What's new

Lost Films Found (1 Viewer)

OLDTIMER

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
258
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
Ken S-B
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but on a matter of nomenclature it's not TWO STRIP Technicolor that keeps being mentioned - it's two-color Technicolor. This process was shot on ONE strip of black-and-white film with alternating frames of the red and green record. A must for everyone's library is the George Eastman House "The Dawn of Technicolor" book.
 

RolandL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
6,332
Location
Florida
Real Name
Roland Lataille
BWANA DEVIL was locked-up by Shout for years and they had zero interest in a 3-D Blu-ray release. By time the rights reverted back to MGM, the library had been sold to Amazon.

We've been trying to get that restored and on 3-D Blu-ray since 2014!

I know that the 3D Film Archive never gives up so, let's hope this get's released on Blu-ray in 3D! Less than a year ago you did a question and answer video on Facebook - and at that time Flesh and Frankenstein and Robot Monster were not to be released on Blu-ray but now they are!
 

Will Krupp

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
3,828
Location
PA
Real Name
Will
I've read endless debates on whether or not films photographed with the two-strip Technicolor camera were originally printed by Technicolor in some special process, so that blue was seen by the theater audience in some scenes, even though the two-strip camera didn't have a separate blue record.

They were not printed that way. This whole "debate" (as far as I can tell) seems to stem from one guy who keeps posting on YouTube about a special, secret, "proprietary" process that Technicolor used in order to put more blue in certain two-color scenes if the producers were willing to "pay extra" for it. It has something or other to do with running an extra printing over the existing color that included blue. I don't know WHERE he got this information (that's so secret no one BUT him has ever heard of it before) but not only is it not true, it's not even possible.

Two-color Technicolor recorded the red and green portions of the spectrum separately on a single black and white negative. Using the subtractive color system, that negative SHOULD have been represented on positive release prints by cyan dye for the red portion and magenta dye for the green (with yellow used for the blue portion of the spectrum had it been recorded.) Cyan and magenta alone would have made for an extremely unnatural and unbalanced picture, however, so the two-color system added yellow to both the cyan and magenta dyes to "suggest" the appearance of yellow in the scene even though none really existed. With this addition, cyan became a green-blue and magenta became an orange-red. The release print was no longer representative of what was shot on-set but the dye compromise allowed for a balanced picture that the eyes of the audience reacted well to. Adding ANY color (escpecially a primary) over the existing picture would have resulted in the colors turning to mud. Any change in the green-blue/red-orange dyes would have thrown the delicate compromise completely out of whack.


I'm not trying to be pedantic, but on a matter of nomenclature it's not TWO STRIP Technicolor that keeps being mentioned - it's two-color Technicolor. This process was shot on ONE strip of black-and-white film with alternating frames of the red and green record. A must for everyone's library is the George Eastman House "The Dawn of Technicolor" book.

On an unrelated note, you're definitely NOT being pedantic. :)
 
Last edited:

Bert Greene

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
992
It's intriguing to scan over the list of two-dozen 'recent finds' (dating back a year ago) from the National Film Preservation Board. But it's not particularly informative when it comes to details about the condition of things... reels missing, what film gauge, or where the films were deposited. Might very well be overseas with foreign titles and in foreign archive, for all I know. But it's still neat to learn that some previously-considered 'lost' movie has turned up somewhere. As expected, most of these features are usually independent cheapies that used the states-rights distribution system, which I'm guessing led to more original prints getting lost 'in the wild.' Hence, so many silents from outfits like Gotham, Chadwick, Rayart, etc., that seem to survive. A lot of these also probably got drawn into the home-market when the companies bit the dust, and orphan prints were left at the film labs. Like with those Goodwill titles.

One title that caught my eye is "The Mojave Kid" (1927-FBO), which I believe might be Bob Steele's first series western, following his 'Bradbury' years. Up to now, I think there was only one other of Steele's FBO's believed to survive, so this is good to hear. A few of his later silents from Syndicate (precursor to Monogram) have been around, but not the FBO's. Also appears two more of Jack Perrin's 'Rayart' series have turned up, "Double-Fisted" (1925) and "A Ridin' Gent" (1926). A fair handful of Perrin's silent westerns have suvived, but it's always nice to hear of two more. More scarce are Buddy Roosevelt's silent westerns, but that list of recent finds includes one, "Between Dangers" (1927), which also features Alma Rayford as leading-lady. Rayford was one of the busiest and most prolific of silent b-western heroines, albeit usually in the cheapie, low-budget stuff.

