Talk:Technicolor

message: "One major drawback of Technicolor's 3-strip process was that it required a special Technicolor camera. Film studios were never allowed to buy these cameras. Instead they had to hire them from the Technicolor Corporation, complete with a number of camera technicians and a 'color coordinator', more often than not, Natalie Kalmus herself. Natalie's name appears in the credits of virtually every Technicolor film made to 1950, in spite of the fact that she was frequently banned from film sets because her concept of color coordination usually differed from that of the artistic directors."
I can only guess that Natalie Kalmus was the wife or daughter of Dr. Herbert Kalmus. This should be made clear. TheMadBaron 07:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says "... wife of Herbert Kalmus".  She was actually his ex wife.
If I recall correctly, every Technicolor camera available in Hollywood (seven or eight) was rented to film the burning of Atlanta scenes in Gone With The Wind.
My grandfather was the owner/manager of a movie theater, and when GWTW premiered, either the studio or the Technicolor Company actually sent advisors to theaters to make sure that lighting conditions in theaters were "correct."  The story goes that the advisor even wanted the red "EXIT" lights turned off.  This my grandfather flat-out refused to do, as he had both the law and simple common sense on his side.
RogerInPDX (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Natalie Kalmus

message: The John Hay Whitney article should be truncated, with any important information of that article grafted to the Technicolor one.  It should not be deleted, as it is important information to that main article, but it does go on too much of a tangent about the process itself.  The Whitney article should list briefly his involvement. Thephotoplayer 21:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitney article 

message: Why does Herbert Kalmus redirect to here?  He should get his own biographical article with a link.  --jacobolus (t) 02:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbert Kalmus redirect? 

message: There's no need for the "Technicolor Yawn" reference. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I'll end up deleting it tonight.
Agreed. This reference does not contribute to the main focus of the article at all. Cintrom 14:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vomit? 

message: Technicolor was incorporated in 1915 as the Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation. — Walloon 21:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation was only Technicolor as a film producer (Gulf Between and Toll of the Sea).  The labs may have originally incorporated that way, but by the end of the 1920s, the firm was simply "Technicolor Corps., Inc."The Photoplayer 06:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the official corporate history, issued on their 90th Anniversary: "In November of 1915, the Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation was officially established." Scientific or Technical Academy Awards went to "Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation" in 1932, 1940 and 1953. A 1942 article by Winton Hoch says that he is with "Technicolor Motion Picture Corp., Hollywood, Calif." The same article (p. 11) refers to "Dr. Herbert T. Kalmus, President of Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation".  — Walloon 06:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake.  I just looked at a trade ad from 1953 and it does indeed say "Motion Picture Corporation".  I was confusing it with "Technicolor, Inc.", the labs, which were a subsidiary.The Photoplayer 17:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporate title

message: Is Technicolor at all the same thing as Warnercolor?  I understand that The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima, was filmed in 1952 in Warnercolor instead of Technicolor.  How do these processes differ?  What made one process more appealing than the other?  Was it simply the matter of cost, and that's it?
I assume that similar results in film processing were arrived at, regardless of the patented method employed, so it must be a matter of cost more than anything else.
:WarnerColor was not the same thing as Technicolor. Technicolor used a dye transfer process (read the article) to mechanically create the image from printing matrices, like lithography; while WarnerColor, introduced in 1952, used Eastmancolor print stock to create prints photochemically, just as the color negatives from still photos are used to create color prints. The dye transfer process cost more, but gave unquestionablly better color quality, and the metal-based dyes did not fade; while the photochemical dyes in WarnerColor prints shifted badly toward pink with purple shadows in as little as five years. One film historian called WarnerColor prints "the worst looking prints in the history of motion pictures". By the mid-1950s, Warner Bros. shut down their film labs and went back to Technicolor, even though they continued to use "WarnerColor" in the credits for several years. — Walloon 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Technicolor different from Warnercolor? 

message: Isn't the section "shooting Technicolor footage" redundant?  This information is pretty much covered within the HISTORY section.  I feel we should merge it, but what do you think?  -The Photoplayer 10:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "About the Technicolor Process" redundant? 

