3 strip

[chuck colburn]

This is about as far off topic for the RED forum as one can get. But I just had to share this with you as every bit of info stated here (except the part about combing the three strips) about the three strip process is wrong. lol

http://www.digitalfilmtools.com/55mm/threestrip.htm

[Tom Lowe]

I was reading that Storaro insisted on a "three strip" processing for Apocalypse Now Redux. What exactly does this mean? They said by doing it, they essentially had to ruin the original neg forever.

[chuck colburn]

Hi Tom,

I don't know. The film wasn't shot in three strip that's for sure. Mayby they were going to generate three new inter negs from the orignal and do some kind of imibiton (sp) printing process. Mayby David Mullen knows of this.

Chuck

[krd]

It's a dye transfer process for making release prints that fell out of use in the early 1970s -- I believe Godfather II was the last one. Then it was revived again (briefly?) about the time of Apocalypse Now Redux, late 90s. (It's not the same as 3-strip Technicolor acquisition, which hasn't been used since 1950 or so.) I don't believe all of the ANR release prints used this process. You would have had to be in a major city to see it.

Why they had to recut the negative I don't know, maybe you need more handles at the cuts(?)

[Richard Andrewski]

Oh there was a guy over on cinematography.com that wanted to recreate that look from wizard of oz. That plugin would probably be good for him. You should post a link to that over there.

[chuck colburn]

Judging by their opening salvo, I think I might be a little hesitant on that one. lol

[David Mullen ASC]

Technicolor killed the 3-strip camera negative process in 1955 and then the dye transfer (imbibation) print process in the mid 1970's.

But they tried to revive the printing process in the early 1990's, built a prototype dye transfer printer. Dye transfer printing involved making three b&w positives from a negative (either a color negative or three-strip photography's b&w negatives) -- these positives were called matrices. They had an exaggerated surface in regards to variations in density so that when they were run through a color dye bath, they picked up levels of dye proportionately to the density of the image. This was then run in contact with clear film with a dye mordant to absorb the dye, three passes in the printer (yellow, cyan, magenta) -- more akin to printing color photos in a book than a photographic process.

See:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor1.htm

The color dyes used were very stable and rich, creating a more permanent color image on the print.

All (as far as I know) of the release prints of "Apocalypse Now Redux" used the process.

Tom, there was one dye transfer print made of "The Thin Red Line" and given to Terrance Malick as a gift more or less by Technicolor. The process was too time-consuming for modern release print schedules (about a month at least to make the matrices and do color timing) and they were unable to get any made in time for the release of "The Thin Red Line" but decided to complete one print after the movie was in the theaters.

I saw the first reel of this at the American Cinemateque. It was interesting compared to the Kodak prints released -- the process gave the movie a slightly more "Kodachrome" feeling and actually fit the World War 2 setting better, made the image less "modern" in terms of the colors. But it was subtle. Richer reds and yellows, and less grainy blues.

Technicolor Labs took apart the prototype printer and have never reassembled it.

[chuck colburn]

See, I told ya he would know. lol

[Tom Lowe]

Interesting. So is it true that they basically had to trash the original neg of Apocalypse to do this? That's what Murch seems to be saying in his "Conversations" book.

[Tom Lowe]

See, I told ya he would know. lol

Well, of course! :) Heh. We have the world's foremost expert here.

It's funny even if you search really obscure stuff on the net, like what the ASA rating of the film stock used on Citizen Kane was, the answer you will find on google is from none other than David. :)

[chuck colburn]

Yeah, gotta love it.

[David Mullen ASC]

Interesting. So is it true that they basically had to trash the original neg of Apocalypse to do this? That's what Murch seems to be saying in his "Conversations" book.

Not "trash" but recut it. Traditionally, to make a "director's cut" for film release (pre-D.I. days) you would make an IP off of the original negative, cut the I.P. to make the new cut, and then make a new dupe negative off of the I.P. in order to make prints. That's how the director's cuts of "The Abyss" and "E.T." were done for theatrical release.

