Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!msb
From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: First Color Films
Message-ID: <613@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 18:41:14 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.613
Posted: Fri Apr 19 18:41:14 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 19:21:31 EST
References: <556@cornell.UUCP> <1315@yale.ARPA> <4651@ucla-cs.ARPA> <1814@zehntel.UUCP> <539@spp2.UUCP> <4827@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Reply-To: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Distribution: net
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 21
Summary: Hand painting and Hitchcock - query

reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher) writes:

> Hand painting came in two flavors: tinting and toning.  In tinting, some
> poor shmuck had to individually apply color to individual frames of the
> negative after exposure.  Toning merely required dumping the whole negative
> in a bath of dye.  In rare cases, tinting was done to the level of applying
> individual colors to objects in the film.  ...

One of Alfred Hitchcock's 1940's films ends with a gunshot directly at the
camera.  (Film identified in rot13 on the last line, to avoid risk of spoiling.)
I've seen it twice; once was on black and white TV, and I don't remember
where the other time was.  But I think I recall reading that that gunshot
was tinted.  Perhaps it was tinted only in the original release prints and
there are now prints where it isn't.

Can anybody confirm or deny this?  If true, would this be the last use of
tinting ever?

Mark Brader

gur svyz v'z gnyxvat nobhg vf fcryyobhaq, fgneevat tertbel crpx