message: [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|275px|right|Poster for the film.]]
There seems to have another process between 3 and 4 which is not mentioned in the article. In 1931, a new process was used for the film called "The Runaround" released by Radio Pictures (RKO). According to the review (which praises the attractive color of the film) in Variety: "It's the first made under Technicolor's new printing process designed to remove grain, which is does to a degree placing application of tints on a much improved scale."Zosimus Comes 19:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice how the poster for the movie also mentions that the color process is much improved.Zosimus Comes 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's true that the technology was refined in 1931, the process stayed the same-- same camera, same kind of printing.  Many small tweaks were performed at Technicolor over the years-- listing them all would be interesting, but merely pointless minutiae.  For all intents and purposes, this is still "process 3". - The Photoplayer 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process 3.5? 

message: The Modern Terminology section refers to "This is, however, incorrect, as 3-Chip camcorders split light into red, green, and blue portions instead of magenta, cyan, and green." Shouldn't it be "instead of magenty, cyan, and yellow"? jhawkinson 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, absolutely - it should be yellow. I'll change that now. LACameraman 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern terminology 

message: Wasn't Toy Story released in 1995? > "After its reintroduction in 1997, the dye transfer process was (somewhat unexpectedly) used in [...] Toy Story." Phil86921 02:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they're actually referring to Toy Story 2, which was released in 1999. -The Photoplayer 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toy Story? 

message: Under Reintroduction of the dye transfer process, in the second paragraph, after dye bleeding. It doesn't seem to be vandalism but Google can't find the term. I've no clue what it even means, but on the off chance it means something, I'm not going to delete it myself. Could someone who would know if it means anything either delete it or replace it with something more clear? -- Dezro 08:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emulsion flaking? 

message: :"3CCD camcorders are often erroneously referred to as filming "in Technicolor" due to the similarities to Process 4. This is, however, incorrect, as 3-Chip camcorders split light into red, green, and blue portions instead of magenta, cyan, and yellow."
I believe that this comparison IS accurate, because Technicolor uses RGB in the camera just like video.  Magenta, cyan, and yellow do not come into play until the film print is made.  You would not split light into magenta, cyan, and yellow because any given photon would expose TWO of those strips, resulting in very dull color.  Algr 05:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. Whether the process is additive (RGB video) or subtractive (a CMY Technicolor print), RGB filters are used in the photography. Additive and subtractive processes both work by controlling the amounts of red, green and blue light that reach the eye. CMY is simply RGB "by the back door": cyan (printed from the red-filtered image) controls the amount of red light that is seen, by absorbing more or less of it; magenta the amount of green; yellow the amount of blue. The seeming RGB-CMY dichotomy can be very confusing to the novice -- at least, it had to rattle around in the back of my own skull for quite a while before the concept became entirely clear. The muddled treatment of the matter in my 8th Grade science textbook was not helpful. Unfortunately, misleading or erroneous "explanations" are still far too abundant. AVarchaeologist (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technicolor/video comparison 

message: :Image:Foxfire1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Foxfire1.jpg

message: :Image:WizardOfOzTechnicolor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:WizardOfOzTechnicolor.jpg

message: :Image:ColorFD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ColorFD.jpg

message: Should this be hyphenated. The article is not consistent. jhawkinson (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My grammar days are somewhat foggy, but I believe that the answer depends on whether it's used as an adjective or not. (The former being hyphenated.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Certainly , yes, if its a compound noun, then the adjectival form is hyphenated ("dye-transfer"). That doesn't advise whether the noun form should hyphenated though... jhawkinson (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example, I believe that "the print was a dye transfer" and "it was a dye-transfer print" are both correct. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, it depends on whether it's being used as a noun or adjective. — Walloon (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dye transfer" or "dye-transfer"? 

