Are Technicolor and Deluxe still relevant?

You-know-who will be chiming in here, but in terms of ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHY, once upon a time there were Technicolor and (later) Eastmancolor, and in PRINTS there were Technicolor and Eastmancolor, and there was a lot of cross-pollination. For instance, a film could be photographed in single-strip Eastmancolor, but printed in "IB-Tech" Technicolor prints. Similarly, a movie could be filmed in Technicolor but printed in Eastmancolor. (I'm using Eastmancolor as a generic term for any of the non-Technicolor processes, i.e., "Prints by De Luxe," "Warnercolor," etc.)

In terms of their role in the digital realm, I think we are quickly approaching a time when they will only come into play when it comes to scanning archived negatives/elements for digital release (with a few exceptions, maybe).

Original 3-strip Technicolor (for filming) has been dead as a doornail for decades. IB-Tech for prints has been out of commission for several years now, so Eastmancolor is pretty much the only game in town in terms of both film-based image capture and film prints. (Vidiot: Please correct as needed!)

EDIT:
VistaVision titles are a good example of cross-pollination. Large(-ish) format photography was done in regular Eastman color, the Technicolor matrices were made and fine-grain IB-Tech release prints were made to improve quality at the release print stage.

In the opposite direction: there have certainly been vintage filmed-in-Technicolor titles released in Eastmancolor prints. One that comes to mind is the 70mm print of Fantasia that came out in the early 90s. Technicolor-process prints only existed in 35mm....EVER.....so the 70mm version of Fantasia was a standard Eastman print of a 3-color Technicolor original.

Matt

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluxe_Laboratories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluxe_Entertainment_Services_Group_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor_SA

They both definitely have a presence, but their roles have adapted and readapted to survive in the new realities of the film production/distribution biz. Vidiot worked for Technicolor for many years, so I'm sure he has some interesting views on the subject.

 

Technicolor faded a bit? Is that a clever pun? Tech NEVER faded. They did however stop making it in 1974.

This thread is almost bunnylike in confusing me.

 

IB Tech was revived briefly in the 1990s. There are, for instance, great-looking IB tech prints of the Robert-Harris-restored REAR WINDOW.

 

Well, of course. There is a beautiful IB Tech print of STAR WARS that is just mind boggling. I'm talking about filming something, processing it without going to China, etc. Don't get too technical for these guys!

 

See how FAT that magazine-area is (where the film reel resides)? It hold THREE reels of film for the original Technicolor filming process (as opposed to printing). Each layer exposed a different portion of the color spectrum. The light gets split by a prism. These required a BUTTLOAD of light (see below). The cameras were also very cumbersome compered to B&W (and later Eastmancolor) cameras of the day, and sharpness was an issue, as there was an element of imprecision when the three separate film strips were combined into a single release print.

As far as the light issue goes, here's a good summary of the problems/situation, courtesy my pal Martin Hart at Widescreenmuseum.com (top photo from his site, too):

​

 

Basically, no. I'm a tangentially-involved obsessive.

 

You more-or-less were...times three. There's certainly no reason you couldn't, but it would be utterly unnecessary/redundant/cumbersome. Other cameras were infinitely more appropriate for the job.

 

Minor-league compared to the Cinerama camera, which is 800 pounds when blimped for noise. ;-)

 

You missed out. I saw two movies there and had a great time.

Back to Technicolor.....

 

I hear it does if one has a lot of money. But, why bother?

 

When I collected 35mm prints (for about a year, too wacky) I had a beautiful 35mm Technicolor processed AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS (1956), 6 track mag. The film was shot in both 24 and 30 frames per second versions and the 24 version was printed down from the Eastman 70 and processed in Technicolor. The Todd-AO prints of course were Eastman. Even between a non-faded Eastman and Tech version of the film the difference in color tonality and saturation was so incredibly different between the two processes. The Tech version just looked mo' better!

My print died when the mag stripes began to shrink at a different rate than the actual film and started warping. It was the only mint surviving print of the true LONG VERSION in existence. When it died I gave up film collecting. It was a fun year but heartbreak like that ain't worth it..