Dear Mr. Bearded talking guy: I don't know why, but I sit for hours and watch your videos. I find it fascinating, and I greatly appreciate learning real information with depth. You have a gift of teaching in a way that few do. Thanks.
@@FilmmakerIQ I enjoyed watching your videos because your videos really made me want to learn more about the history of how movies were created over time. I'm going to subscribe to your channel because I'm interested in watching your videos about the history of movies that you explain about in your videos. I have two questions that I'd like you to respond to? If you were going to watch a movie that you would want to watch again, What would that movie be? Why were you interested in creating videos about the history of movies in the first place? Many Thanks! Super Duper Gabe!!
Pathecolor was developped by the French "Pathe" company, one of the biggest film equipment and production company in 1908. It is one of the oldest cinema company still in action. Nowadays in France we can still see movies in Pathe Cinemas, I was amazed to discover that they had such an impact on color films! Great videos as always
There are many trolls on RU-vid, but the one's who dislike Filmmaker IQ videos are some of the most unreasonable of all. I have a fine arts degree and these videos dig deeper than the more lab based courses out there.
Just wanted to say thank you. I use your lessons in my High School Course: History and the Appreciation of Film, to build in the technical aspects of film with its historic and cultural developments. I really appreciate what you do and so do my students.
I only just discovered your channel few days ago and already watched few of your videos. I never knew there was so many different ways film colours was made.
Just discovered this channel via this video. Not a bad history of colour film. Obviously not exhaustive, but enough to cover the highlights and point the viewer in the right direction to find out more. I have personal knowledge of Martin Scorsese's preservation project, as I saw his lecture at the BFI in London. He showed two trailers for "Gone With The Wind". The first was on Eastman stock and was what we had come to expect. Faded and mainly pink. The other was an original Technicolor print released to first run theatres in the US in 1939. It drew audible gasps from the audience. The colour was all there in full and the film looked almost 3D. Another think he showed us was clips from "The Leopard" (1963) with Burt Lancaster. Again the difference was astonishing. Eastman Kodak, thankfully, got such a fright they did the work and produced more stable chemicals for both the film base and the colour layers so film stock is now much more stable. They also invested heavily in Digital Imaging and produced some of the earliest CCD image sensors. Now the main aid to preserving film is the digital intermediate, and this in fact is the only way to preserve the old 3-strip Technicolor movies. Technicolor no longer have any die-transfer printers, and I haven't been able to find out what happened to the equipment they sold to China.
My grandfather worked under the owner of technicolor, who also happened to own the patent on the Bic ballpoint pen. They were the first to bring full feature length films to the airline industry. It involved the creation of a micro film to prevent change overs, self projecting sound and most importantly silent projectors.
Just to say that actually the first Two Colour Technicolor (process number one) movie first produced and shot in the USA was: "THE GULF BETWEEN" in 1917 starring Grace Darmond and Niles Welch. It was shot completely out of doors (using natural light) in sunny Florida. It is sadly now a lost film with only a couple of frames extant that we can examine, but the colour looked pretty good. "THE TOLL OF THE SEA" was five years later, and still exists to this day. (apart from the last reel)... Plus, the first feature film to use 3-Strip Technicolor was MGM's "THE CAT AND THE FIDDLE" in 1934; although it was only utilized in one musical number. There were several other 1934 productions in 3-strip Technicolor, featuring either Technicolor "sequences" - or 20 minute short subjects: For example: "SERVICE WITH A SMILE", "LA CUCARACHA", "THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD" and "KID MILLIONS".
Amusing: Around the 8:20 mark this gentleman talks about William Friese-Greene and we see a picture of Robert Donat, who played Friese-Greene in a 1951 British film called "The Magic Box".
George Lucas fought against the tampering of films in the late 80s but he himself destroyed Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi in 1997. The Special Editions, DVDs and BDs taint that otherwise pristine heritage. The only things that can save those films are fan preservations, fan recreation and Disney.
I hate to do this but I have to speak my mind. I prefer the Special Editions because it's closer to Lucas's original vision. He had to change it because of the technological limitations of the time. That's also why he did the prequels last. He didn't "destroy" Star Wars, technology did before the films were even released by forcing him to do things differently. I assure you, if he was able to start with Episode 1, and nothing else changed, except how the movies were made, it would seem much better.
Gamganca A bad carpenter blames his tools. Technology should never be the limit for creativity. It's fine to prefer the SE's but I don't think that it was Lucas' original vision. There were tons of audio changes made that wouldn't have required any updated special effects and could've been in the originals if he wanted. I would be fine with the new releases if he also had all the previous versions available. As it is, only the 2011 BD versions are available for purchase.
