Also, re:my color quesiton
Steve Carras
white 1 to 36, and color 37 to 98) (the original1960s series)(1965-67). I
meant to add that to my comment about Ace Ventura (the first one) and Blue
Crush. I assume it's Metrocolor or something since United Artists, whose then
sister company M-G-M owned Metrocolor did the processing but it doesn't say..
===========================================================
"It isn't enough I have to take care of TWO babies!"-from ICE AGE
Peter
>>
I assume it's Metrocolor or something since United Artists, whose then sister
company M-G-M owned Metrocolor did the processing but it doesn't say.
>>
Before its acquisition by MGM, UA used DeLuxe for most of the films it
distributed.
Peter
>>
My memory tells me that it was about 50-50 between DeLuxe and Technicolor. And
my memory also tells me that invariably Technicolor looked far superior. And my
memory could be totally wrong.
>>
You're not wrong, Marty.
Domestic productions were DeLuxe as for prints. The domestic negatives could
have been either DeLuxe or Technicolor.
Foreign productions were Technicolor for the negatives and foreign distribution
prints. The domestic prints could be either DeLuxe or Technicolor.
As usual, Tech's quality was nearly always superior to DeLuxe's.
Then again, my memory could be completely faulty.
Peter
>>
At UA the 50s belonged to Technicolor ...
>>
Certainly up to 1955 as a lot of UA's color product was Three-Strip in the U.S,
and probably 99.44 percent of UA's foreign (read: UK) color product was
Three-Strip.
>>
... with DeLuxe showing up around 1960 and during
that decade I seem to recall that it was about even.
>>
1960 is about when DeLuxe became a "full service" lab.
Before that time, all 16mm and wide gauge color films were sent out to
Technicolor.
The 16mm prints were dye-transfer; the wide gauge films were, of course,
Eastmancolor GPP (Guaranteed-to-fade Positive Prints). GPP is the well-known
predecessor to LPP ;-)
Remember, DeLuxe's 35mm print runs for Films Incorporated were dye-transfer (as
were all of DeLuxe's 16mm films for the same organization),.
And, before DeLuxe had a substantial presence overseas, Technicolor did
DeLuxe's work there, presumably by dye-transfer.
We all remember that SW had dye-transfer prints in Europe, right?
>>
DeLuxe got a bigger share in the seventies and by the eighties nobody gave a
big rat's ass because they were all doing high speed Eastman prints.
>>
That's about the size of it.
DeLuxe seemed to get end-to-end contracts from UA and Fox.
But, DeLuxe ceased to be a Fox subsidiary with the merger of DeLuxe into
General Film Labs, thereafter doing business as DeLuxe-General (still "Color by
DeLuxe", of course).
DeLuxe also got work from Paramount as early as 1958, although not very much.
JohnW248
peter...@aol.communicate (Peter) writes:
>But, DeLuxe ceased to be a Fox subsidiary with the merger of DeLuxe into
>General Film Labs, thereafter doing business as DeLuxe-General (still "Color
>by
>DeLuxe", of course).
No, Deluxe was still owned by Fox into the 1990's.
John
Eric Grayson
Bond films are in Technicolor, all the Pink Panther/Shot in the Dark films
are in Technicolor, and most of the trailers they made are Eastman/DeLuxe.
There are notable exceptions that I know of: the trailers for From Russia
With Love, You Only Live Twice, and The Pink Panther are Technicolor.
I would assume that their lower budget stuff went through DeLuxe. Most of
the big budget stuff was Technicolor.
Eric
Peter
>>
I would assume that their lower budget stuff went through DeLuxe. Most of the
big budget stuff was Technicolor.
>>
I seem to recall that the Mirish productions, which one would probably classify
as big-budget, went through DeLuxe.
Jeremy Bond Shepherd
<er...@wolftechnical.com> wrote:
>
> Most UA product in 35mm in the 1960s went out through Technicolor. All
the Bond films are in Technicolor, all the Pink Panther/Shot in the Dark films
are in Technicolor
Does that automatically equal imbibition printing?
