Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: IB or Dye Transfer prints?

This is topic IB or Dye Transfer prints? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003837

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-08-2002, 04:50 PM:

I have not heard anyone discuss IB or dye Transfer prints in a very long time. Is Technicolor releasing more prints in dye transfer or has it been scaled back? When "PEARL HARBOR" was in production, Disney had announced that the film was going to be released in as much venues as possible in dye transfer because they wanted the picture quality to have that look of a film that was made in the late thirties and early forties. When the film was released, only a very few prints were released in dye transfer. Even if the print I saw was not dye transfer, I loved the color quality because it did have the look of films that I remember seeing when I was little. I have both the original release and the directors cut of the movie on DVD and I love this film. Getting back to the topic, are they more dye transfer prints out now or are they less? If there are more, can you tell me what they are?

-Claude

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-08-2002, 05:00 PM:

Unfortunately, the lead time needed to make the Technicolor matrices and prints is much longer than standard prints, and today, movies are still being fiddled with until close to release time. That's what happened with Pearl Harbor. And that's one reason why we're not seeing more of these beautiful prints. (MANY scenes in Apocalypse Now Redux looked as sharp and rich as a 70mm blow-up). There also seemed to be a limit of around 200 prints maximum for any given release. I'm not sure if this is still a limitation, though.

Posted by John Anastasio (Member # 607) on 08-08-2002, 09:48 PM:

I think that's around the maximum number of prints you can get out of one set of matrices, which might be the reason.

Posted by Tim Sherman (Member # 569) on 08-09-2002, 02:31 AM:

From what it said on the can and what technicolor told me all of the prints of "Reign of Fire" were IB Dye prints. The reason i noticed this was because we are still for the time being on exciters and from what i heard the analog soundtrack wouldn't sound right on the Dye prints. I was told it would be very quiet and hard to hear anything. Instead i had to turn the gain down a notch, it was louder then all the other films played on that screen. To be honest with you the film itself didn't look any different to me. I thought that the soundtrack on the Dye prints was grey and this one looked black. all of the leaders were labeled as dye too. So was it really a IB Dye like it said and like i was told it was? Did anyone else notice this on this print? Is anyone currently running Reign of Fire?

------------------

http://www.autoramadrivein.com

come on out to the drive-in and spend a night out with the stars"

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-09-2002, 02:33 AM:

I remember reading that the number of prints that could be gotten from a set of Matrices had been either tripled, or quadrupled. Not that 200 isn't the maximum but one can also make more than one set of them at a time too.
MArk

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 08-09-2002, 03:36 AM:

Tim:

I think you are confusing 'IB Tech/Dye Transfer' with 'Cyan Dye' soundtracks.

IB prints use standard silver soundtracks and the tracks will be gray (even the SDDS track if the print has one-thats a dead giveaway of an IB print)

I have not heard anything of the existence of ANY IB prints of 'Reign Of Fire'... Likely the cans were mislabeled. Was your print a low number (below #100 in most cases) and with a green TES label? (another indicator that will assist in finding the answer)

FWIW, all of the 'Reign Of Fire' prints I have handled were standard Eastman prints, NOT IB.

-Aaron

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 08-09-2002, 07:48 AM:

Sad to say, Technicolor is currently claiming the Universal City dye transfer line is "down for retooling" and giving no information as to when it will be up and running again. Despite all the interest from people who appreciate this superior color process, Technicolor has done little to promote widespread use of the revived dye transfer process, and some insiders are now saying that they are trying to quietly bury it again. Even those titles which have seen some dye transfer printing have generally been primarily released in Eastman or equivalent prints with only a few dye transfer prints, which totally defeats the economics of the process depending on larger print runs to offset the cost of the matrices and set up time. Remember, Thomsen who owns Technicolor is primarily in the consumer electronics business, and undoubtedly has a good deal more interest in their extensive VHS and DVD production facilities than in film printing in general. For those not familiar with it, however, you WILL notice a real difference between a dye transfer print and an Eastman print, and the track definitely will be grey, not black.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2002, 08:12 AM:

The "receiver" used for Technicolor dye transfer prints is effectively a special silver-image black-and-white print film. The soundtrack negative (containing analog, DTS, Dolby Digital, and SDDS tracks) is printed onto the film, which is then processed in a B&W developer. The processed film then is brought into contact sequentially with the three dye-carrying matrices (yellow, cyan, magenta). So currently, ALL the soundtracks on a dye-transfer print will be (gray) silver image only.