However, Storaro felt that the original negative for "Apocalypse Now" had faded too much to look very good if prints were made from dupes.

Since dye transfer used b&w positives for the matrices, these can made from the original negatives (called "direct to matrix") or a dupe negative made from an IP. Storaro didn't want the quality loss from making the matrices from a dupe negative made from an IP made from a faded original negative, so he convinced Coppola to cut the original negative to match the director's cut, which means that the only surviving masters of the original version exist on dupe elements (and probably b&w seps.) This way he could go direct to matrix from the original color negatives.

Sad thing is that a 4K D.I. would have solved all of these problems, left the original negative alone, allowed Storaro to output a new 35mm negative, or three b&w negatives if he wanted to. And a 4K D.I. was possible back then, just fairly unaffordable ("Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was one of the first digital restorations, and was all done at 4K -- and cost millions of dollars to do.)

Technicolor was even working on (though never finished) a method of making the b&w positive matrices using a laser recorder transferring the digital files from a D.I.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Technicolor killed the 3-strip camera negative process in 1955 and then the dye transfer (imbibation) print process in the mid 1970's.

...


I make it a small mission of mine to try an learn something new every day. Mission accomplished. Thanks, David! :)

[Tom Lowe]

Not "trash" but recut it. Traditionally, to make a "director's cut" for film release (pre-D.I. days) you would make an IP off of the original negative, cut the I.P. to make the new cut, and then make a new dupe negative off of the I.P. in order to make prints. That's how the director's cuts of "The Abyss" and "E.T." were done for theatrical release.

However, Storaro felt that the original negative for "Apocalypse Now" had faded too much to look very good if prints were made from dupes.

Since dye transfer used b&w positives for the matrices, these can made from the original negatives (called "direct to matrix") or a dupe negative made from an IP. Storaro didn't want the quality loss from making the matrices from a dupe negative made from an IP made from a faded original negative, so he convinced Coppola to cut the original negative to match the director's cut, which means that the only surviving masters of the original version exist on dupe elements (and probably b&w seps.) This way he could go direct to matrix from the original color negatives.

Sad thing is that a 4K D.I. would have solved all of these problems, left the original negative alone, allowed Storaro to output a new 35mm negative, or three b&w negatives if he wanted to. And a 4K D.I. was possible back then, just fairly unaffordable ("Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was one of the first digital restorations, and was all done at 4K -- and cost millions of dollars to do.)

Technicolor was even working on (though never finished) a method of making the b&w positive matrices using a laser recorder transferring the digital files from a D.I.

I see. Murch did mention, though, that a really pristine print of the original cut exists somewhere, which I guess reassured everyone enough to move forward with this. Have you read that Murch Conversations book, BTW? I'm finding it fascinating.

[David Mullen ASC]

The separate camera and print processes that together was the basis of Technicolor's unique color process often confuses people, which is why you hear things on the internet like "Susperia was the last three-strip Technicolor movie" when actually it was one of the last dye transfer prints made at Technicolor Italia (the movie was shot in Eastmancolor negative.)

You see, Technicolor built three labs worldwide to make dye transfer prints -- first the one in Hollywood (on Cole Ave.), the second in London and the third in Rome.

The problem with dye transfer printing is that it requires incredible quality control because it all depends on precise registration as each color dye layer is added to the print, one pass at a time. And making the original b&w matrices for printing was fairly time-consuming and expensive -- but making the prints themselves was fairly cheap because it used blank (clear) rolls more or less. Like I said, it was not a photographic printing process, it was more akin to color printing for books. So the process was only cost-effective if there were a lot of prints made because most of the costs were in the set-up.

But in the 1970's, theaters were on the decline and average print orders were only in the low hundreds for major Hollywood releases. Technicolor already had a second lab in Universal City set-up using the Kodak process and stocks (like any other lab) to handle TV work. They decided to close down the Cole Ave. dye transfer plant and only offer standard Eastmancolor processing and printing. They sold the equipment to China, who wanted it because the process was simple in terms of stocks needed. "Godfather II' was the last movie printed in dye transfer in Hollywood. Next to close was the London dye transfer facility, where a few dye transfer prints were made of "Star Wars". Last to close apparently was the Rome facility where "Susperia" was printed.