The list also includes some features starring the usual suspects in the world of fly-by-night productions of that era, Billy Sullivan, Reed Howes, William Fairbanks, and such. The action-adventure heroes of Twenties-era Gower Gulch. But no Lefty Flynn item, apparently. Of a bit more prominent status in the listings is a Dorothy Davenport Reid production, "The Earth Woman" (1926), starring Mary Alden, Priscilla Bonner, and Johnny Walker. Guess this was Reid's next film following her previous "The Red Kimono" (1925), which happily exists in such a beautiful copy (and available thru Kino). But again, who knows the condition of any of these newly 'found' films. Might not even be complete. Always good to keep expectations in check, knowing the grim realities of nitrate survival.
 

Gary OS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
5,703
Location
Florida
Real Name
Gary
It's well known by now that my #1 hope of lost film(s) being discovered are the four Fox Chan films. That's the gold standard for me. Anything else is gravy, but those are the standouts that I'm still holding out hope for. It's such a pity we don't have four of the earliest Warner Oland movies.

Can you imagine one day owning Charlie Chan Carries On (1931), Charlie Chan's Chance (1932), Charlie Chan's Greatest Case (1933), and Charlie Chan's Courage (1934)? All great ones from what we do know about them (scripts have survived and having read them, I'm convinced they were all fantastic films).


Gary "one day... one day..." O.
 

Will Krupp

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
3,828
Location
PA
Real Name
Will
Can you imagine one day owning Charlie Chan Carries On (1931), Charlie Chan's Chance (1932), Charlie Chan's Greatest Case (1933), and Charlie Chan's Courage (1934)? All great ones from what we do know about them (scripts have survived and having read them, I'm convinced they were all fantastic films).

Based strictly on the great stuff found in The Black Camel (1931) alone (the one surviving example we have from Charlie's "pre-world tour" era) I would have to heartily agree with you.

Charlie Chan in Paris (1935) was originally one of those titles thought irretrivably lost so, here's to hoping!
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
7,340
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but on a matter of nomenclature it's not TWO STRIP Technicolor that keeps being mentioned - it's two-color Technicolor. This process was shot on ONE strip of black-and-white film with alternating frames of the red and green record. A must for everyone's library is the George Eastman House "The Dawn of Technicolor" book.

They were not printed that way. This whole "debate" (as far as I can tell) seems to stem from one guy who keeps posting on YouTube about a special, secret, "proprietary" process that Technicolor used in order to put more blue in certain two-color scenes if the producers were willing to "pay extra" for it. It has something or other to do with running an extra printing over the existing color that included blue. I don't know WHERE he got this information (that's so secret no one BUT him has ever heard of it before) but not only is it not true, it's not even possible.

Two-color Technicolor recorded the red and green portions of the spectrum separately on a single black and white negative. Using the subtractive color system, that negative SHOULD have been represented on positive release prints by cyan dye for the red portion and magenta dye for the green (with yellow used for the blue portion of the spectrum had it been recorded.) Cyan and magenta alone would have made for an extremely unnatural and unbalanced picture, however, so the two-color system added yellow to both the cyan and magenta dyes to "suggest" the appearance of yellow in the scene even though none really existed. With this addition, cyan became a green-blue and magenta became an orange-red. The release print was no longer representative of what was shot on-set but the dye compromise allowed for a balanced picture that the eyes of the audience reacted well to. Adding ANY color (escpecially a primary) over the existing picture would have resulted in the colors turning to mud. Any change in the green-blue/red-orange dyes would have thrown the delicate compromise completely out of whack.
While we're on the subject of color, the "Rhapsody in Green" as jokingly referred to above from "The King of Jazz" was never intended to be blue in color. The Blue in the music title refers to the blues as in jazz.
This video from George Eastman House is particularly instructive. https://www.youtube.com/embed/8iy_MjegGWY
 

Will Krupp

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
3,828
Location
PA
Real Name
Will
This video from George Eastman House is particularly instructive. https://www.youtube.com/embed/8iy_MjegGWY

It's a great series! I DO have a little bit of a quibble with the fact that the narrator simplifies the subtractive dyes as "red" and "green" as it might mislead people into thinking that they used pure red and pure green. R&G was fine using the Additive color system (as in Technicolor #1) as it used colored light (via filters) to rebuild the colors on screen, but the Subtractive system (used from Technicolor #2 onward) that dyed the actual film and relied on the reflection of color back to the audience would make this impossible.