message: The image :Image:Looney Tunes.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:Fiddlesticks.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand-- why was a screenshot from a public domain movie tagged with a copyright tag in the first place? The Photoplayer 16:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Looney Tunes.png

message: This may be useful to editors working on a history of the company.....  The management team that moved from Boston to Hollywood comprised: 'Doc' Herbert Kalmus and Natalie Kalmus, Jack Kienninger (Chemist) and wife Alice, Russell Connant and wife Marion, Eric Howse and Louise, Mel Blanco (Purchasing?), Malcolm Ames (Mechanical Engineer) and Mary. Ariconte (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston to Hollywood move 

message: This Tiffany film is regretably now lost in any form. It is noted here as a milestone in being the first color sound film. Yet film reviews from the period or indeed newspaper adverts never mention color. However on the bill for the New York premiere (see the New York Times) there was a silent two color Technicolor short shown with the film at that time and this is inded listed as Technicolor. This could easily be misread by someone at some point such that The Cavalier was (wrongly) in Technicolor.
Also, if the film was made in the earlier cement process as stated, it is unlikely to have carried an optical track due to the obvious problem of soundtrack distortion created by having two films cemented together.  
The memoirs of Dr Kalmus specifically state that 'The Viking' was the first Technicolor production with sound and there is an in-depth discussion of how it came to be technically and there is no mention of 'The Cavalier'.
Whilst it would be nice to find something new and forgotten in film history, I don't think 'The Cavalier' could claim the position of first color sound film for the reasons stated above.
It would be good if some solid information on the film from more than one source could be provided to back up the idea that the Cavalier was anything other than b/w sound.    
--Actuationset (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cavalier is not listed in Technicolor's company list of films shot or processed by them, so off this article it goes. The Photoplayer 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cavalier (1928) 

message: Technicolor has recently become a part of the Home Networking industry. I just noticed after all the sites for my DSL modem started redirecting there, but it appears that the Speedtouch brand of DSL modems has been acquired by them. Is this worthy of being placed somewhere in the 'Technicolor Today' section? I can't find much info, other than that available on their site.
I thought it was a joke at first, but then I realized it was legitimate.
– The answer is here
And for people who understand french speaking, there is a treasure of courses here (it's from the Cinémathèque_Française at Bercy, Paris. If it's not made, check "Techniques cinématographiques" on the left otherwise you'll get way too much courses themes). Technicolor ones are mostly around 2015
2001:660:3305:100:7000:A465:42D5:42FC (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Home Networking

message: The Technicolor 2 process refers to Green and Red being complementary colors to each other, and that each was toned with its opposite (so the Red positive with Green and the Green positive with Red). This appears to be a layman's interpretation. The complementary color for Green is Magenta, and the compliment of Red is Cyan. These are the toning colors for this process. Further, the filter for "Green" may not be spectral green. Other sources I've looked up refer to it as Blue-Green with a Magenta complement. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor2.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.249.228 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All that is necessary to render white by any subtractive process is for all the dyes to be absent. All that is necessary to render an acceptable black by a two-color subtractive process is for each dye to substantially block the portion of the spectrum that the other transmits. They do not need to be strictly complementary. There is sometimes a huge gulf between theory in the form of color charts or diagrams and practice in the form of dyes which may have complex spectral characteristics (not to mention the peculiarities of human color vision, an easily overlooked but critical factor in any color reproduction process). Pontacyl Green, for example, might most accurately be described as a green-leaning cyan—distinctly green when concentrated, but tending to blue when dilute (note that it and another nominally green dye constitute the distinctly bluish cyan component used for three-color Technicolor IB prints). Aniline dyes of various colors when highly concentrated typically appear red because they are almost completely transparent to very deep red wavelengths while absorbing more or less of the rest of the spectrum, including at least a small percentage of the part they nominally transmit, something which would hardly be apparent from a CIE diagram. Suggested experiment: try stacking three or four layers of a typical deep green photographer's lighting gel and looking at a sunlit landscape with green foliage through the murky sandwich. After your eyes adjust to the low light level, chances are you will see impossible magenta-red foliage set off by a 1930 Technicolor greenish-blue sky, all live and in unnatural color. Because of dichroic characteristics and other complexities which can best be analyzed with the aid of a spectroscope rather than a color chart, it is possible to reproduce a considerably wider range of colors (sometimes including seemingly impossible colors at low purity and saturation) with a two-color subtractive process than with a two-color additive one. AVarchaeologist (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color Descriptions Wrong 