But then in the 1990's, print orders were on the rise again, making dye transfer feasible. Suddenly studios were ordering 2000, then 4000, then 6000 and more prints for a simultaneaous worldwide release of their big titles. So Technicolor built a small prototype dye transfer printer to test the idea of bringing back the process.

Trouble was that the prototype printer could not run at the volumes to make the process cost effective (I heard it cost $40,000 just to make the b&w matrices for printing). And they needed a month to get the process going, because of timing and then making the matrices. And these days, studios are used to finishing post at the very last second, making several dupe negatives after color timing is finishing, and dropping off those dupe negs to a couple of labs two weeks (or less) before the release day and having them all make thousands of prints. So they can't wait a month for the dye transfer process, plus it wasn't cheap, and the prototype machine couldn't make thousands of prints quickly.

Early on, there were a couple of dye transfer prints made of "Batman and Robin", then more release prints made of "Godzilla" and "Bulworth" using the process. Then there was a big re-release of "Gone with the Wind" and a smaller release of "Wizard of Oz" in dye transfer. There were also a few prints of "Pearl Harbor" and "The Wedding Planner" made in this process, plus that single print of "The Thin Red Line." Some other titles as well.

Technicolor was planning on making a move after they bought CFI Labs (rumors were that Universal Studios wanted the land that the lab sat on), the prototype printer was dissassembled, and never put back together. But Technicolor/CFI ended up staying where it is.

[Tom Lowe]

What became of those Star Wars prints?

And does Malick still hold that only three-strip TTRL print? I'm guessing it was made from the theatrical cut? Rumors still abound of a 6-hour TTRL cut. :)

[David Mullen ASC]

What became of those Star Wars prints?

And does Malick still hold that only three-strip TTRL print? I'm guessing it was made from the theatrical cut? Rumors still abound of a 6-hour TTRL cut. :)

Lucas has one of the few dye transfer prints of "Star Wars" -- since it didn't fade, it was used as a reference guide when doing the restoration for the Special Editions released theatrically (which didn't use a D.I. but had new digital efx cut into it.) That restoration actually involved unsplicing the entire negative in order to replace deteriorated shots (the opticals done on CRI stock, basically those wipe transitions mostly) and add new shots.

I assume Malick has the dye transfer print of "The Thin Red Line".

[Casey Green]

Not "trash" but recut it. Traditionally, to make a "director's cut" for film release (pre-D.I. days) you would make an IP off of the original negative, cut the I.P. to make the new cut, and then make a new dupe negative off of the I.P. in order to make prints. That's how the director's cuts of "The Abyss" and "E.T." were done for theatrical release.

However, Storaro felt that the original negative for "Apocalypse Now" had faded too much to look very good if prints were made from dupes.

Since dye transfer used b&w positives for the matrices, these can made from the original negatives (called "direct to matrix") or a dupe negative made from an IP. Storaro didn't want the quality loss from making the matrices from a dupe negative made from an IP made from a faded original negative, so he convinced Coppola to cut the original negative to match the director's cut, which means that the only surviving masters of the original version exist on dupe elements (and probably b&w seps.) This way he could go direct to matrix from the original color negatives.

Sad thing is that a 4K D.I. would have solved all of these problems, left the original negative alone, allowed Storaro to output a new 35mm negative, or three b&w negatives if he wanted to. And a 4K D.I. was possible back then, just fairly unaffordable ("Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was one of the first digital restorations, and was all done at 4K -- and cost millions of dollars to do.)

Technicolor was even working on (though never finished) a method of making the b&w positive matrices using a laser recorder transferring the digital files from a D.I.
wow... It's so nice to be living in the age of 4K DIs... I remember NLEs just coming out when I was in college and now affordable 4K cameras and post work flows now that I am just entering my years of professional Directing. These truly are amazing times we live in.