Red dye blocked the color response of Green and Blue while Green dye blocked the color response from Red and Blue. Combining these dyes in any way would block the reflection of all color responses and leave you with mud. Subtractive dyes were those that blocked only a single color response. Magenta (or red + blue), for example, blocks only the green response etc. This allows the colors to be mixed based on the response needed.

It's confusing (though somewhat understandable) for the narrator to simply say red and green, since those are the same colors recorded on the negative. In reality, the green-blue and the red-orange dyes were a compromise that used the subtractive colors of cyan and magenta as a base.
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
7,340
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
It's a great series! I DO have a little bit of a quibble with the fact that the narrator simplifies the subtractive dyes as "red" and "green" as it might mislead people into thinking that they used pure red and pure green. R&G was fine using the Additive color system (as in Technicolor #1) as it used colored light (via filters) to rebuild the colors on screen, but the Subtractive system (used from Technicolor #2 onward) that dyed the actual film and relied on the reflection of color back to the audience would make this impossible.

Red dye blocked the color response of Green and Blue while Green dye blocked the color response from Red and Blue. Combining these dyes in any way would block the reflection of all color responses and leave you with mud. Subtractive dyes were those that blocked only a single color response. Magenta (or red + blue), for example, blocks only the green response etc. This allows the colors to be mixed based on the response needed.

It's confusing (though somewhat understandable) for the narrator to simply say red and green, since those are the same colors recorded on the negative. In reality, the green-blue and the red-orange dyes were a compromise that used the subtractive colors of cyan and magenta as a base.
Have you seen Scott MacQueen's restoration videos and heard his commentaries on Mystery of the Wax Museum and Doctor X? There's a wealth of information there.
 

Egore

Agent
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
39
Real Name
Ed
They were not printed that way. This whole "debate" (as far as I can tell) seems to stem from one guy who keeps posting on YouTube about a special, secret, "proprietary" process that Technicolor used in order to put more blue in certain two-color scenes if the producers were willing to "pay extra" for it. It has something or other to do with running an extra printing over the existing color that included blue. I don't know WHERE he got this information (that's so secret no one BUT him has ever heard of it before) but not only is it not true, it's not even possible.

Two-color Technicolor recorded the red and green portions of the spectrum separately on a single black and white negative. Using the subtractive color system, that negative SHOULD have been represented on positive release prints by cyan dye for the red portion and magenta dye for the green (with yellow used for the blue portion of the spectrum had it been recorded.) Cyan and magenta alone would have made for an extremely unnatural and unbalanced picture, however, so the two-color system added yellow to both the cyan and magenta dyes to "suggest" the appearance of yellow in the scene even though none really existed. With this addition, cyan became a green-blue and magenta became an orange-red. The release print was no longer representative of what was shot on-set but the dye compromise allowed for a balanced picture that the eyes of the audience reacted well to. Adding ANY color (escpecially a primary) over the existing picture would have resulted in the colors turning to mud. Any change in the green-blue/red-orange dyes would have thrown the delicate compromise completely out of whack.




On an unrelated note, you're definitely NOT being pedantic. :)
They were not printed that way. This whole "debate" (as far as I can tell) seems to stem from one guy who keeps posting on YouTube about a special, secret, "proprietary" process that Technicolor used in order to put more blue in certain two-color scenes if the producers were willing to "pay extra" for it. It has something or other to do with running an extra printing over the existing color that included blue. I don't know WHERE he got this information (that's so secret no one BUT him has ever heard of it before) but not only is it not true, it's not even possible.

Two-color Technicolor recorded the red and green portions of the spectrum separately on a single black and white negative. Using the subtractive color system, that negative SHOULD have been represented on positive release prints by cyan dye for the red portion and magenta dye for the green (with yellow used for the blue portion of the spectrum had it been recorded.) Cyan and magenta alone would have made for an extremely unnatural and unbalanced picture, however, so the two-color system added yellow to both the cyan and magenta dyes to "suggest" the appearance of yellow in the scene even though none really existed. With this addition, cyan became a green-blue and magenta became an orange-red. The release print was no longer representative of what was shot on-set but the dye compromise allowed for a balanced picture that the eyes of the audience reacted well to. Adding ANY color (escpecially a primary) over the existing picture would have resulted in the colors turning to mud. Any change in the green-blue/red-orange dyes would have thrown the delicate compromise completely out of whack.