message: This article is written like a essay written by a film buff or cinematographer from personal experience, and is not a properly cited encyclopedia article. While it has a number of footnotes, this large article has huge swaths of uncited claims and what seems like personal opinion, violating both WP:V and WP:NPOV. From the tone, which is straightforward and cleanly written, I'm sure this was created in good faith. Nonetheless, the plethora of claimed facts here must, by policy, be properly footed with WP:RS citations. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to have more in-line citations from reliable sources.  Please expand on the neutrality issue??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Ariconte. It looks like some work was done on this since December, which may have addressed some of these issues. (I haven't gone through them edit-by-edit or anything.) At the time, the article seemed a bit rah-rah, making it seem as if Technicolor were the greatest thing to happen to movies since Edison. That may be unavoidable to some extent: Technicolor certainly is a miraculous technology. But I note that even at the time, I wrote that the article seemed written more like a personal essay than as a tonally neutral encyclopedia article, so perhaps a tag referring to "essay-like" or "inappropriate tone" might be better than the harsher neutrality tag. If you'd like to swap it out, I'd certainly go along. Overall, there is an amazing amount of information here, and as you concur, it does need much better citing. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll try improve the citing and will remove the neutrality tag. I'm no expert on the company or the process - I used to know a bunch of people who were - but they are all dead. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's tags

message: I recall using Technicolor brand color film for a Kodak 126 camera in the late Nineteen-Seventies. Does anyone have any information on this brand of film? Was it made by the same company that made Technicolor film for the cinema? Eligius (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Created from unperforated 35mm Eastmancolor, more likely. In 1970, you could walk into Technicolor's classic deco building in Hollywood and pick up a roll of 35mm "Technicolor" negative film (Bell and Howell perf IIRC and so probably salvaged from left-over ends of standard Eastmancolor motion picture negative stock), then mail it in or drop it off for processing. What you got back was an uncut roll of negatives, a set of mounted slides made from them (printed on Eastmancolor high-fade positive stock, judging by their current wretched pale reddish appearance) and a fresh roll of "Technicolor" film to keep you hooked. Happily, I only shot a couple of rolls of the stuff before returning to the better-looking Ektachrome, which had resolved its own fading problems by then and still looks fine over forty years later. AVarchaeologist (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technicolor 126 Film 

message: "The process of splitting the image reduced the amount of light reaching the film stock." Though this is literally true, it applies to all color processes, including integral tripacks. The need to separate the image into red, green, and blue components necessarily reduces the amount of energy available to expose the film (or sensor).
Although Firefox was the last live-action three-strip Technicolor film, Disney continued to use "three-strip" Technicolor for animation. Sleeping Beauty was shot in three-strip Technirama. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so. Done, along with general overhauling in the vicinity to cure some other errors and oddities, but any serious spit and polish in this section is liable to be labor expended in vain until the major problem has been tackled: it and the section that precedes it are essentially duplicate renderings of the same subject matter. They badly need to be merged into one. AVarchaeologist (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: minor errors

message: The article contains a film frame from a Donald Duck film claiming public domain as it a work of the government.  Why then does the frame contain a very clear copyright notice? 109.153.242.10 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: At the commons page the image is said to be public domain because it was made for the U.S. Government. I don't know if that is sufficient or not. A lot of wikis use the image. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. It's a frame from The Spirit of '43, a propaganda film made for the U.S. Government. The relevant law section is ‘Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.’ (This is the same law that puts NASA images in the public domain.) From '41 to '45 Disney was under a government contract to produce propaganda shorts. Disney was almost bankrupt at the time and sorely needed the money, so they produced dozens of animated shorts, as well as numerous training films, all of which are in the public domain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright film frame? 