If a print carries the Technicolor trademark, post-1953, does that necessarily
mean that IB prints were part of the original distribution, or not?
Is other words, if I say "This is Technicolor print", does that always mean
it is an IB Print? Since Technicolor still exists in September, 2003 but IB
printing does not, I assume we can't make the one-on-one correlation. If that's
the case, isn't it imperative to say "This is an IB print" if that is the
point I'm trying to emphasize (rather than the fact that the Technicolor
company manufactured the print?"
- Jeremy
Peter
>>
Does that automatically equal imbibition printing?
If a print carries the Technicolor trademark, post 1953, does that necessarily
mean that IB prints were part of the original distribution, or not?
>>
Nope, not at all!
First, Technicolor made Three-Strip features in 1953 (about 150), 1954 (about
100) and 1955 (about 50). All of these were printed by dye-transfer.
Second, Technicolor processed Eastmancolor negatives in 35mm and 65mm, yet
these films were credited to Technicolor.
All 65/70mm work was printed by Eastmancolor, in all releases.
All wide gauge films of whatever nature (Cinerama, e.g.) were also printed by
Eastmancolor, in its original release.
Technicolor never implemented dye-transfer for other than 35mm, single-rank
16mm (on a 35mm receiver), double-rank 16mm (on a 35/32mm receiver) and perhaps
several variations of 8mm (triple rank?)
Of course, EK and CS perfs were offered, as required.
Most, but by no means all 35mm work was printed by dye-transfer.
Incredibly, "Rear Window" had NO dye-transfer prints in its original release
... meaning the Eastmancolor negative had about 500 passes through
Technicolor's contact printers just to produce those initial prints.
If this title had been printed by dye-transfer, under a dozen passes would have
been required (to produce matrices, etc).
Eric Grayson
Up until about 1970, most 35mm stuff coming out of the Technicolor lab was
dye transfer imbibition. After 1970 and until 1974, it was common for
"large run" titles (over 200 prints) to be made dye transfer, and smaller
run to be Eastman, but usually Fuji. They also used Ferrania stock a lot,
and even used Ferrania stock as a dye transfer receiver in the 1970s.
Thus, we get "small" films like The Conversation with Fuji trailers and,
when it went "big," some theatrical prints were IB.
There are a number of shorts and trailers from Technicolor in the 1960s
that went out in Eastman color.
Martin Hart has indicated otherwise for late 1950s prints, but in general
Technicolor's Eastman processing is notorious for being one of the first to
fade. Their prints become a de-saturated rose color with some occasional
yellows.
Eric
Giovanni Abrate
I remember a copy of Forbidden PLanet that had totally gone greenish.
Giovanni
"Eric Grayson" <er...@wolftechnical.com> wrote in message
news:B99BABC...@192.168.0.32...
> Let me add a little to Peter's statement:
>
> >
Peter
>>
... [ Technicolor ] also used Ferrania stock a lot, and even used Ferrania
stock as a dye transfer receiver in the 1970s.
>>
Technicolor used "competitive" receivers in order to pressure Kodak into
lowering its price of this specialized product.
DuPont in the 1950s, Ferrania in the 1970s.
It's pretty clear that Kodak's products are superior, and even with Technicolor
jerking Kodak around, over several decades, Kodak still came back and made the
receiver for the present day resurrection of dye-transfer.
>>
... in general Technicolor's Eastman processing is notorious for being one of
the first to fade. Their prints become a de-saturated rose color with some
occasional yellows.
>>
Hmmm ... I though DeLuxe had the "lock" on bad quality Eastmancolor printing.
Well, at least Technicolor's Eastmancolor negative processing appears to be
consistently good.
Eric Grayson
>printing.
My informal ranking of labs and color longevity, based only on my
experience, all non-scientific:
From worst to best:
De Luxe
"Perfect" Pathe
Technicolor
Movielab
Metrocolor
Best: Whoever Universal used for 16mm (NOT 35mm) TV printing in the
60s-70s.
