Old school color imaging!

[stacey]

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html

I thought this was interesting..
--

Stacey

[Rafe B.]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:02:52 -0800, David Nebenzahl
> wrote:

>On 1/15/2004 11:21 PM stacey spake thus:
>
>> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html
>>
>> I thought this was interesting..
>
>Interesting? ****--it's spectacular! Turn-of-the century color images that
>rival anything done today. Thanks for posting that.


As long as the basic information is there -- in this case
good plates of each of the three primary colors -- then
the original color, or representation thereof, can be
reconstructed in a number of ways.

The only limitation with this outfit is the same one
that applies to scanning backs -- it would require
very still subjects.

IIRC, technicolor (cine) film was based on exactly
the same principle - three BW frames each shot
using a different primary-color filter.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

[Scott Norwood]

In article >,
Rafe B. > wrote:
>
>IIRC, technicolor (cine) film was based on exactly
>the same principle - three BW frames each shot
>using a different primary-color filter.

The original (and best) 3-color process did indeed use a three-strip
camera with prisms and filters and three rolls of B&W film. These
individual color records were reconsituted in the dye-transfer
printing process. When these films are printed now, there are
sometimes issues with differential shrinkage of the film elements,
resulting in color fringing around the edges of objects.

When Eastmancolor negative became available in the 1950s, Technicolor
(the company) developed a means for making dye-transfer prints from
Eastmancolor (single-strip) camera negatives, and the 3-strip
process died a quick death, due to its extra complexity and expense.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 1/16/2004 4:45 AM Rafe B. spake thus:

> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:02:52 -0800, David Nebenzahl
> > wrote:
>
>>On 1/15/2004 11:21 PM stacey spake thus:
>>
>>> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html
>>>
>>> I thought this was interesting..
>>
>>Interesting? ****--it's spectacular! Turn-of-the century color images that
>>rival anything done today. Thanks for posting that.
>
> As long as the basic information is there -- in this case
> good plates of each of the three primary colors -- then
> the original color, or representation thereof, can be
> reconstructed in a number of ways.
>
> The only limitation with this outfit is the same one
> that applies to scanning backs -- it would require
> very still subjects.

Yes--which is why, I think, that the second picture (of the boatman with the
river in the background) shows a shimmery "rainbow" effect on the water: this
must be due to the very slight delay between exposures. Kewl!


--
Focus: A very overrated feature.

- From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras
(http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm)

[Willhelm]

I didn't know that panchromatic sensitive film (plates) was available then.

[Ron Todd]

On 16 Jan 2004 14:01:43 -0800, (Willhelm) wrote:

>I didn't know that panchromatic sensitive film (plates) was available then.

Secondary reference, Panchromatic film was developed in 1903.

http://crookedtrunk.com/Photo/PhotoEssays/



Best Regards.

*****************************************
Boycott list:

Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, PRC, Iran, Syria,
Hollywood, San Francisco, Massachusetts, New York City, Sierra Club, ACLU,
Movies of the first blacklist, Turner, Madonna, S. Crowe, Dixie Chicks, Cher, U2, rapp,
Trudeau, W.Miller, Disney, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, CNN, PBS, B&H Photo Video, Heinz
Foods, Ontario & Quebec provinces,

Sometimes the only influence you have is to say, "No, I'm not buying."

For those who are unclear about the situation, California is the Clinton - Davis model for the rest of the United States of America.

[Jean-David Beyer]

Willhelm wrote:
> I didn't know that panchromatic sensitive film (plates) was available then.

Sure: both Ives and Vogel showed how to sensitize plates to colors other
than indigo and blue in the late 19th century. Ives used chlorophyll to
sensitize all the way to yellow in 1879, and used a combination of
chlorophyll and eosine in 1885 to improve sensitivity in the green.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 9:35pm up 10 days, 9:02, 2 users, load average: 2.38, 2.22, 2.11

[stacey]

David Nebenzahl wrote:


>
> Yes--which is why, I think, that the second picture (of the boatman with
> the river in the background) shows a shimmery "rainbow" effect on the
> water: this must be due to the very slight delay between exposures. Kewl!
>

A harris shutter would do the same thing if you like that effect.

