I would agree with 40/40/20

My understanding is
that the beam splitter changes also helped a lot too.

On 2009-09-01 15:21:17 -0700, "J. Theakston" <tomservoro... at (no spam) yahoo.com> said:

My understanding is
that the beam splitter changes also helped a lot too.

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.

There were only 50 titles completed in Three-Strip in 1955, and that
was all she wrote.

One-half of the Three-Strip cameras were almost immediately divered to
VistaVision.

For a process which lasted two decades and a half (1932 to 1955), that
was a pretty good run.

CinemaScope had almost as good a run (1953 to 1969).

But, CinemaScope is essentially still with us in its great many
immitators (1953 to present, almost six decades), whereas Three-Strip
isn't.

What little remains of true Technicolor is found in the Technicolor
color wheels and SE animation, which was logically part of Three-Strip
after F&T and a few other Technicolor shorts were completed using that
camera system, and the conversion to SE had been made.

Lee Garmes, GWTW's initial
cinematographer, said at a 70s SMPTE conference that the effective ASA
of 3 strip was approximately 25. I had always heard that it was
actually slower than that in the mid to late 30s.

On 2009-09-13 09:19:58 -0700, TVDAVE <tvda... at (no spam) gmail.com> said:

Lee Garmes, GWTW's initial
cinematographer, said at a 70s SMPTE conference that the effective ASA
of 3 strip was approximately 25. I had always heard that it was
actually slower than that in the mid to late 30s.

The effective ASA of Three-Strip exceeded that of Eastmancolor until
5250 came out.

Or, so the legend goes.

If one would look-up the various Three-Strip patents, of which there
are more than several, the final beam-splitter, which was likely never
used in actual production, had an ideal transfer function in all three
primary colors.

The earlier beam-splitters were much, much worse, and Three-Strip had
very nearly a twenty-five-year run -- 1932 to 1955 -- which is really
astonishing for a system which was architectually so complex.

--
CinemaScope®: The Modern Miracle You See without Special Glasses!

On 2009-09-13 09:19:58 -0700, TVDAVE <tvda... at (no spam) gmail.com> said:

Lee Garmes, GWTW's initial
cinematographer, said at a 70s SMPTE conference that the effective ASA
of 3 strip was approximately 25. I had always heard that it was
actually slower than that in the mid to late 30s.

The effective ASA of Three-Strip exceeded that of Eastmancolor until
5250 came out.

Or, so the legend goes.

If one would look-up the various Three-Strip patents, of which there
are more than several, the final beam-splitter, which was likely never
used in actual production, had an ideal transfer function in all three
primary colors.

The earlier beam-splitters were much, much worse, and Three-Strip had
very nearly a twenty-five-year run -- 1932 to 1955 -- which is really
astonishing for a system which was architectually so complex.

--
CinemaScope®: The Modern Miracle You See without Special Glasses!

Adrian Cornwell Clyne (Adrian Bernard Klein since World War 2) in "Colour
Cinematography" lists many Technicolor Patent numbers but since his
book was published
in 1951 It doesn't have info on the patents you are referring to.

That would be the patent which was issued in 1955.

I don't have the number handy.

Incidentally, the "resurrection" of dye-transfer printing resulted in a
significant number of new U.S. patents.

On Sep 16, 12:01 pm, Peter <peterh5... at (no spam) rattlebrain.com> wrote:

That would be the patent which was issued in 1955.

I don't have the number handy.

I believe patents 2703506, 2771055, and 2737076 are the ones which are
relevant to this discussion.

Incidentally, the "resurrection" of dye-transfer printing resulted in a
significant number of new U.S. patents.

For good reason.  Whipping up new dyes and formulations to be
compatible with polyester-based stock was nothing short of re-
inventing the line.

J. Theakston

On 2009-09-16 02:31:33 -0700, cine... at (no spam) hotmail.com said:

Adrian Cornwell Clyne (Adrian Bernard Klein before World War 2) in "Colour
Cinematography" lists many Technicolor Patent numbers but since his
book was published
in 1951 It doesn't have info on the patents you are referring to.

That would be the patent which was issued in 1955.

I don't have the number handy.

Incidentally, the "resurrection" of dye-transfer printing resulted in a
significant number of new U.S. patents.

--
CinemaScope®: The Modern Miracle You See without Special Glasses!

Those patents were for the mechanical aspects of the process, not the
chemical aspects.

Now, the chemical aspects may have changed, too -- although I doubt it
-- but the four or so patents which I reviewed were all for the
mechanical processing of the matrix and the blank receiver.

Incidentally, the "resurrection" of dye-transfer printing resulted in a
significant number of new U.S. patents.

For good reason. Whipping up new dyes and formulations to be
compatible with polyester-based stock was nothing short of re-
inventing the line.

On Sep 17, 11:55=A0am, Peter <peterh5... at (no spam) rattlebrain.com> wrote:
Those patents were for the mechanical aspects of the process, not the
chemical aspects.

Now, the chemical aspects may have changed, too -- although I doubt it
-- but the four or so patents which I reviewed were all for the
mechanical processing of the matrix and the blank receiver.

That's interesting. When I actually worked at Technicolor, I was told
by someone who actually worked on the IB line that the dyes were
totally reformulated.

J. Theakston

Those patents were for the mechanical aspects of the process, not the
chemical aspects.

Now, the chemical aspects may have changed, too -- although I doubt it
-- but the four or so patents which I reviewed were all for the
mechanical processing of the matrix and the blank receiver.

That's interesting. When I actually worked at Technicolor, I was told
by someone who actually worked on the IB line that the dyes were
totally reformulated.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had to be totally reformulated to work
with the new receiver film too. But they didn't patent any of those
changes as far as I can see.

On Sep 17, 5:01 am, Peter <peterh5... at (no spam) rattlebrain.com> wrote:

On 2009-09-16 02:31:33 -0700, cine... at (no spam) hotmail.com said:

Adrian Cornwell Clyne (Adrian Bernard Klein before World War 2) in "Colour
Cinematography" lists many Technicolor Patent numbers but since his
book was published
in 1951 It doesn't have info on the patents you are referring to.

That would be the patent which was issued in 1955.

I don't have the number handy.

Incidentally, the "resurrection" of dye-transfer printing resulted in a
significant number of new U.S. patents.

Peter,
        Do you know what the new process was that these patents
referred to?
Was it merely an improvement on the Dichroic prisms that were
introduced in
1951, or was it a totally new system?

Regards,
Peter Mason