My informal ranking of color stocks and color longevity, based on my
experience, all non-scientific:
Non-Eastman color processes (best to worst)
Dye Transfer Technicolor
Kodachrome
Cinecolor
Ektachrome (varies a lot; some bad, some quite good)
Ansco color
Trucolor (Dupont stock)
Eastman-compatible color processes: (best to worst)
Agfa color (all years)
Eastman LPP (1982-1994)
Fuji (1982-)
Fuji (1967-76)
3M
Eastman SP (c. 1976-1982)
Eastman (1968-1974)
Eastman (1953-1957)
And the worst:
Eastman (1958-1962)
Records:
I have seen 1934 Technicolor and 1936 Kodachrome prints with no noticeable
color fading.
I have seen 1982 Eastman SP with no appreciable color left.
Eric
Peter
>>
Best: Whoever Universal used for 16mm (NOT 35mm) TV printing in the 60s-70s.
>>
Perhaps CFI, perhaps Technicolor.
Scott Norwood
Eric Grayson <er...@wolftechnical.com> wrote:
>
>My informal ranking of labs and color longevity, based only on my
>experience, all non-scientific:
>
>From worst to best:
>
>De Luxe
>"Perfect" Pathe
>Technicolor
>Movielab
>Metrocolor
I'd add Foto-Kem and Du Art to the "good" end of the list....
Jeremy Bond Shepherd
peter...@aol.communicate (Peter) wrote:
>
> Nope, not at all!
>
> First, Technicolor made Three-Strip features in 1953 (about 150), 1954
(about 100) and 1955 (about 50). All of these were printed by dye-transfer.
>
> Second, Technicolor processed Eastmancolor negatives in 35mm and 65mm,
yet these films were credited to Technicolor.
>
of Dr. No" merely means that said
print was manufactured by the Technicolor company, nothing more, right?
- Jeremy
Peter
>>
Therefore, the statement "I have a Technicolor print of Dr. No" merely means
that said print was manufactured by the Technicolor company, nothing more,
right?
>>
Pretty much just that.
Although "Dr. No" was a mega-hit for UA, was credited to Technicolor, and had a
large print run for a 1963 film, it is most probable that theatrical prints
were dye-transfer.
TV prints could have been Eastmancolor, however.
Peter
>>
Without question, there is no first generation 70mm print (originated on 65mm
film) that is what I'd consider fit to project. The method I use to evaluate
the retention of any dye layer is to attempt to digitally rebalance the
colors. If there's a trace of any dye layer I can bring it back, but in most
instances the yellow dye is long gone. Negatives are substantially more robust
but they fade as well.
>>
Corners seem to be cut in the washing phase of the Eastmancolor positive prints
... "GPP" in the case of the early 70mm titles.
Eastmancolor negative is a different chemistry entirely.
Labs seem to apply more care to negative and intermediate elements (same
chemistry for all) than they do for positive print elements.
Which seems to be a reasonable cost/benefit tradeoff as the negative and
intermediate elements have to last a lifetime (limited only by the lifetime of
the stock itself) while the positive prints have to last only as long as the
economic lifetime of that specific positive print.
Peter
>>
Were Kodak's statements based on the assumption that negative processing was
being done to perfection?
>>
Yes.
>>
There were some intermediate materials, if I recall correctly, that had an
extremely short life despite using the same chemistry as other emulsions,
indicating that there is more than just the soup and the bathwater involved.
As to what that difference is, I don't know.
>>
CRI ... Color Reversal Intermediate ... was that technology.
It was a different chemistry.
This fatally-flawed process has been abandoned.
>>
And I may be way off base here, but I believe that Fuji and Agfa stocks
supposedly used the same chemistry, yet they fade at a different rate and in
different ways.
>>
Essentially we're down to two chemistries, and numerous products which are
compatible with those respective chemistries: Eastmancolor
negative/intermediate and Eastmancolor positive print.
It is not surprising that Agfa prints fade dramatically less than Eastman's or
Fuji's ... Agfa's corporate predecessor and partners have been in the
dye-making business for a lot longer than has Kodak or anyone else.