--

Stacey

[stacey]

David Nebenzahl wrote:

> On 1/15/2004 11:21 PM stacey spake thus:
>
>> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html
>>
>> I thought this was interesting..
>
> Interesting? ****--it's spectacular! Turn-of-the century color images that
> rival anything done today. Thanks for posting that.
>
>

I espectially liked his 3 color projector!
--

Stacey

[Argon3]

Interestingly, I once read something about what the procedures were in
Hollywood when they worked with the three strip Technicolor cameras...i believe
that the info was in a book about the making of the Wizard of Oz.
The cameras and film magazines were delivered by Technicolor in the morning. A
Technicolor employee stayed with the camera at all times during the day's
shoot. When the work was done, the cameras were returned directly to
Technicolor where the magazines were unloaded, the film processed and the mags
reloaded for the next day. Alot of procedure to insure, I guess, the
proprietary information about the process.

argon

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"Argon3" >

> ... procedures were in Hollywood when they worked with
> ... Technicolor cameras... A Technicolor employee stayed
> with the camera at all times during the day's
> shoot... to insure, I guess, the proprietary
> information about the process.

The inventor's wife was required by contract to be present
as the 'color consultant' - thus guaranteeing a job for
her. This bit of monkey business was even written into
her divorce settlement. She was, apparently, a PITA,
and the studios were much happier if she didn't
show up.

There are many many web pages devoted to Technicolor.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

[Marv Soloff]

That would have been Natalie Kalmus.

Regards,

Marv

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> "Argon3" >
>
>>... procedures were in Hollywood when they worked with
>>... Technicolor cameras... A Technicolor employee stayed
>>with the camera at all times during the day's
>>shoot... to insure, I guess, the proprietary
>>information about the process.
>
>
> The inventor's wife was required by contract to be present
> as the 'color consultant' - thus guaranteeing a job for
> her. This bit of monkey business was even written into
> her divorce settlement. She was, apparently, a PITA,
> and the studios were much happier if she didn't
> show up.
>
> There are many many web pages devoted to Technicolor.
>

[Mike McGuire]

stacey wrote:
> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html
>
> I thought this was interesting..

Actually the technique described here was first demonstrated in the
1860's by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell. The subject was a tartan
ribbon. However a recent examination of the filters he use showed that
he didn't actually get the red exposure he thought he did. The red
filter it turned out had a little transmission in the near ultraviolet,
and the wet plate emulsion had some sensitivity there and the red fibers
in the ribbon had a bit of reflectance there, getting him enought
exposure on the "red" plate.

Another color technique contemporary with Prokudin-Gorskii was Lippman
photography with used a thin film interference approach to record the
color. For this, te inventor, Gabriel Lippman won the Nobel prize for
physics in 1908.

Mike

[Brian Reynolds]

In article >,
stacey > wrote:
>http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html
>
>I thought this was interesting..

This technique is also used today by astronomers (both professional
and amateur) to capture color images using B&W CCD cameras.

Robert Gendler has some how to articles and incredible examples on his
web page <URL:http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/>. His Orion Deep
Field image was Astronomy Picture of the Day a few days ago
<URL:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040115.html>. It's amazing to
think that he took the exposures (20 hours worth) for this picture
from the driveway of his Connecticut home.

--
Brian Reynolds | "But in the new approach, as you know,
| the important thing is to understand
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what you're doing rather than to get
NAR# 54438 | the right answer." -- Tom Lehrer

[Richard Knoppow]

"Nicholas O. Lindan" > wrote in message et>...
> "Argon3" >
>
> > ... procedures were in Hollywood when they worked with
> > ... Technicolor cameras... A Technicolor employee stayed
> > with the camera at all times during the day's
> > shoot... to insure, I guess, the proprietary
> > information about the process.
>
> The inventor's wife was required by contract to be present
> as the 'color consultant' - thus guaranteeing a job for
> her. This bit of monkey business was even written into
> her divorce settlement. She was, apparently, a PITA,
> and the studios were much happier if she didn't
> show up.
>
> There are many many web pages devoted to Technicolor.