message: In my opinion this article assumes a knowledge of photography in the reader.  I would imagine it's unclear for almost anyone who reads it, frankly.  For example, the phrase about the one of the films in Technicolor 4 running "from base to base" is nonsensical, since it's meaningless for almost anyone reading it.  I think it would be wise to define these confusing terms so that the article becomes understandable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.204.112 (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the details of the processes are inevitably somewhat technical and it is reasonably assumed that the reader at least knows that photographic film normally has a base side and an emulsion side. Should this article be required to explain what photography is, what a camera is, and why movies seem to move? There are elementary articles explaining all of those things. Wikipedia articles on specialized subjects are not required to assume complete ignorance of the basics in their field and start at Square One. All the math articles would have to begin with 1+1=2. Anyone not interested in the technical and historical aspects can get what they need from the first paragraph—Technicolor was an old process for making movies in color and is often associated with bright, splashy color schemes—and skip the details. AVarchaeologist (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

text: P.S. My belated thanks for pointing out a substantial error in the first of the TWO descriptions (an error in itself, and yet to be cured) of the three-strip process in this article. The phrase you quoted, "from base to base", should have set off my alarm bell but its import was overlooked in the context of your broader complaint. In fact, those films ran emulsion to emulsion. That description, which could easily confuse someone well-acquainted with the basics of photography, has now been completely overhauled. AVarchaeologist (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for clarification of jargon 

message: There is a Request for Comments at Talk: Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film) concerning the terms to used for the older Technicolor Process 2.  Please participate in the RFC.  (This question may apply to other articles, either concerning movies that were filmed in Process 2, or movies that had a predecessor that was filmed in process 2.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on Terminology for Process 2 movie 

message: None of the respective articles mention this, there's no citation, and Toy Story's release date of 1995 contradicts the earlier statement that the process was reintroduced in 1997. I haven't read through any of the sources, so it's possible the info is in there. I just wanted to bring the issue to people's attention. 8bitW (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reintroduction" 

message: I restructured the last three sections under one top-level heading, "Post-1955 usage". Feel free to discuss or change if you disagree. 8bitW (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the three sections all talk about post-1995 usage... --Janke | Talk 20:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. :-D I was thinking "post-1955" because when the last major film in Technicolor was released, but I had glossed over some later references in the previous section. Still, I'm thinking that "post-1995" sounds a bit arbitrary. Maybe something more like "Recent usage" or "Recent history"? I'm not sure though. 8bitW (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring 

message: From an IP editor: "The Star Wars reference above is incorrect and is based on confusion between the Technicolor 3-strip process and the routine making of monochrome separation masters from monopack colour negative originals which had nothing to do with Technicolor." This needs to be looked into! --Janke | Talk 07:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP comment moved from article to talk 

message: The article says: ‘Technicolor's advantage over most early natural-color processes was that it was a subtractive synthesis’
This is very misleading, especially to lay people, and especially when they follow the link. The fact of the matter is that red, green and blue channels are recorded. The only place where subtractive mixing is used is on the film itself. It is sort of possible to piece this together out of the rest of the text, but I still think this needs to be rephrased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Misleading only if the reader overlooks the key word "synthesis" in the quoted sentence. All full-color processes (excepting only exotic hyper-rarities like the Lippmann process) start with analysis into RGB channels, so that can and should always be assumed. Agreed, though, that color photography in general is badly misunderstood by many (most?) people, who seem to imagine that the color is captured and displayed by some mysterious chameleon-like phenomenon rather than by analysis into, and then synthesis from, monochrome channels of color information. The basic principles of color reproduction by printing press, photographic film and television were covered in my 8th grade science textbook, but that was then and perhaps the subject has now been crowded out. 66.81.243.188 (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: Voice 103.148.21.18 (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technicolor 

message: "Kalmus convinced Walt Disney to shoot one of his Silly Symphony cartoons, Flowers and Trees (1932), in Process 4, the new "three-strip" process. Seeing the potential in full-color Technicolor, Disney negotiated an exclusive contract for the use of the process in animated films that extended to September 1935. Other animation producers, such as the Fleischer Studios and the Ub Iwerks studio, were shut out – they had to settle for either the two-color Technicolor systems or use a competing process such as Cinecolor."
Disney didn't start self-distributing their films until 1953. At the time, United Artists were releasing their movies, what does United Artists have do to. 2A02:C7C:3405:B900:1011:3B2C:855A:FEE4 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disney & United Artists