[Tom Lowe]

4K DIs are what it's all going to be about in the coming years. I'm sure of it.

[Graeme Nattress]

Or read that: http://www.digitalfilmtools.com/55mm/polarizer.htm . How on earth can you claim to have a polarizer in post? Biggest use of polarizers is to stop reflections, not to send the sky blue. Argh. These are all the same as the new Tiffen effects as pointed out earlier. We all know some filters need to be there in camera to make sense, and a lot of them are advertised here in post which without some kind of explanation is going to make people think that you can "do it all in post" when you can not.

[Justin Anderson]

Or read that: http://www.digitalfilmtools.com/55mm/polarizer.htm . How on earth can you claim to have a polarizer in post? Biggest use of polarizers is to stop reflections, not to send the sky blue. Argh. These are all the same as the new Tiffen effects as pointed out earlier. We all know some filters need to be there in camera to make sense, and a lot of them are advertised here in post which without some kind of explanation is going to make people think that you can "do it all in post" when you can not.

well, whenever I mess up shots like that I just click "Turn off Reflections" in After Effects.

[Graeme Nattress]

And if the sky over-exposes we put on a grad ND, and amazingly it brings back to life the detail in those pixels that have saturated. Or not, because in reality it just makes them darker. Or an ultracontrast to help put light into shadows, which doesn't have the same effect in post either....

[Nick Shaw]

The Tiffen DFX filters seem to be pretty much exactly the same as the 55mm ones, right down to using the same images to demonstrate them (see http://www.tiffen.com/dfx.html). I guess Tiffen may have bought/licensed the 55mm filters for their software product.

There are of course plenty of filters which can be simulated perfectly adequately in post, and some (like polarizers and ND grads) which can't.

Adding post production filter simulation is often useful in the grading process, but there is nothing that these filters do which you can't build very easily yourself in eg Shake, and to some extent Color. They've just saved you the effort of working out some presets.

The Nattress plugins for FCP and Color can do a lot of this, and are much cheaper than either 55mm or Tiffen DFX.

[Jim Arthurs]

That restoration actually involved unsplicing the entire negative in order to replace deteriorated shots (the opticals done on CRI stock, basically those wipe transitions mostly) and add new shots.

Thanks David, I almost blew milk out of my nose when I read "CRI" in your post over my morning cheerios... I had hoped to go the rest of my life without hearing (or reading) about CRI again... some back story...

I did my first freelance as an optical printer operator in college, doing projects at Alexander Films in Colorado Springs. This was the twilight days of their lab operations (shooting and production were long gone... BTW, they were the biggest supplier of theatrical commercials in the world at one time... "Timex, takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'...").

CRI (or Color Reversal Internegative) was a one step process used to make a dupe negative from an original negative. You'd think that would be ideal, except, like most reversal products, it picked up contrast quickly and had other nasty characteristics like significant grain... and it was expensive stock, I remember that... so much so that in many cases it was preferable in terms of quality (and cheaper, believe it or not) to go through the process of making an interpositive (interpositive was/is extremely fine grained and slow... like one or two ASA, if memory serves) and then shooting the same stock from the interpositive to make a dupe negative.

Personally, I just remembered if I f'ed up a reel of CRI, everyone would shun me like a leper for days... believe me, my labor was cheapest part of the process in the world of CRI...

The only two advantages to CRI was that it was a quicker process (one step in lab and shooting to make a dupe neg) and you only had once chance to pick up dirt/scratches, etc. vrs. the two with interpositives. The vault guys hated it because it would start to stink and go bad within years... they had cans of footage shot in the late '70's that was already lost...

While I can agree with folks that have a connection and fondness for shooting original film, there is nothing, repeat NOTHING about the film POST process that would evoke the same emotions in a sane individual who has been exposed to the working man's side of that business... I mean, Alexander Film had BLAST DOORS for cryin' out loud... to protect the guys from nitrate stock exposions...

[Tom Lowe]

haha. Jim your posts are always great.