On an unrelated note, you're definitely NOT being pedantic. :)
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but on a matter of nomenclature it's not TWO STRIP Technicolor that keeps being mentioned - it's two-color Technicolor. This process was shot on ONE strip of black-and-white film with alternating frames of the red and green record. A must for everyone's library is the George Eastman House "The Dawn of Technicolor" book.
OLDTIMER: Yes, Technicolor Process one was an additive two-color system, which was both photographed and projected from a single strip of film, so it was indeed a single-strip, two-color process and not a two-strip process. However, from a broader perspective, Process One was a total failure and was only used for The Gulf Between and some color sequences in Way Down East. Technicolor Process number two, a subtractive color process, continued to photograph the filtered images on a single strip of film, but the alternating images were split out during printing and became two separate strips which were dyed and projected together in a single projector, so it was two-strip Technicolor in my opinion. All Technicolor films that followed were photographed on a single strip of film and projected as two-strips until the Dye Transfer Process allowed printing on a single strip for projection. There were over 20 films, both feature films and color sequences made, which I believe qualify as two-strip Technicolor, until 1928 when Technicolor Process Number Three introduced Dye Transfer printing. I think it's appropriate to use the term two-strip Technicolor for the Technicolor films that were projected from two strips, even if they weren't photographed on two strips. And, so do a lot of other people who use the term two-strip for those films. Reference: Technicolor Movies, The History of Dye Transfer Printing by Richard W. Haines, 1957
 

OLDTIMER

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
258
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
Ken S-B
Technicolor Process number two, a subtractive color process, continued to photograph the filtered images on a single strip of film, but the alternating images were split out during printing and became two separate strips which were dyed and projected together in a single projector, so it was two-strip Technicolor in my opinion. All Technicolor films that followed were photographed on a single strip of film and projected as two-strips until the Dye Transfer Process allowed printing on a single strip for projection.
But you forgot to mention that these two strips were cemented together to form ONE strip that went through the projector. Interesting point but I'll stick to "two-color Technicolor" :)
 

Will Krupp

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
3,828
Location
PA
Real Name
Will
OLDTIMER: Yes, Technicolor Process one was an additive two-color system, which was both photographed and projected from a single strip of film, so it was indeed a single-strip, two-color process and not a two-strip process. However, from a broader perspective, Process One was a total failure and was only used for The Gulf Between and some color sequences in Way Down East. Technicolor Process number two, a subtractive color process, continued to photograph the filtered images on a single strip of film, but the alternating images were split out during printing and became two separate strips which were dyed and projected together in a single projector, so it was two-strip Technicolor in my opinion. All Technicolor films that followed were photographed on a single strip of film and projected as two-strips until the Dye Transfer Process allowed printing on a single strip for projection. There were over 20 films, both feature films and color sequences made, which I believe qualify as two-strip Technicolor, until 1928 when Technicolor Process Number Three introduced Dye Transfer printing. I think it's appropriate to use the term two-strip Technicolor for the Technicolor films that were projected from two strips, even if they weren't photographed on two strips. And, so do a lot of other people who use the term two-strip for those films. Reference: Technicolor Movies, The History of Dye Transfer Printing by Richard W. Haines, 1957

No No NO!!! It's high time we completely get the "two-strip" misnomer out of our collective vocabulary once and for all. Let's stop making excuses for people who refer to ANY two-color film between 1918 and 1932, cemented or dye-transfer, as "two-strip." It remains entirely wrong and coming up with reasons why it may be "okay" in some instances is not helpful.

The camera used for Processes #2 and #3 was the SAME single strip camera. Process #2 used "half thickness" matrix stock as an intermediate step which then cemented the two pieces of matrix film to make a single "full thickness" release print. Process #3 used matrix stock as an intermediate step which then used those matrices to transfer dyes to the release print.

The term "three strip" Technicolor derives SOLELY from the three strips of film running through the camera and separately recording the primaries on each. That's it, that's the ONLY reason we use it. It does NOT derive from any intermediate steps used in printing. If it did, we would still refer to dye transfer prints made after the introduction of the Eastmancolor negative as "three strip," yet we don't.

In restoration terms, there is no difference between Process #2 and Process #3 as there are not (to my knowledge) any cemented prints still in existence.

Richard Haines' book, which I own and HAVE enjoyed, is riddled with errors and shouldn't be used as a reference source. He uses the dreaded "two-strip" term for ANY Technicolor movie printed before 1932. I hold him somewhat responsible for the confusion among us in the first place. By the way, 1957 is the year he was born, it's not the year the book was published (that was 1993.)
 