JohnW248
<martinB...@widescreenBLOCKmuseum.com> writes:
>And I may be way
>off base here, but I believe that Fuji and Agfa stocks supposedly used
>the same chemistry, yet they fade at a different rate and in different
>ways.
Fuji and Agfa-Gevaert did ultimately use the same processes for developing, but
only after the patents expired on CD-2 (the color developing agent used for
Eastman color). Previous to that, these films used their own process which used
a different color developing agent (and also different couplers) which was
CD-1.
Agfa also used a different method of coating and suspension than Kodak. Eastman
coats by dispersion on alleys from hoppers. Agfa coated (past tense) by bead
much like sound track applicator solutions are applied. Kodak buildings are
long and the film lays on alleys until set, Agfa film moved vertically thru a
building until set. Agfa also used an oil suspension for the elements in the
film.
I don't know what procedure Fuji used, but it was more likely the German
technique than the American.
I don't know the references you make to Kodak's claim about stability, as far
back as I can find, Kodak films have carried a disclaimer/warning about not
being warranted against a change in color. The problem with Eastman color was
that the processes were totally out of Kodak's control. Other companies sold
products (Hunt Chemical for example sold a Code 2 product which could be
substituted for CD-2) and most labs deviated from the Kodak processing guide
lines. Even with in the guide lines, labs could choose between two bleaches for
example. (Either dichromate or ferricynade--neither of which can be used
today.)
Intermediate films did exhibit a different in keeping quality and we often
found that retiming was necessary when pulling old negatives for reprints when
we hit opticals. Also there were differences in printing reduction CRI's from
35mm negatives in that timing that produced a good 35mm positive print would
not track properly onto the CRI stock (due to differences in the films curves).
There was also an intermediate material which was processed thru the positive
ECP-1 process which was 7270. It did require a different color developer time.
One of the overlooked tanks in developing was the stabilizer. In the ECP
process it was water, photoflo and formalyn. It would get diluted during the
run and since it was so simple, it usually didn't have a replenisher tank and
the operator added photoflo and formalyn as they saw fit. The negative
materials in ECN required a different stabilizer which was more complicated and
thus was replenished.
The CRI process was basically a modification of the Ektachrome ME-4/ECO
process. All of the materials that went thru ECN and CRI-1 used CD-3 and the
associated couplers which were similar to Ektachrome, thus they will have
different keeping qualities.
John
David Mullen
processed and stored properly. Dye stability in PRINT stocks was never as
good, although that was also improved in the early 1980's.
The trouble was the most original negatives were never stored properly since
Eastmancolor negative first was introduced. And many were worn out by
overprinting.
Figures for current dye stability in color negatives is something like
300-500 years for the least stable dye layer to fade by 10% if stored
properly. But I think if the pre-1980 Eastmancolor negatives were stored at
room temperature, the least stable dye layer took only ten years to fade by
10% -- one percent a year.
David Mullen
David Mullen
>back into the early 70s. I forget a lot of the details but this was when
>people first started making noise about ten year old 70mm prints that
>were unfit for projection.
I vaguely recall someone who sued Kodak around that time because his
collection of Kodacolor prints of his family had faded so badly in just a
decade. Perhaps that was the reason for the disclaimer.
David Mullen
CPJ_II
> john...@aol.com says:
>
> > I don't know the references you make to Kodak's claim about stability, as far
> > back as I can find, Kodak films have carried a disclaimer/warning about not
> > being warranted against a change in color. The problem with Eastman color was
> > that the processes were totally out of Kodak's control.
>
> back into the early 70s. I forget a lot of the details but this was when
> people first started making noise about ten year old 70mm prints that
> his negatives were fading. Essentially what was stated at that time was
> that it's okay for prints to fade, they have a finite life, but don't
> worry about the negatives, they're really really stable. That's not the
> exact wording but it's damned sure the context of the statements made at
> that time. Also state at that time by Kodak was that they could produce
> print stocks that were much more fade resistant but the suits didn't want
> to pay extra for it. Now that I think about it, the whole thing may have
> been stirred up by Tech's announcement that the dye transfer line was
> shutting down.
