technicolor one. It should not be deleted, as it is important information to that main article, but it does go on too much of a tangent about the process itself. The Whitney article should list briefly his involvement. Thephotoplayer 21:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert Kalmus redirect?

Why does Herbert Kalmus redirect to here? He should get his own biographical article with a link. --jacobolus (t) 02:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, I've created a separate article for him: Herbert Kalmus. Feel free to add more info to it, as it's pretty minimal right now. -- Bovineone 04:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vomit?

There's no need for the "Technicolor Yawn" reference. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I'll end up deleting it tonight.

Agreed. This reference does not contribute to the main focus of the article at all. Cintrom 14:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate title

Technicolor was incorporated in 1915 as the Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation. — Walloon 21:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation was only Technicolor as a film producer (Gulf Between and Toll of the Sea). The labs may have originally incorporated that way, but by the end of the 1920s, the firm was simply "Technicolor Corps., Inc."The Photoplayer 06:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
From the official corporate history, issued on their 90th Anniversary: "In November of 1915, the Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation was officially established." Scientific or Technical Academy Awards went to "Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation" in 1932, 1940 and 1953. A 1942 article by Winton Hoch says that he is with "Technicolor Motion Picture Corp., Hollywood, Calif." The same article (p. 11) refers to "Dr. Herbert T. Kalmus, President of Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation". — Walloon 06:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. I just looked at a trade ad from 1953 and it does indeed say "Motion Picture Corporation". I was confusing it with "Technicolor, Inc.", the labs, which were a subsidiary.The Photoplayer 17:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Technicolor different from Warnercolor?

Is Technicolor at all the same thing as Warnercolor? I understand that The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima, was filmed in 1952 in Warnercolor instead of Technicolor. How do these processes differ? What made one process more appealing than the other? Was it simply the matter of cost, and that's it?

I assume that similar results in film processing were arrived at, regardless of the patented method employed, so it must be a matter of cost more than anything else.

WarnerColor was not the same thing as Technicolor. Technicolor used a dye transfer process (read the article) to mechanically create the image from printing matrices, like lithography; while WarnerColor, introduced in 1952, used Eastmancolor print stock to create prints photochemically, just as the color negatives from still photos are used to create color prints. The dye transfer process cost more, but gave unquestionablly better color quality, and the metal-based dyes did not fade; while the photochemical dyes in WarnerColor prints shifted badly toward pink with purple shadows in as little as five years. One film historian called WarnerColor prints "the worst looking prints in the history of motion pictures". By the mid-1950s, Warner Bros. shut down their film labs and went back to Technicolor, even though they continued to use "WarnerColor" in the credits for several years. — Walloon 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Savage Passions and Song of the Flame

What evidence is there that Savage Passions (1927) was photographed in Technicolor? The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures doesn't even know the production company or distributor of this obscure feature.

As for Song of the Flame, is there any authoritative source that says this was photographed in 65 mm? All I find is a plot description in the Internet Movie Database that claims so (and another website that reprints that plot description). The AFI Catalog says nothing about a widescreen process for that movie. — Walloon 17:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


The Variety film review for "Song of the Flame" on May 14, 1930 states:
""At one time film goes to the wide screen for a pleasant festival and this looks quite nice, with the :staging here as otherwise with numbers happily handled by Jack Haskell." It also states that the film :was "All Technicolor." I will have to recheck the review on "Savage Passions."
There are numerous problems with the AFI Catalog: 1921-1930. It's by far the weakest of
the lot. There are something like 75 features not included, numerous synopses
are wrong, and cast and credits are frequently incomplete. 24.6.23.248 19:18, 10 :July 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with you, volume F2 (Feature Films, 1921-1930) is the weakest of the series, but the second volume they put out, F6 (Feature Films, 1961-1970) isn't much better. I wish that they would redo both volumes, at least for their online version of the catalog, using the standards they employed for the subsequent volumes. — Walloon 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Economics

The paragraph about Technicolor's decline in the 1970s seems to contradict the later representation of the article about Technicolor's decline. According to the National Association of Theater, while there were fewer paying audiences going to the movies in 1975 than in the previous year, the number of screens in the US was increasing. The increase in the number of prints necessary in a short amount of time (fast-run Eastman prints being made in 300% the time that Technicolor could produce) is what killed Technicolor printing in the '70s (and its revival in the late '90s), NOT the lack of prints needed. Plus, Eastman prints could be struck in numerous laboratories-- Technicolor print could only be struck at their plants. Citation #2 does nothing I can see to substantiate this claim. The Photoplayer 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No reply, so I am ammending this statement. If anyone has some numbers or articles to the contrary, please post it here. The Photoplayer 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shooting Technicolor footage, 1934-1954

Technicolor's advantage over other early, natural color processes was that it was a subtractive synthesis rather than an additive one. Technicolor films could run on any projector; unlike other additive processes, it could represent colors clearly without any special projection equipment or techniques.

Technicolor was not unique in having a subtractive three color process. Rival processes such as Kodachrome, Agfacolor and Gasparcolor were available by 1935. Technicolor's advantage was that their camera produced the finest quality live action color prints which could be printed at that time to the bulk printing requirements (200 plus prints) of that time.

Early in the process, the clear film would be pre-exposed with a 50% density black-and-white positive image derived from the green matrix. This process was used largely to cover up fringing in the early days of three-strip printing, and to print framelines that would otherwise be white. Because the layer was of neutral density, the contrast in the picture was lowered. By the late 1930s, however, Technicolor streamlined the process to make up for these shortcomings and this practice ceased.

