Leo Anthony Vale

Go to Google Images. Search for '1930s germany' in the LIFE images. These photos are by Hugo Jaeger. The captions there will tell you what they are of.

Years ago I systematically went through back issues of the SMPTE Journal. The yearly progress report would mention changes in 3-strip Technicolor when they occured. Usually speed increases. At the beginning of the 50s, the speed doubled. When it switched to a tungsten balence a few years later, the speed doubled again. Of course Technicolor never mentioned the actual speed. By counting the number of increases, it seemed that the tungsten version was 40 or 50 ASA. Since Eastman 5248 was only 25T, that figure seemed wrong. The Google group rec.arts.movies.tech rec had a thread about the technicolor prism. On Sept 4, Peter Haas wrote: "The final Three-Strip patent (1955) had all three colors with nearly the same transmission factor. After sputtering about eighteen layers of metal in microscopic thicknesses, Technicolor techs got just about a square wave transfer function centered on the three primary colors of interest, and about the same amount of attenuation on all three colors. However, by that time, Three-Strip already had an effective ASA advantage over Eastmancolor, but so much product had been diverted to 'Scope (for which Three-Strip was impractical) and wide-gage, that it was overdue to put Three-Strip out of its misery." peter haas used to work at Fox & seems to be the go to guy concerning B&L CinemaScope camera lenses. On Oct.6, Peter Mason posted a link to an article about Don Kelly who built the 50s dichroic prism. http://www.ai.sri.com/~vision/donkelly.html The efficiency of the new dichroic prism is what accounted for those final jumps in speed. From the Don Kelly article: "The so-called three-strip process, launched in 1932, was in its heyday. It included a unique camera, some very special emulsions and a whole factory full of custom-built printing and processing equipment, all covered by as many patents as possible. Technicolor had tried other processes over the years, but this was the first one that really produced good color rendition. For many years there was no competition worth mentioning, so it became very profitable. The heart of the Technicolor camera consisted of three films, two apertures and one beamsplitting prism. The film movements and aperture assemblies were supplied by Mitchell, of course. Which film went through which aperture was dictated by the need for good color separation. Inside the beamsplitting prism was a thin layer of sputtered silver, whose reflectance was adjusted to balance the film speeds. The Technicolor process required very bright lights on the set, partly because that metallic beamsplitter wasted a lot of light. It sent all wavelengths impartially to both apertures, taking no account of the spectral sensitivities of the red, green and blue negatives. The beamsplitter was about the only way the three-strip camera could be improved, and I set about to do it, by substituting a multilayer, dielectric, color-selective beamsplitter that would send each film just the wavelengths it needed, wasting nothing. There were no suppliers of thin-film interference components in those days-- we had to make our own. Ironically, some of the pioneer work in making interference filters and beamsplitters had been done by Mary Banning, Harry Polster and others at the Institute of Optics while I was there. But I had never worked in the thin-film lab-- my friend Bob Hills had that job. Fortunately, I obtained some good advice and hired some very talented help. We had to design our own vaccuum chambers, jigs, optical control systems, everything. There were no computers, but we did the necessary theoretical work on Hollerith cards, using a calculating card punch in the accounting department. In due course we got the job done. There were 34 Technicolor cameras in the world and each needed a spare prism, so getting the job done meant turning out 68 more-or-less identical dichroic beamsplitters. We had increased the speed of the Technicolor process by two whole F-stops. The new, faster Technicolor could shoot pictures without the old, blinding Kleig lights. A circus picture called "The Big Top" was even photographed in available light." So at its end 3-strip Technicolor was indeed faster than Eastmancolor.