Last edited:

Egore

Agent
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
39
Real Name
Ed
But you forgot to mention that these two strips were cemented together to form ONE strip that went through the projector. Interesting point but I'll stick to "two-color Technicolor" :)
Well, I'm nit-picking, but it was still two separate strips of film stuck together and the cement didn't work most of the time, the cement broke down under the arc light and the strips separated so often that Technicolor gave it a name, they called it "cupping". Cupping was so bad when they showed the Black Pirate, that Technicolor had to keep calling the prints in after a few showings and re-cementing the two strips back together. This separation problem was so bad that it became one of the reasons the Dye Transfer process was perfected, so only a single strip had to run through the Projector.
 

Egore

Agent
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
39
Real Name
Ed
No No NO!!! It's high time we completely get the "two-strip" misnomer out of our collective vocabulary once and for all. Let's stop making excuses for people who refer to ANY two-color film between 1918 and 1932, cemented or dye-transfer, as "two-strip." It remains entirely wrong and coming up with reasons why it may be "okay" in some instances is not helpful.

The camera used for Processes #2 and #3 was the SAME single strip camera. Process #2 used "half thickness" matrix stock as an intermediate step which then cemented the two pieces of matrix film to make a single "full thickness" release print. Process #3 used matrix stock as an intermediate step which then used those matrices to transfer dyes to the release print.

The term "three strip" Technicolor derives SOLEY from the three strips of film running through the camera and separately recording the primaries on each. That's it, that's the ONLY reason we use it. It does NOT derive from any intermediate steps used in printing. If it did, we would still refer to dye transfer prints made after the introduction of the Eastmancolor negative as "three strip," yet we don't.

In restoration terms, there is no difference between Process #2 and Process #3 as there are not (to my knowledge) any cemented prints still in existence.

Richard Haines' book, which I own and HAVE enjoyed, is riddled with errors and shouldn't be used as a reference source. He uses the dreaded "two-strip" term for ANY Technicolor movie printed before 1932. I hold him somewhat responsible for the confusion among us in the first place. By the way, 1957 is the year he was born, it's not the year the book was published (that was 1993.)
I stand corrected on the publication date of Richard Haines book, it was 1993, as you said. Thanks for pointing out that error. Why his DOB was included with the publication information I don't know, but I admit that didn't read it carefully. I was out of high school by 1957 when Haines was born, so he is indeed a "Johnny come lately". When a term gets repeated long enough and often enough, by enough people, it becomes the De facto term, so whether we agree on this detail or not, I think the term two-strip is here to stay. If nothing else, it helps most people (who don't care about these technical details) to distinguish the early Technicolor films from the glorious three-strip films.
 

Egore

Agent
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
39
Real Name
Ed
Mr. Krupp: I respect your knowledge of Technicolor and your opinions, but just for fun, I'm going to get super nit-picky and point out what seems to me to be an inconsistency in your position on two-strip Technicolor. As I understand it, you claim that it should be the number of strips of film in the camera that determines the name of the process. And, you claim that if two thin strips of film are cemented together then they should be classified as a single strip of film, even if the two strips contain different color records. If both of those assumptions are correct, then there is no such thing as three-strip Technicolor, because the three-strip camera uses a single bi-pack for the red and blue records and a separate strip of film for the green record. According to your logic, the bi-pack is a single strip of film, so only two strips of film run through a three-strip Technicolor camera, which means three-strip Technicolor should actually be called two-strip Technicolor. The fact is, Kalmus (the ultimate authority on this question) is long dead, and none of this has mattered for a hundred years, so nobody but a few scholars gives a damn. But, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
 

Capt D McMars

Bernuli Tech Vet
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
3,345
Location
Colorado
Real Name
Todd Doc Sigmier
the Technicolor version of "Mysterious Island" (1929) have been found and restored
Wow, where and when did this happen? If public domain, who has the film materials, since you mentioned that they were "found and restored"?
 
Last edited:

Capt D McMars

Bernuli Tech Vet
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
3,345
Location
Colorado
Real Name
Todd Doc Sigmier
I'd heard about the color print of "The Mysterious Island" (1929) being found overseas, but didn't know anything had been done with it. It'll surely be under Warners' if we get it.
I too would love to what happened with this material, anyone??
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
353,186
Messages
5,010,764
Members
143,417
Latest member
bolorkay
Recent bookmarks
0
Top