I have seen 1939 salmes using the key image. The key INCREASED contrast, crushed shadow detail, whilst reducing the general intensity of the colour image.

The color control that was available in the Technicolor process was even available to cinematographers, and many actors and actresses can recall standing on the set for long periods holding a board of colored squares (known as "The Lily") while the camera technicians balanced the colors in the camera. Conversely, cinematographers using monopack stocks such as Eastman and Ansco were at the mercy of the color balance of the negative stock as supplied, and the laboratory's timing. The Eastman company produced two versions of their film stock, one balanced for studio lighting, the other balanced for daylight. Cinematographers did have a large amount of control using colored filters over the camera lens or even the lighting

I do not understand this feat of 'balancing the color in the camera'. The color was balanced after the camera negative was exposed. The balancing process involved printing the three monochrome negatives with appropriate bias.

--Emitron1 15:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct about the subtractive system.
Fixed the error about the key image (obviously that's what was meant, but it wasn't written very well).
As for balance within the camera, to some extent I suppose it was possible that filters could accurately adjust to a good image, but you can do that with practically any camera in which color film is used, so I've deleted that paragraph. If anyone has a better reason as to why it should be left in, post it here. --The Photoplayer 07:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "About the Technicolor Process" redundant?

Isn't the section "shooting Technicolor footage" redundant? This information is pretty much covered within the HISTORY section. I feel we should merge it, but what do you think? -The Photoplayer 10:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Process 3.5?

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|275px|right|Poster for the film.]] There seems to have another process between 3 and 4 which is not mentioned in the article. In 1931, a new process was used for the film called "The Runaround" released by Radio Pictures (RKO). According to the review (which praises the attractive color of the film) in Variety: "It's the first made under Technicolor's new printing process designed to remove grain, which is does to a degree placing application of tints on a much improved scale."Zosimus Comes 19:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice how the poster for the movie also mentions that the color process is much improved.Zosimus Comes 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
While it's true that the technology was refined in 1931, the process stayed the same-- same camera, same kind of printing. Many small tweaks were performed at Technicolor over the years-- listing them all would be interesting, but merely pointless minutiae. For all intents and purposes, this is still "process 3". - The Photoplayer 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern terminology

The Modern Terminology section refers to "This is, however, incorrect, as 3-Chip camcorders split light into red, green, and blue portions instead of magenta, cyan, and green." Shouldn't it be "instead of magenty, cyan, and yellow"? jhawkinson 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely - it should be yellow. I'll change that now. LACameraman 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toy Story?

Wasn't Toy Story released in 1995? > "After its reintroduction in 1997, the dye transfer process was (somewhat unexpectedly) used in [...] Toy Story." Phil86921 02:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe they're actually referring to Toy Story 2, which was released in 1999. -The Photoplayer 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emulsion flaking?

Under Reintroduction of the dye transfer process, in the second paragraph, after dye bleeding. It doesn't seem to be vandalism but Google can't find the term. I've no clue what it even means, but on the off chance it means something, I'm not going to delete it myself. Could someone who would know if it means anything either delete it or replace it with something more clear? -- Dezro 08:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

SORRY! What I thought was obscenity was the result of a browser plugin run amuk. DISREGARD OR DELETE THIS SECTION. -- Dezro 23:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Technicolor/video comparison

"3CCD camcorders are often erroneously referred to as filming "in Technicolor" due to the similarities to Process 4. This is, however, incorrect, as 3-Chip camcorders split light into red, green, and blue portions instead of magenta, cyan, and yellow."

I believe that this comparison IS accurate, because Technicolor uses RGB in the camera just like video. Magenta, cyan, and yellow do not come into play until the film print is made. You would not split light into magenta, cyan, and yellow because any given photon would expose TWO of those strips, resulting in very dull color. Algr 05:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1990s rewrite

Chemmg, your rewrite is pretty rah-rah about the new process. The previous version was pretty sceptical. Who should I believe? Neither version is reinforced with a single reference. Binksternet 02:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too and am equally tepid. Maybe restore the old version alongside the new version and put up a tag for referencing? Girolamo Savonarola 04:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It was anything BUT successful, particularly in making large runs, which was the reason Technicolor stopped. Having run some of those IB prints myself, I can attest that some of them looked great, but most of them looked and ran horribly. The emulsion flaking was a major problem, and really wasn't solved before it was too late.
Also, I'm puzzled at the use of Azo dyes during the manufacturing process. Technicolor used a number of dyes, mostly sulfuric in nature, which perhaps should be expanded upon in the article. The yellow layer was comprised of Anthracene Yellow, the cyan of Pontacyl Green and Fast Acid Green, and the magenta of Acid Magenta and Fast Red. It should be noted that Pontacyl Green and Fast Red was the original combination of dyes for the two-color system.The Photoplayer 18:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but whatever stays or is restored must have citations. Girolamo Savonarola 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Foxfire1.jpg

Image:Foxfire1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WizardOfOzTechnicolor.jpg

Image:WizardOfOzTechnicolor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ColorFD.jpg

Image:ColorFD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Dye transfer" or "dye-transfer"?

Should this be hyphenated. The article is not consistent. jhawkinson (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My grammar days are somewhat foggy, but I believe that the answer depends on whether it's used as an adjective or not. (The former being hyphenated.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Certainly , yes, if its a compound noun, then the adjectival form is hyphenated ("dye-transfer"). That doesn't advise whether the noun form should hyphenated though... jhawkinson (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As an example, I believe that "the print was a dye transfer" and "it was a dye-transfer print" are both correct. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it depends on whether it's being used as a noun or adjective. — Walloon (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)