Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What happened to the color?

This is topic What happened to the color? 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=006158

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 05-10-2004, 05:18 AM:

I just returned to work today and happened to glance a few minutes of NEW YORK MINUTE. Our print looked horrendous. It appeared to be completely washed out, as in watercolors! The first thing I noticed was no colors to faces on closeups, like all white or very pale looking. Some of the scenes appeared to be overlit or something. I'm not an expert at this but it looked really crappy. It almost appeared we had way too much light on the screen, which we don't, and it obliterated the color.
We're selling this crap to cash paying customers!
I realise this film is probably a one week wonder, but can't this industry do better? I thought Warners used Technicolor on most of their prints. This can't be on this one.
Honestly, this looked like a 10 year old faded Eastman print.
It's no wonder grosses are going down!
Probably made for cheap. [puke]

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 05-10-2004, 06:59 AM:

What's there to worry about? A print opens on a Friday, comes
out on DVD on Monday, and the print goes to recycle on Thursday
night!! THAT'S SHOWBIZ!!

fjn
Local 294 Ret.

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 05-10-2004, 09:33 AM:

I saw it yesterday and noticed the CrAP codes really stood out. Usually, they are not THAT noticable.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2004, 10:57 AM:

"New York Minute" production notes:

http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=2502

quote:
The challenges of filming a story that takes place in one day can be even more complex than shooting a period piece. “It was a constant exercise in matching and continuity,” Gordon acknowledges. “Before we filmed every scene, we asked ourselves ‘What time is it in the story? If it’s 10:22 a.m., then where were Jane and Roxy at 10:20? Where will they be at 10:30?’”

Gordon and director of photography Greg Gardiner used Digital Intermediate technology to balance the varying light quality from nine weeks of filming. (New York Minute has the distinction of being Warner Bros. Pictures’ first full-length live action feature to utilize the Digital Intermediate film process.)

“The Studio really supported me in going this route, so I could color match 47 days of different light and sky and progress the light from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on a single day,” Gordon explains. “It was also a thrilling opportunity to make the movie more eye-popping, color-wise. We’re doing some cool split-screens and fast-motion edits that couldn’t be done without Digital Intermediate – a process that it usually reserved for huge special effects films.”

To further underscore the tension of the escalating situations in which Jane and Roxy find themselves, Gardiner used natural light to “keep the look rich and stylish, yet real.”

I suspect it may have been the "look" they wanted.

AFAIK, most of the prints were NOT printed on Kodak VISION Color Print Film either.

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 05-10-2004, 02:07 PM:

Thank you John for the reply.
I guess I'm one of those projectionists who believe 3-strip Technicolor was the best system ever. I see one occasionally on TV and wonder "what the hell happened to quality."

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-10-2004, 02:23 PM:

Agreed completely with Peter. From time to time, I've been known to show old IB Tech prints after-hours at various theatres (unadvertised, not for the public). Invariably, almost none of the theatre employees has ever seen an IB Tech print before and, also invariably, they are blown away by the quality. The usual reaction is "why don't modern films look that good?". [Smile]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2004, 08:39 PM:

Technicolor dye transfer prints were unique, and are sadly missed. Over the years, Kodak was a major vendor of the film materials for that proprietary process.

Yet many beautiful (and long lasting) prints have been made on Kodak color print films over the last two decades. KODAK VISION Premier Color Print film can produce very rich blacks and saturated colors:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/print/2393.jhtml?id=0.1.4.8.4.5&lc=en

quote:
KODAK VISION Premier Color Print Film / 2393. A film with a different look. Richer blacks. More saturated colors. Cleaner performance. A film worthy of the KODAK VISION Film family name.

The upper tone scale of VISION Premier Color Print Film is significantly higher in density than EASTMAN EXR Color Print Film, so shadows are deeper, colors are more vivid, and the image snaps and sizzles on the screen. The toe areas of the sensitometric curves are matched more closely, producing more neutral highlights on projection. Cinematographers can be more creative with lighting and exposure, and still see remarkable results.

Like its counterpart KODAK VISION Color Print Film, VISION Premier Color Print Film is coated on a polyester base without rem-jet, for a cleaner process and cleaner screen images. We've incorporated a processing-surviving, antistatic layer to reduce dirt attraction, and a scratch-resistant backing layer to improve projection life. And there are no color shifts during fades and dissolves. So, from set to lab to screen, day to day, you'll have more consistent performance.

These are not incremental improvements. They are quantum leaps forward in film technology. And with VISION Premier Color Print Film, you'll have the highest quality motion picture color print film Kodak has ever made.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-10-2004, 10:02 PM:

I guess I will be the disenting vote
In the glorious heydays of technicolor one had a color consultant (manditory)) who determinned the color pallet of a film to make the process look good even at the detriment of the artisitc talent of the production (all one has to look at is the work around Leon Shamroy did for the Black swan((that won the best color photo oscar)) to fool the technicolor consultant

Eastmans color and its competitors (I include gevart fuji and ANSCO (in the past)) have done a lot to further the goals and looks of the creative talents behind the films we watch even if that includes what some beleive is "colour done wrong"

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-11-2004, 03:05 AM:

Any idea why dye transfer mk. II has not really caught on for mass print runs as of yet? Is it significantly more expensive than conventional tripack release printing?

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 05-11-2004, 03:54 AM:

I noticed that same color problem with "Mean Girls"...What's with the rash of teen-girl drama queen flicks?

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 05-11-2004, 04:05 AM:

Hey you all,
Please take one look at Warner's 1937 ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD in 3 strip Technicolor as I did several years ago.
Those colors, on Kodak film, were vibrant and added alot to the film.
I don't believe and have never heard that a color consultant on the set had anything to do with how actors acted or how a scene was compromised.
Bless Natalie Kalmus. She may have been a real bitchy consultant to directors and such, but her final product was something to behold.
Gone are the days guys.
By the way [fu]

to Leonard Doss who left Technicolor when Fox went to that crappy Deluxe color. Bad news Leonard.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 05-11-2004, 11:49 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Any idea why dye transfer mk. II has not really caught on for mass print runs as of yet?

Assuming you are referring the the dye-transfer process used for the reissues of 'GWTW' and 'Oz' and several other new titles a few years ago, the answer is because Technicolor dismantled the dye transfer line probably shortly after striking the few IB prints that were made of 'Family Man' several years ago.

Most likely the equipment was sold as scrap to the highest bidder... [Frown]

-Aaron

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-11-2004, 01:09 PM:

The reason for discontinuing the process that I was cited when I spoke with a gentleman at Fox and Technicolor was "uncontrollable shedding complaints". This was just after the release of Bulworth (Fox) and then about a year later (Technicolor lab).

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-12-2004, 10:20 AM:

Shedding complaints?!?! That's rediculous. That's like Wal-Mart shutting down all of their stores because of uncontrollable complaints about the A/C. [Roll Eyes]

Certainly shedding was "controllable." John P. has reminded us countless times about the recent advances in Kodak Motion Picture Print Film that has considerably reduced shedding problems. Uncontrollable? Hardly. It was all about money.

I ran the IB Tech print of GWTW in 1998 and it shedded a lot less than most of the other prints we had. ("Celebrity" "You got Mail" and "Saving Private Ryan" come to mind)

Many current films would have looked practically orgazmic in Technicolor IB. Kill Bill Vol 1's colors were fantastic, but that bright yellow, red, and pink "Pussy Wagon" would have literally jumped off the screen in Technicolor!!! [Smile]

Or that entire first scene, for that matter. Tarantino should have made more demands, like building a new plant.

=TMP=

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 05-13-2004, 02:33 AM:

No, the shedding problem was fixed. It was shut down because of...are you sitting down?....money.

And, truth to tell, Technicolor never really told anybody that it was available. Virtually nobody in Hollywood today knows what dye-transfer printing is... and those that do, didn't know you could do it again.

And: When they would release a few prints in dye-transfer (such as "Pearl Harbor" or "Toy Story II") they never told anybody where to see them... we all (who cared) would wind up calling projectionists and asking them to check their prints for the grey soundtrack and so on...

And: Nobody shot movies with dye-transfer in mind. They picked God awful looking films to print in Tech (like "Meet the Deedles", for one, I swear).

And: Nobody at Technicolor knew what they were selling. That is, we had a "Tribute to Technicolor" at the Egyptian a few years ago... we had all the big shots from Technicolor come down; had several hundred people in the audience... they showed examples of "new" dye transfer (and we ran several OLD examples for everybody). At the end of the show, the person whose job it was to SELL this to the public told me that A)they didn't think anybody would show up or that so many people cared about this "technical stuff" and B)She had never seen old dye-transfer prints projected...and boy did they look swell!

Honest.

Better it should rest in peace.

Oh, and last I heard, of the 2 lines that were built, one was destroyed, but one was packed up in crates and is in storage at...CFI (which Technicolor now owns, of course).

A sad, but not surprising, story, all in all.

Jeff

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-13-2004, 09:28 AM:

Could someone, say hypothetically, purchase the said crated equipment from Technicolor and set up their own lab? All patent issues on the process aside...

With the right marketing and promotion, this could be the next big force to get people to drive many miles to "the better theater" since stadium seating. You just can't get color and picture quality like that on DVD (even if you turn the "color" on your tv all the way up) and to hell with DLP even coming close.

I know, I know, it's all a lost cause. It has about as much of a chance of coming back as movie palaces, 70mm and curtains. Because as Jeff pointed out, the ones with the money and the power and who are in a position to do something about it are too comfortable in their ignorance. [Frown]

=TMP=

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-13-2004, 09:43 AM:

Probably many of the patents have actually expired.
Of interest was an article I read a few years ago about the experiments to use a DIAZO soundtrack (cyan) to save the cost of buying a bw reciever stock and then stripping all but the sound track area. Now that red readers are the norm that opion probably would have been practical and reduced one step and cost f te process

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-13-2004, 12:17 PM:

In fifty years, I'm sure that someone will be very happy to find a print of Meet the Deedles with perfect color, while all the prints of Lord of the Rings have faded to that weird Fuji blue/purple state.

[Roll Eyes]

[ 05-14-2004, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 05-14-2004, 02:39 AM:

Actually, I had heard that Technicolor was trying to GIVE AWAY the equipment to a non profit...no takers. And if you think about it, the reason is clear.

Unless you have a lab to back you up, you can't do this. You need, just to start, dyes, special matrix stock, special receiver stock, processing for matrix's, people who know how to do all this stuff, environmentally sound ways to dump the chemicals and so on... you can't just "print" a movie... it's all the other stuff to get to that point.

As to the patents: Yes, the original patents have long since expired...but Technicolor took out numerous new patents in the 1990s.

Jeff

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-14-2004, 08:59 PM:

I'll take it. Who do I call?

=TMP=