This was Natalie Kalmus, the wife of Herbert T. Kalmus, one of the
three founders of Technicolor. Actually Mrs. Kalmus had nothing to do
with any Technicolor production. Her name appeared as Technicolor
director as a result of an agreement as part of the settlement of the
divorce between her and H.T.Kalmus. No one I knew from Technicolor
would talk about her but she was evidently hell on wheels. The actual
representative from Technicolor was the "color consultant" appearing
elsewhere in the credits. Technicolor provided a great deal of
information on lighting and set and costume design to producers. The
cameras were not returned to Techniclor at the end of each day, as
stated in another post but were guarded. The Technicolor rep would
also remove the beam splitters from the camras and sleep with them.
Technicolor was very protective of its process. The lab was arranged
so that employees had specified doors to enter the plant and specified
paths to and from their work stations. Anyone straying was fired on
the spot. Technicolor never had very good relations with its employees
but I am not an expert on the details.
The Technicolor process worked because a lot of people were very
dedicated to making it work. Technicolor experimented for many years
with various attempts at multi-layer film for making originals but was
not successful. It did use special low contrast Kodachrome for some
location work but AFAIK never in the studio. The exteriors of "Shane"
were shot on Kodachrome. The three strip cameras were discontinued in
1951 when the use of Eastmancolor negative, shot in conventional
cameras was adopted. While it did not have quite the same look as the
three strip camera it was much easier to use and much cheaper. Also,
producers liked it because they were no longer dependant on having to
get equipment from Technicolor. Prints made from Eastmancolor on the
Technicolor dye imbibition (dye transfer) process looked better than
chromogenic prints for a very long time. Technicolor discontinued the
imbibition process around the late 1970s. The reason was that the Cole
Avenue plant was wearing out and was no longer economical to operate.
Dye imbibition prints are very economical for very large runs but,
at the time it was discontinued, most feature pictures were printed in
small numbers, often less than 300 prints. Now that release prints are
being made in the thousands Technicolor is trying to re-introduce the
process.
A long article, reprinted from Fortune magazine appears
at:http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/fortune-page01.h

The home site also has many other interesting articles on motion
picture processes.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

[David Nebenzahl]

On 1/18/2004 3:18 AM Richard Knoppow spake thus:

> A long article, reprinted from Fortune magazine appears
> at:http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/fortune-page01.h

Whoops; make that http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/fortune-page01.htm.


--
Focus: A very overrated feature.

- From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras
(http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm)

[Hemi4268]

> It did use special low contrast Kodachrome for some
>location work but AFAIK never in the studio. The exteriors of "Shane"
>were shot on Kodachrome. The three strip cameras were discontinued in
>1951 when the use of Eastmancolor negative, shot in conventional
>cameras was adopted.

Hi Richard

You know, Dr Frances, a MIT Chem Grad and head of the Photo Science Department
at RIT in the mid 70's, swore on a stack of bibles that OZ had at least some
scenes shot on Kodachrome. He had worked for Technicolor in the late 30's.
Story goes that on some days, all the cameras were need for Gone with the Wind
so a single camera loaded with Kodachrome for use on OZ so second unit
production could continue. Also, Kodak at least gave some pressure to use
Kodachrome for first unit production on OZ. Example, that Kodachrome was used
in the B&W to color scene at Kodak's request. Something to do with the 1939
Worlds Fair.

Larry

[Richard Knoppow]

(Hemi4268) wrote in message >...
> > It did use special low contrast Kodachrome for some
> >location work but AFAIK never in the studio. The exteriors of "Shane"
> >were shot on Kodachrome. The three strip cameras were discontinued in
> >1951 when the use of Eastmancolor negative, shot in conventional
> >cameras was adopted.
>
> Hi Richard
>
> You know, Dr Frances, a MIT Chem Grad and head of the Photo Science Department
> at RIT in the mid 70's, swore on a stack of bibles that OZ had at least some
> scenes shot on Kodachrome. He had worked for Technicolor in the late 30's.
> Story goes that on some days, all the cameras were need for Gone with the Wind
> so a single camera loaded with Kodachrome for use on OZ so second unit
> production could continue. Also, Kodak at least gave some pressure to use
> Kodachrome for first unit production on OZ. Example, that Kodachrome was used
> in the B&W to color scene at Kodak's request. Something to do with the 1939
> Worlds Fair.
>
> Larry


This may well be. Technicolor was looking for a method of
eliminating the color separation cameras for years. They tried
stripping film and other methods but did not have success. They
certainly used low contrast Kodachrome for parts of several
productions but I don't know about Wizard of Oz specifically.
There is a book by Dr. Roderick Ryan of Kodak describing many color
processes used in motion pictures. He mentions specifically at least
some of the productions using Kodachrome. This is a hard book to come
by but the Los Angeles public library has a copy so I will have to
find time to look this up.

Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

[Tom]

Wasn't the oridginal Kodachrome a negative film?

--

Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> This may well be. Technicolor was looking for a method of
> eliminating the color separation cameras for years. They tried
> stripping film and other methods but did not have success. They
> certainly used low contrast Kodachrome for parts of several
> productions but I don't know about Wizard of Oz specifically.
> There is a book by Dr. Roderick Ryan of Kodak describing many color
> processes used in motion pictures. He mentions specifically at least
> some of the productions using Kodachrome. This is a hard book to come
> by but the Los Angeles public library has a copy so I will have to
> find time to look this up.

[jjs]

As an aside, does anyone remember the cheap 'dry' color print making
process that enjoyed (?) a brief life in the late sixties or early
seventies? It seemed to work by some electrostatic process. I could be
wrong. It was just so bad that the artists even avoided it.