Here are the recent patents for the technology:

PAT. NO. Title
1 6,327,027 Dye transfer apparatus and method for processing color motion picture film
2 6,094,257 Dye transfer apparatus and method for processing color motion picture film
3 6,002,470 Dye transfer apparatus and method for processing color motion picture film

Here is a link to the US Patent Office search site:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-09-2002, 08:55 AM:

Let's hope that the dye-transfer printing operation hasn't been shut down permanently. Rear Window and Wizard of Oz looked terrific in IB. It would be a shame if Technicolor doesn't take full advantage of the process, especially since they have apparently put quite a bit of money into reviving it.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 08-09-2002, 03:28 PM:

Richard Haines, in his book, goes into a discussion about the friction that developed between Technicolor and Kodak in the later years of dye transfer production. According to the author, there was a falling out between the two companies, largely over the following factors:

1) Technicolor's reliance on Kodak for matrix film and release stock
2) Kodak's desire to promote the use of dye coupler film technology
3) A change in the relationship between Technicolor and Kodak from an attitude of cooperation to an attitude of competition after the retirement of Technicolor founder Herbert Kalmus.

According to Haines, the result of this friction was that the cost of matrix filmstock was raised to the point where dye transfer became uneconomical and was discontinued.

I am willing to accept that this is one side of the story, but I've never heard another side.

So I'll just go ahead and ask the touchy, sensitive, corporate political questions out loud, hopefully without raising offense:

Given that Kodak is apparently the sole supplier of matrix and dye receiver stock,

1) Is Kodak currently amenable to the revival of dye transfer as a general release printing technology, even if it results in the partial displacement of dye coupler release filmstock production in favor of dye receiver release filmstock production?

2) Is there some aspect of the relationship between Kodak and Technicolor that has resulted in the situation where dye transfer prints are only produced in uneconomically low numbers, shipped out randomly, and never advertised to the public?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2002, 03:32 PM:

Sorry, but I cannot comment on contracts and negotiations with Kodak customers, some of which are covered by confidential disclosure agreements, and most of which I am not even privy to.

The information about the technology that I've shared was already in the public domain.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 08-09-2002, 03:39 PM:

You're right about the issue of receiver price in the old days, in fact back in the '70's I believe Technicolor switched to another brand...wasn't it Ferrania? Certainly Kodak isn't the only company that COULD produce receiver stock. I'm going by guess at this point, but I suspect that the issue is more one of the time required to produce matrices and run test batches in the face of tight release deadlines than it is one of receiver stock cost. Also, Technicolor never got the speed of the dye transfer line up to that of the "grind 'em out" dye coupler printers. Perhaps that's why a disproportionate number of the limited dye transfer runs have been for revival titles. Then there's the issue of how committed Technicolor really is to the process when they're going to get the printing business anyway. Still, it would be interesting to know who sells them their receiver stock and anything else about the corporate relationships. Care to weigh in, John?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2002, 03:42 PM:

I weigh in at 172 pounds.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-09-2002, 03:47 PM:

Here is another question. When "GODFATHER 2", the last commercial film in IB/Dye Transfer was released by Paramount in 1974 and the original printing & processing equipment was sold to the People's Republic of China by Technicolor, where did the Chinese get their materials to produce prints?

-Claude

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2002, 03:50 PM:

AFAIK, the Chinese made some themselves.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 08-09-2002, 03:51 PM:

Actually, I believe the London and Rome lines hung on a bit longer, and I'm not sure it was the US stuff that ultimately went to China, but supposedly their produced their own dyes and receiver stock. Supposedly their printing sucked, also.

BTW, John, you got me there! I wasn't probing into such intimate details.