I have the "complete saga on bluray set" and I 100% agree with you on the sound. Especially in episode four where we first see Obi-Wan and he makes that howling noise. The sound used in both the original and special editions sounded cool, like an actual creature. But the sound used on the Bluray just sounded like an overenthusiastic guy going "AWWOOOOOOOEEEE!!!!!" and it rendered me speechless going "What?" And in episode 2 when Anakin is having that nightmare, the BD version has his mother Shmi calling out to him. I can live without that.
Amazing how quickly technology advanced, between the 1920's and 1930's.. barely a generation to go from blurry black and white silent films to rich full colour :D
John, great video as always! Of course you know everything I am going to say - much better than I do :-) Hope you don't mind: Please let me just add (I know you had to simplify things for the sake of time - your video is still very comprehensive!!!) Kodachrome reversal. During the 1940s, '50s and part of the '60s 35mm negative black and white stock was widely used, but 16mm (besides black and white) used the reversal (= positive image, ready for projection) Kodachrome - same as slide stills photography, a fantastic looking fine grain film stock with excellent archival qualities (IMHO the very best color reversal stock ever made! It's that beautiful!). That's why we still have 16mm color footage from the 1940s in fantastic looking colors, and regular 8mm from the 1950s and Super 8mm from the 1960s and '70s on slow (often just 40 ASA/ISO) which hardly faded at all if stored properly. Later a "family" of easier/simpler to develop reversal stocks was created: Kodak Ektachrome. Not quite as gorgeous looking - depending on the emulsion (16mm VNF for example, made for TV news gathering was rather grainy and muddy but fast to develop and O.K.-ish for the purpose), but the Ektachrome 100D (E-6 process) for example is wonderful and rich and almost as great as Kodachrome, It was produced in 16mm (and for stills slide photography) until 2009 and is now much sought after by film enthusiasts such as myself. I actually still have a few 100ft rolls of E 100D, 16mm single perf in my fridge. Should look great after processing with E-6. I wonder if Kodak reversal film stock was ever used for 35mm feature film production. The fantastic look probably would have been lost through the intermediates, print negs and release prints..... (?) back in the day. It was the infamous Eastman print stock (= negative copied through optics or by emulsion to emulsion direct contact from a fine grain negative) - and even Fuji - that lost its very unstable cyan layer in a matter of just a few years, the yellow started to go next and only magenta remained. Still many "red/magenta" film prints from the '70s in all formats from Super8mm to 70mm are around. Some can and have been saved by skilled colorists in digital image post production - for many it's too late (if the original camera negative is lost or faded as well). Thanks for reading my long comment :-) Thanks so much for sharing all your great insight!
You leave out a very important bit here as many do. Films were in color and gave the audience important information. Green tint was outdoors in daylight, purple at sunset, Pink for bedroom, Red for fire, Sepia indoors at night, with Blue as night. Look at an original 1922 print of Birth of a Nation and you will understand. You had many stencil tints used up to the Thirties, checkout Hells Angels for some as well as a Technicolor section. Also you leave out a double emulsion system used for films in the thirties and forties one side red the other blue.
This is a good instructional video but where are the lenticular colour systems like Dufaycolor? These monochrome colour films which render excellent colour pallets on otherwise regular black and white film are worthy of mention. Generally used on the domestic market Dufaycolor did also make commercial features. Colour reversal processes should also be mentioned as they are integral to colour film history.
This is a well-produced and researched history of color technology in motion pictures. A lot of fascinating information is packed into its relatively brief running time!
Question about early technicolor: Your graphic implied red went on frame 1 and green went on adjacent frame 2. For subtractive, would it be more correct to shoot on 2 separate rolls, develop and tint them separately, and then project them with the 2 rolls sandwiched together througth the shutter/light so that it becomes subtractive?
It sure would. Especially considering that "The first presentation of 3D films before a paying audience took place ..., on June 10, 1915". (www.3dgear.com/scsc/movies/firsts.html) My mind was blown when I first read that. Anyway, I look forward to it. ^_^
A great documentary on film preservation (with a bit covering Ted Turner's colorization), check out "These Amazing Shadows." I believe it's still up on Netflix.
Note Technicolour is shot on Black and white film through filters and Printed in four colours like a colour foto in a magazine. Kodachrome is a delicate process and probably a very expensive process to use as for theatrical usage.
when you say technicolor is a three strip camera, that means three rolls of film are exposed to light at the same time using a light beam spliter. Now if you don't know this, three rolls of BLACK AND WHITE, yes, three rolls of BLACK AND WHITE film were used, and exposed through three color filters. (red, green, and blue) But the three color filters don't turn the black and white film into red, green and blue color. This may seem confusing. Let me explain. Black and white still photographs can be very beautiful. Look at photos from Ansel Adams for example. When you take a picture of a scene in black and white that has a blue sky, the blue sky will come out as a very pale gray, almost white, and the clouds won't show up too well. For some reason which I don't know, black and white film is very sensitive to the color blue. So when light strikes the b&w film, it darkens. The more the light, the darker it becomes. Different colors reflect different amounts of light, and there's where you get the different shade of gray for the different colors. So if you place a YELLOW filter on the camera, the YELLOW filter will filter out (hold back) some of the blue light of the sky, and that area on the negative film will be more transparent. When the negative film is placed in the enlarger and a light shines through the film on to the paper, the paper also darkens when exposed to light. More light will shine through the area of the sky, and the sky will now be a shade of gray instead of being almost white looking. A color filter will lighten its own color, and darken the other colors in proportion to the percentage of light it filters out. Now let's take a bowl of fruit. One in color, and one in b&w with no filter. Then lets take pictures of the fruit using different color filters. A red filter will make the apple appear light, while the banana dark, but not too dark. When you look at the three rolls of b&w film shot in TECHNICOLOR, each roll of film will look different. Now I must be honest, I don't understand the rest of the process. That is how the b&w film is turned into color. But it is very technical. The camera must be loaded, properly lit and exposed, the b&w film developed (I know how to develope b&w film, I had a darkroom in my basement when I was a kid) And made into color somehow. When printing a color picture in a magazine or newspaper, the color picture is exposed to four b&w negatives. I'm not going into the process which I know., too long to explain
Thank you for this - what a fascinating video on film color - both the history and the technology. So, was the new film stock that faded fast acetate film, aka "safety film"? Just wondering.
I'm not that versed on film stocks themselves but I Believe safety film came out before Eastmancolor. It was the dyes in Eastmancolor that were prone to fade fast at least in the original formulations
@@FilmmakerIQ Thank you for answering. I know acetate film replaced Silver Nitrate film because silver nitrate burns - even in water, it's some sort of chemical reaction thing, but I don't remember when it was introduced. Ironically, silver nitrate films, as long as the prints themselves don't burn, are easier to restore than the acetate films.
Two color film processes could also produce red and blue at the exclusion of green, correct? I assume that green was chosen because blue is relatively rare in nature.
Blue is the color of the sky so it's not rare at all. The answer lies more in the spectrum and how certain films are sensitive to different wavelengths
You should go on the photograph in three strip technicolor process with the modern movie.It may be the short films with originally three strip technicolor process.Then compare with the modern digital colour process.Which is more beautiful picture than?
Technicolor three strip has been made pretty much obsolete with monopack color films starting around 1950s-60s. There's been a lot of film vs. digital side by side tests - frankly the difference has become so minute that you have to really work hard to spot the differences.
A history of film colour that missed out Kodachrome- the most superior colour system ever with truly real colour that Technicolor could only dream of. Kodachrome was a single strip full colour additive process which began development in the 1920s as a two colour system. As a reversal process the film processes straight to positive, no negative required but could be reprinted like any other film. It could run in any camera and any projector. In 1936 the full colour Kodachrome was made available to amateur film makers in the new 8mm format which paved the way for the most extensive capturing of everyday life in colour in the hands of ordinary people. There were other successful reversal additive processes such as Dufaycolor which was also a three colour single strip process. Its process has a distinct look from its monochrome emulsion over the colour-giving lenticular film base. The colour values erred towards reds and greens as the blue element in the film base had a smaller share of the frame real estate but it was still capable of rendering a satisfying colour image. As a process Technicolor in it's heyday was better for cartoons than live action with its live actions shots dominated with an orange golden hue. In the case of Robin Hood, the whole thing has a dusty look. While it could clearly render colour the spectrum of it is a tad limited and if you look at a single frame it looks more like a well tinted black and white image. There were only certain types of shots that Technicolor could do really well after which every Technicolor film looks the same. Kodachrome was then and remains now, the best colour film ever produced.
@@FilmmakerIQ It has been used in movies, it wasn't made only for amateur 8mm, super 8mm (also 9.5mm) or 16mm. The stock was available in 35mm and had limited use in features due to it's narrower f-stop. I'm not going to search about for titles but I've read some material on Kodak films in film archives that mention its use in movies. The Dufaycolor process was also used in a small number of feature films on 35mm in the early 30s. The stock was available into the early 40s on 9.5mm and 16mm.
This is great teaching but no mention of Edward Raymond Turner? He patented the color move in 1898 and created the first 3 color movie system in 1902. When he died in 1903, his work was taken over by George Albert Smith. Smith could not figure out how to get his system to work so he started over with two color. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XekGVQM33ao.html
Heyy love the video, I was wondering if you had any sources for students who watch this video❤ I want to use you as a source but would appreciate a place to read further into the topic .
Does anyone know something about the score of "The Toll of the Sea" in the short clip? I have the impression that it wasn't composed especially for the movie, because it sounds so familiar, like a classical piece I heard elsewhere. But I can't get what it is.
I find it amusing that I just rented Citizen Kane from the local library and it's actually the reason I searched the invention of color film and found this video.
Very helpful, now I know why so many 1980s and 1990s TV show repeats have faded washed out colour, where as BBC colour series of 1970 - 74 are still sharp colour as they are likely Technicolor and later ones Eastman colour, and then Digital colour in the 2000s means later colour remains warm.
one of the films that faded badly because of the eastmancolor film stock was star wars. so when they did the restoration some of the color was really off. i think that the first strip that started fading on the star wars negative was the yellow so darth vader was turning from black to a light blue
Hey John I think it would be better if you memorize all the lines and say them into the camera - your eyes keep distracting me cause I always read your eyes reading. I know it's a lot of lines but you could edit yourself or do a voiceover instead I suppose.
The early 2 color processes imitate, how color blind people see the world or think, that the color palette should refer to a rusty tank (as seen in Betty Boot as Cinderella) or turn the Rhapsody in blue into an Irish one.
+filmmakeriq, could you do an episode elaborating on how Monopack and Eastmancolor actually work in a single film strip? And perhaps the developing process, of how the composite colours are developed separately, similarly to the indepth look as CMOS sensors and their quantum inner workings? Cheers! Jamie
I doesn't know they've been through all this complicated process till we get the right color for all films today they are really great people who work in this industry to put the Cinematic film today up to IMAX
Why LCD screens give the best color. They use the additive process for the picture, but achieve it using the subtractive system for the filters of the underlying black and white pixels.
Quite Interesting! There's some lovely examples of two-strip Technicolor in: Ben Hur 1925 and Cecil B DeMille's King of Kings 1927. Brilliant early silent epics. KAN 6.19 UK
I know you don't need to hear it again, but I can't help myself. I just love your delivery! There is something that is just so old school in how you deliver your lines. Don't listen to anyone who asks you to memorize. I grew up as a kid in the 70's and a teen in the 80's... back when the news anchors would read from giant cues or feeds beside the camera.... the important thing is that you read everything with GREAT vocal inflection, and I can never turn away once I start watching
Somehow I'm surprised that I have seen almost no colored films from the period 1890-1930, only in a few documentaries specifically on the subject color film. Why are most of the films that are still watched today not colored?
+Mistermaarten150 Mostly business finance reasons of cost-versus-return ratio. This is a rare case that cost-versus-return actually benefits artistic integrity.
Two-color Technicolor was used on quite a few movies from the 20s (notable surviving films are the Toll of the Sea and The Black Pirate.) It was more common, though, to film certain segments of otherwise B&W films in color (famous examples are Ben-hur and Phantom of the Opera.) The main reason you haven't seen many colored films from that period is that they simply don't exist anymore. Most movies made before 1930 are lost, so that number probably includes some all or partial color movies that are completely lost. Other movies that were originally in color (such as On With the Show, which was the first all sound, all color film) now only exist in black and white, often because studios released b&w versions for TV and the color negatives were scrapped.
It's interesting how things are cyclical in cinema history. Just as silent films used the tinting or toning process, your video illustrates how modern day filmmakers like the Cohen brothers with "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" and Spielberg with "Saving Private Ryan" used special processes to set a 'color tone' with their films. I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy your series and the website! You ought to consider doing something with TCM, like the current "The Story of Film" series!
Your videos are better than the film school I attended! I could have saved a lot of time and money watching your videos and spending time shooting. Keep it up!
We have no digital media as durable as film. Magnetic media fades within a few decades, flash memory fades within a decade. DVD lasts until the plastic coating dissolves. What will become the film archive medium of the future?
seems to me the solution is coming in terms a of a cloud based storage. The duplication and backup is automated and physically distributed. So as tech evolves the cloud can utilize it without having to abandon all the old tech. Yes it requires maintenance but so does film in some ways. The days of set it and forget it are done... but at least we can write programs to continually backup our data.
It wasn't called Kodachrome for motion picture - it was under a deal to Technicolor called monopack - but these videos aren't designed to cover every tiny facet..
At 8:24, the picture shown is not of William Friese-Greene, but rather of actor Robert Donat, who portrayed Friese-Greene in the 1951 film THE MAGIC BOX.