[Hemi4268]

Hi

One last thing about Kodachrome. I understand most WW2 Combat footage was 35mm
Kodachrome. Just about everything you see on TV of WW2 newsfootage was
originally color but now is in B&W.

After the Kodachrome was processed, a group of B&W dup negatives were made for
release. The B&W positives you see today are from those B&W dup negs.

Just about all D day footage was lost at sea. A year ago or so a bunch of WW2
Kodachrome footage was found. There has been some recent TV presentations
called the "Color of War" made from these lost Kodachromes.

Larry

[Drew Saunders]

In article et>,
"Nicholas O. Lindan" > wrote:

> "Argon3" >
>
> > ... procedures were in Hollywood when they worked with
> > ... Technicolor cameras... A Technicolor employee stayed
> > with the camera at all times during the day's
> > shoot... to insure, I guess, the proprietary
> > information about the process.
>
> The inventor's wife was required by contract to be present
> as the 'color consultant' - thus guaranteeing a job for
> her. This bit of monkey business was even written into
> her divorce settlement. She was, apparently, a PITA,
> and the studios were much happier if she didn't
> show up.
>
> There are many many web pages devoted to Technicolor.

There's an excellent documentary on the history of Technicolor, which is
weak on the technological aspects but contains lots of samples in great
condition, included with the newly released special edition DVD of the
1938 "The Adventures of Robin Hood." They spend a fair bit of time on
the personalities of the inventor and his wife. This is a DVD well worth
owning.

--
Drew W. Saunders

dru (at) stanford (dot) eee dee you

[Richard Knoppow]

"Tom" <tom@localhost> wrote in message
...
> Wasn't the oridginal Kodachrome a negative film?
>
> --
>
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
> >
> > This may well be. Technicolor was looking for a
method of
> > eliminating the color separation cameras for years. They
tried
> > stripping film and other methods but did not have
success. They
> > certainly used low contrast Kodachrome for parts of
several
> > productions but I don't know about Wizard of Oz
specifically.
> > There is a book by Dr. Roderick Ryan of Kodak
describing many color
> > processes used in motion pictures. He mentions
specifically at least
> > some of the productions using Kodachrome. This is a hard
book to come
> > by but the Los Angeles public library has a copy so I
will have to
> > find time to look this up.
>
Kodak used the trade names Kodachrome and Kodacolor long
before the familiar films. The original Kodachrome was a
two-color "Pinatype" process using differentially hardened
emulsions coated on both sides of the support and dyed. The
original Kodacolor was a lenticular process of the type
often called Keller-Dorian. This was a reversal process.
Lenticular processes require only standard panchromatic B&W
emulsions but have several drawbacks. One is the need for a
very fast lens to have the necessary size for the special
striped filter. Out of focus areas of Lenticular color
pictures tend to ahve color fringes. Another problem is
duplicating. Paramount Pictures worked with Kodak to achieve
a practical lenticular method for theatrical motion pictures
during the early 1930's. They were not successful. The
original Kodachrome existed in the 1920's, Kodacolor in the
early 1930's. Both had been discontinued for some time
before the multi-layer films currently made under those
names appeared.
Good sources of information about both of the early
processes are:

_A History of Color Photography_ J.S.Friedman, reprinted by
the Focal Press
_A History of Three Color Photography_ E.J.Wall, also
reprinted by Focal Press.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

[Richard Knoppow]

"Hemi4268" > wrote in message
...
> Hi
>
> One last thing about Kodachrome. I understand most WW2
Combat footage was 35mm
> Kodachrome. Just about everything you see on TV of WW2
newsfootage was
> originally color but now is in B&W.
>
> After the Kodachrome was processed, a group of B&W dup
negatives were made for
> release. The B&W positives you see today are from those
B&W dup negs.
>
> Just about all D day footage was lost at sea. A year ago
or so a bunch of WW2
> Kodachrome footage was found. There has been some recent
TV presentations
> called the "Color of War" made from these lost
Kodachromes.
>
> Larry

History Channel has a continuing series with a title
something like _The War in Color_ , maybe your version of
the title is the correct one, featuring the color footage.
It gives a very different idea than the familiar B&W stuff.
Much more "immediate". Various forms of chromogenic material
were also used, especially for aerial photography. This was
derived from either Kodak Kodacolor from materials made
using siezed Ansco/Agfa patents. Germany also produced some
war footage shot on Agfa film. This has not held up so well
as Kodachrome but there still seems to be a surprizing
amount of it.
I think most of the U.S. footage is actually 16mm not
35mm.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA