Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!reiher
From: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: First Color Films
Message-ID: <5142@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 1-May-85 02:54:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5142
Posted: Wed May  1 02:54:48 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 00:42:41 EDT
References: <4882@ucla-cs.ARPA> <1117@hou5e.UUCP> <130@plx.UUCP> <2197@usceast.UUCP>
Reply-To: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 51
Summary: 

In article <2197@usceast.UUCP> ted@usceast.UUCP (System Programmer) writes:
>One thing I have always wondered about early color films is why we dont't
>get color like that today.  
>
>Is this a concious choice by today's film makers?  Was the technology too 
>expensive to support after the demise of the studio system or what?

Up till the 1950s, the major color process was 3-strip Technicolor (that is,
after it replaced 2-strip Technicolor in the mid-30's).  This process
involved taking 3 different black and white negatives of each frame, one for
each primary color.  The incoming light was passed through prisms and filters
before hitting the negatives.  The three negatives were then processed into
a single positive, called a matrix, which was used to strike prints.  Special
dyes were used to produce the color.  In addition to being richer and warmer
than the dyes used in modern color cinematography, these dyes were extremely
long-lived.  Thus, a color film from the 30s still looks beautiful, while color
prints from the fifties are pallid and faded.  (The red dye fades slowest, so
these faded prints look pink.)

The reason the process went out was that it was (obviously) very expensive.
Special cameras (which were very bulky) were needed, as well as three times
as much negative.  Moreover, Technicolor had troubles photographing certain
colors, so much care was needed to get the color right.  The Technicolor
company had full rights to it, so they required one or two of their 
consultants to work on every film; their job was to force the filmmakers to
use colors, lighting, and contrasts which looked particularly good in
Technicolor.  This was a secondary reason why the films look so good.
It also upped the costs.

Technicolor was so expensive that each studio only did a few color films
each year.  Other color processes were perfected about the same time as
television.  These, while not so beautiful, merely involved film stocks
sensitive to color differences, so they were quite cheap.  Color was thus
used as one more reason to get people away from their TV sets, which couldn't
handle color for some years.  By the late sixties, color technology was so
cheap and audience expectations such that one was making an artistic statement
by not using color.

Technicolor got lost in the shuffle.  It was so expensive that none of the
studio heads wanted to use it.  The Technicolor company came up with its
own single negative color process and phased out its old system.  Currently,
it is impossible to produce colors like those in "Gone With the Wind",
"The Adventures of Robin Hood", and "The Wizard of Oz", because cameras and
processing equipment are no longer available.  There's only one country in
the world which still has the equipment to make 3-strip Technicolor: surprise,
it's the People's Republic of China.  From the Chinese films I've seen, it
looks like they don't use it much.
-- 
        			Peter Reiher
        			reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
        			{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher