Re: Technicolor-2015 100th Anniversary
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:53 pm
TEAL AND ORANGE! WE'VE COME FULL CIRCLE!!!
Talking, collecting and preserving classic film.
https://www.nitrateville.com/
Exactly how I remember riding on the subway.David Alp wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:12 pmThat's fascinating Richard; but do you agree with me that something seemed to have "happened" in the 70's in the film industry as a whole to {either} the film stock they were using, or the camera's? Or maybe even the way the film was printed?Richard P. May wrote:A great deal of how a picture looks has to do with what the film makers want it to look like. Today's color film (and even more so, digital capture) have a tremendous amount of latitude. If a picture looks washed out it is probably because that is what it always looked like, and not the fault of the process. Faded prints don't usually look washed out. They change color because of dye fading, usually turning toward magenta. A faded Eastman negative often has a yellow look.
The Technicolor process was unique, and not related to later types of color photography.
Examples:
Now look at this from "The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three" in 1974. It's brown, its dull and it's murky. There is not one colour in it that is vivid or saturated.
![]()
Hmmm....I wonder if this explains the look of certain recent Criterion releases? I've had to skip a few of their titles in favour of UK releases (some Cronenberg & DePalma films, for example) which seem to look the way the films did when first released.Jack Theakston wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:28 pmThere's a color grader at a certain New York lab that has been doing work on certain studio films, giving them that hideous teal/orange look, but no one has been QCing or rejecting the masters, so they end up looking like that on Blu-Ray. Pathetic.

Glad I'm not in so much of a minority over PRIZZI. I spotted a copy of it the other day and was reminded of how disappointed I was in it compared to other views. Even the blurb on the case went on about 'masterpiece' and Oscar-nominations, but my reaction when it came out was one of indifference. The only reason I paid any note to the DVD was because a friend is into Mafia stuff...David Alp wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:49 pmOk - whilst we are talking about colour on this thread over the past 100 years; I want to ask a question. I was watching "Prizzi's Honor" today on HD television, and I was surprised at how dull and lifeless and non-vivid the colour was. It was just lifeless and boring and muddy and dull. The film was made in 1985 and I've noticed that a LOT of films made in the 70's to the late 80's are the same! Compared to the colours of the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's there seemed to be a change in colour film stock in the 70's. Colour seemed to become a lot more muddy and dull and just plain boring sometime in the early 70's as if they were using cheap film or something? In the end I was so bored with "Prizzi's Honor" I just deleted it. The film was going nowhere and was boring me to death. But why was it that colour seemed to take a nosedive in the 70's??
I can give examples of two films from the late 60's that STILL had that VIVID highly saturated "look" with lovely colours; and they are "Rosemary's Baby" (1968) and "Funny Girl" (1968). Both of these film had that classic Technicolor "look".
But then a couple of example of shoddy, nasty, muddy coloured films are obviously "Prizzi's Honor" and something like "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" in 1974. That one also springs to mind as being colourless.
But then leap ahead to the present day and we have lovely colour films again such as "Oz The Great And Powerful" and yet I tend to think of "The Wiz" (1978) and "Return To Oz" (1985) as being colourless and grainy and cheap looking.
Yes, travelling by 'tube' is not exactly a glamorous experience so that sort of treatment is more in keeping...35MM wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:00 pmExactly how I remember riding on the subway.David Alp wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:12 pmThat's fascinating Richard; but do you agree with me that something seemed to have "happened" in the 70's in the film industry as a whole to {either} the film stock they were using, or the camera's? Or maybe even the way the film was printed?Richard P. May wrote:A great deal of how a picture looks has to do with what the film makers want it to look like. Today's color film (and even more so, digital capture) have a tremendous amount of latitude. If a picture looks washed out it is probably because that is what it always looked like, and not the fault of the process. Faded prints don't usually look washed out. They change color because of dye fading, usually turning toward magenta. A faded Eastman negative often has a yellow look.
The Technicolor process was unique, and not related to later types of color photography.
Examples:
Now look at this from "The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three" in 1974. It's brown, its dull and it's murky. There is not one colour in it that is vivid or saturated.
![]()