>
> I appreciate everyone's input, it has helped my understanding.
I do remember that when "My Fair Lady" was rereleased in the early 70s
what a disappointment the (obviously old/original) print in Toronto was
-- the reds had already turned brown and the visual dazzle of the
original (which I'd seen several times in 64/65) was completely gone.
It was very depressing.
Does anyone know if even a _few_ new 70mm prints were struck for that
rerelease? I find it hard to believe Warner Bros would have had the
nerve to show anything _that_ bad looking in LA or New York. OTOH, I
realize the original negative may have already deteriored by the 70s to
an extent making it difficult to strike fresh prints that looked as good
as the 64 prints when they were new.
I didn't see "MFL" with decent color until acquiring the DVD of Robert
Harris' restoration (the early 90s laserdisc was an atrocity).
C.
Ed Ellers
"I've never seen any noticeable color fading on any dye transfer Technicolor
or Kodachrome, regardless of age."
Supposedly the first versions of Kodachrome, introduced in 1935, were
somewhat prone to fading, but this was fixed (by accident) in 1938 when
Kodak switched to a different set of dyes. The National Geographic Society
has some pre-1938 Kodachrome slides that, by 1938, were significantly faded;
in the National Geographic anniversary issue that year there is an example
of a faded 1937 slide, shown next to the same picture as printed in '37
(copied from the printed page).
Daniel P. B. Smith
"David Mullen" <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
The disclaimers, at least on color film for consumers--e.g. Kodacolor in
size 127 that I put in my Baby Brownie Reflex--were definitely on the
yellow boxes even in the fifties. And I think they were on the
envelopes the prints came in, in the days when the price included
processing so virtually all processing was by Kodak.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbs...@theworld.com
Ed Ellers
"Prior to the introduction of Kodachrome color reversal film, the name had
been applied to a two-color motion picture system that was somewhat similar
to two-color Technicolor."
And, before that, to a dye-grain process for still photography marketed
before World War I that was basically a copy of the Lumiere Autochrome
process. (Which probably explains why they called it Kodachrome, rather
than Kodacolor.) Another oddity is that, in the 1930s, Kodak bought a
quantity of Dufaycolor lenticular stock (uncut and without emulsion, but
with the filter stripes) so that they could quickly introduce a lenticular
film if the Mannes-Godowsky project didn't work out.
Steve Carras
used Eastmancolor (well it does say Eastman color films and no lab is
credited), "Gilligan" was done by DeLuxe though no lab is credited in the
credits (referring ONLY to the good original 1960s series) and some Hawaiian
Lab with an unpronounceable (to us mainlanders) name processed BLUE CRUSH.
Usually it's a piece of cake to see who's processed modern day Universal (BLUE
CRUSH producer) films---COLOR BY DELUXE with some exceptions. That was the
subject I was starting these few threads with>Thanks anyway for the answers.
"Holy Shi--take mushrooms"-SPY KIDS
This is the 25th. year of the death of music's greatest contributor, Bing
Crosby.Simply the biggest contributor. For many more details, please
read GARY GIDDINS'' bestseller, A POCKETFUL OF DREAMS,-chapter
ONE!!
Scott Dorsey
> ... and some Hawaiian
>Lab with an unpronounceable (to us mainlanders) name processed BLUE CRUSH.
What lab was this? When I was doing surf films there, nobody on Oahu
was doing decent processing and most folks shipped stuff out to W.A. Palmer.
There was some guy with an ME-4 machine out on Mapunapuna and the Kodak lab
and that was about it that I can remember.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Eric Grayson
(or any Bond feature) that were Eastman color from any lab. All of the
prints I know of were 35mm dye transfer from Technicolor.
Most of the time that a collector refers to a Technicolor print, he is
referring to a dye transfer print. A person in the film industry today
would refer to a print manufactured by Technicolor, which is not
necessarily dye transfer or Eastman.
Eric (who has a Technicolor print of Dr. No)