The Frayling book, I think, mentions also using Mitchells on 'Once upon a time...' I'm thinking he meant MkII/S35Rs. Now here's a still from 'Il Buono, Il Brutto, Il Callivo' showing a BNC! Since the operator is using the side finder, it's probably a rack over, not a BNCR. & in the same movie, an Arri 35IIB: The Italian door and Italian motor flatbase were made by or for the rental house ATC later ECE. It also had the TotalScope anamorphics. & the C in the name is H.Chrosciski, who later set up Technovision. The TotalScope and Technovision lenses used Cooke lenses. I'm inclined to think there was a bias toward Cookes. & the Cooke zooms didn't come out until after 1970.

At one time Fuji had a 64T stock along with its 64D. 'Kissed' was mostly with it. The 35mm blow up was practically grainless. They discontinued the stock, Most probably because there was little demand for it. most DPs wanting a 400/500T stock.

The original post seems to be asking about a single system sound camera for shooting reversal film. No post, no prints, just project single system reversal original. An optical sound Auricon cine-voice would be the most likely choice.

However, the plastic model of the Orion was made by Aurora. That might explain the confusion. http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/md_orion.htm

This was discussed on Cinematography.com. It's an over/under system like the ones used in the early 80s. Ray Zone claims technicolor consulted with Chris Condon on the projection lens design. Here's condon's patent: http://www.google.com/patents?id=_n41AAAAE...don&f=false Here's Ray Zone's comments: "Ray Zone responds: It's an over/under alternate frame 35mm single strip film solution, a throwback to 1980s 3D. Chris Condon consulted with Technicolor on developing single split lens which goes on projector. Masking on port glass. Circular polarizer in lens and glasses (to conform to RealD spec). Still requires silver screen. Saw Final Destination 4 in 3D at Burbank AMC with process. Works fine, but all the potential problems with pseudoscopic error (if frames switched - each 2 perfs high in 4 perf area) and possible light loss at corners of frame still present. Meanwhile, Harkness-Hall is working 3 shifts 24/7 to produce silver screens for 3D rollout." 09-21-09 The most common problem with the system that was discussed was screen brightness. You're projecting techniscope size frames, in practice slightly smaller, through polorizing filters.

Yes there is an 85C. It's listed as converting daylight to 3800K. But I think it was originally used for converting a no longer manufactured flash bulb which was around 4000k to tunsten.

well, duh! They neglected to eliminate this sentence: "(Sorry guys, but the gal isn't included.)"

It doesn't actually magnify the image. It's really a 1/7x crop from 35mm. So all it really does is create confusion.

Steve: have you seen Kozintsev's <<Gamlet>> and <<King Lear>>? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058126/combined http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064553/combined Uses Pasternak translations, with scores by Shostokovich. Both are B/W Sovscope. Neither are at all stagey, Lear in particular makes extensive use of landscape. Production stills for 'Lear' in 'Soviet Film' show an exterior scene being shot with a Foton Anamorphic zoom on a Konvas 1M mounted on a humongus gear head on a tripod on a dolly on tracks.

60s and 70s ads in AC for AlanEGordon Enterprises always included photos of bikini clad or miniskirted models handling the equipment.

Funny thing about Cameron movies is that I can watch them once and pretty much enjoy them, but I don't want to watch them a second time. 'The Terminator' being the exception. I guess I'm tired of scary roller coaster rides and would rather watch something more complicated and sophisticated. i once read a Stanislaw Lem essay where he said that most SF stories are really disguised detective stories, then goes on to praise PKDick's 'Ubik'. 'Avatar' loks more like a redressed Western, cavalry vs. indians. Disappointed? You bet.

The patents are long expired, the Spottiswoode design is used quite a bit these days with small HD cameras. The P + S technik stereo rig is a variation of it. http://www.pstechnik.de/en/3d-rig.php You have to go to the down loads to get better pictures of it. The Technicolor dynoptic rig from the early 50s used the Ramsdell design with a pair of 3-strip cameras. 'Spacehunter' used the design with panaflexes. The earliest Imax 3-D rigs used the same set up. http://www.3dcompany.com/mkii.html Many 50s rigs had one or both lenses shooting into a mirror to bring the inter-axial closer together. The Soviet Stereo70 system uses 65/70mm neg with a 26mm inter-axial. http://stereokino.ru/ The basic rig is more compact than Cameron's older rig with a smaller inter-axial. You can download Lenny Lipton's 'Foundations of Stereoscopic Cinema' here: http://3d.curtin.edu.au/library/foundation.cfm AND WATCHING 3-D FILMS DOES NOT GIVE ME HEADACHES.

Here are some stereo patents with mirror systems that are still in use: Ramsdell, filed in 1949: http://www.google.com/patents?id=6ytHAAAAE...;q=&f=false Spottiswoode, filed in 1954: http://www.google.com/patents?id=fNZNAAAAE...era&f=false Both of these can get the lenses down to a ZERO INTER-AXIAL. & can converge too.

Thanks so much. I'm headed to the Inn'Termission after this session. I'll lift aYuengling to you guys and the resr of the forum.

I was bothered by earlier marketing for Cameron 3-D: This contains lies about earlier systems used to make his system seem innovative, if not down right "revolutionary". Polaroid glasses were used in the 50s systems and they were able to bring the lenses closer together; usually with mirrors, some with one of the cameras mounted up-side down. & obviously they automatically produced a 2-D version too. Just use one of the two strips. Too much disengenuous hype.

One often sees that bokeh with Cooke zooms. Because they usually have the square matte at the front of the lens. usually the 20-100mm, also the 20-60mm & some of the 25-250mm models. http://www.redrental.co.il/redrental/img.a...images/zoom2%20 q=tbn:9dzeGcon91YXtM:http://www.abelcine.com/store/image.php%3Fproductid%3D1001102"]http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:9dzeGc...uctid%3D1001102[/url]

Usually in those type of titles the background stays the same while the title cards change. Stills I've seen show the titles painted on glass or 3 dimensional letters glued on glass and placed on an easal in front of the backgound. Horror and mystery films would sometimes have "spooky" transitions between the title cards; things like ripple dissolves or the letters melting away. Those would have to composited on an optical printer.

I get that alot. Usually when posting replys. Got a blank screen for awhile when replying to this. & frequent problems with Yahoo Mail. Could be the heat and humidity. & Robert, this is a back stabbing business after all.

the musical numbers were done with with dozens, supposedly a hundred, locked off, remote contrled cameras. Thus no operator to adjust framing while shooting. Since there were so many angles to cut to

You should be referring to trusting your ground glass markings, rather than your eye. & 25mm is hardly "such a wide millimeter" in 16mm or S16. Even in 35mm 1.85 it's more "on the wide side". Heck, a 50mm on a 35mm still camera gives you a wider view, an 85mm on a still camera is about the same view as a 25mm on 16. If you frame for 2.35/1, you'd be able to get away with with a shorter focal length on the Angie.

From all the work on older titles and cart loads of Columbia trailers I did at WRS, it seemed that 35mm mag stock is the most likely to get vinegar syndrome. Which would minimize poor washing as a major cause. Also, it hit after my last posts here that the main reason for still having acetate base B/W print stocks is that it's also used for white leader.

They were designed by Jan Jacobsen who also designed the HammerScope attachment, which was basically a prototype for Ultrascope. Quite a while back, Visual Products had a couple of Ultrascope attachments on eBay. They were for an Arri II*, the Arri's turret would be replaced with the Ultrascope unit. I was watching 'Hell is a City', a contemporary B/W Hammerscope crime movie. Flares on night street interiors were quite minimal. One had to search for the flares.

I was at WRS when Agfa-gaevert switched over to all estar base. So Jack Napor bought up all of the remaining Agfa film cement. We did a lot of repair work on nitrate films. A lot of this was recementing weak splices. The Agfa cement was amazingly harsh to the nitrate, almost completly dissolving the splice area. We had to beg for the management to order Kodak cement for the nitrate. Also the Agfa cement had a sickeningly sweet smell. We all hated the stuff.