Showing now on AMC, Randolph Scott-
Harry Joe Brown production, setting
the stage for the Budd Boetticher
classic westerns to come.

Cinecolor very realistic, lacking
only the vibrancy of 3 color Tech, far
superior to 2 color Tech. Sometimes
hard to believe this is only a 2 color
process.

I doubt very much that this was done 2 strip. . . as by 1950 it would most
likely be shot on a single film color stock. . .
Don't forget that today we films with a Technicolor credit. . .trhat are really
just on eastman color stock

In 1949 Cinecolor introduced a three-component printing process based on their

Marty Hart wrote:

In 1949 Cinecolor introduced a
three-component printing process based
on their older two component system.
They could use Eastman Color or any
other full color negative or reversal stock
to produce three color prints. The system
was briefly referred to as SuperCinecolor.

Are you saying that THE NEVADAN was
shot in SuperCinecolor? The credits
say "A Scott-Brown production in Cinecolor."

The color scheme seemed limited to
me, more reminscent of other Cinecolor
films I've seen but superior to 2 color Tech.

The only SuperCinecolor pic I've seen is ABBOTT AND COSTELLO IN JACK AND
THE BEANSTALK and it seemed much more like Eastmancolor.

In 1949 Cinecolor introduced a three-component printing process based on their
older two component system. They could use Eastman Color or any other full
color negative or reversal stock to produce three color prints. The system was
briefly referred to as SuperCinecolor.


By 1953, if not earlier, Cinecolor was using Eastmancolor negative along with
its proprietary three-color printing process.

Perhaps the most famous SuperCinecolor feature (although billed as "In Color")
is "Invaders from Mars" (1953).

Check the compositing of IFM. Not a "bump" anywhere in the film, and there are
lots of dissolves and opticals where bumps could occur.

The "Definitive IFM", if there could be one, would be the first reels from the
U.K. version and the final reel from the U.S. version.

Separation positives of IFM were donated to UCLA, but restoration of this
impressive SuperCinecolor title is in Limbo on account of clouded title.

Marty Hart wrote:

In 1949 Cinecolor introduced a
three-component printing process based
on their older two component system.
They could use Eastman Color or any
other full color negative or reversal stock
to produce three color prints. The system
was briefly referred to as SuperCinecolor.

Are you saying that THE NEVADAN was
shot in SuperCinecolor? The credits
say "A Scott-Brown production in Cinecolor."

Are you saying that THE NEVADAN was
shot in SuperCinecolor? The credits
say "A Scott-Brown production in Cinecolor."

The first SuperCinecolor release was "The Sword of Monte
Christo"(according to Martin's website) which was released in the
States in March 1951. The NEVADAN was released in January 1950 well
before Eastman Color Negative was officially released. Therefore the
NEVADAN would almost certainly have been photographed in the Bi-pack
two color Cinecolor system.

It must have looked very good if people are mistaking it for 3 color
SuperCinecolor.

Regards,
Peter Mason

Showing now on AMC, Randolph Scott-
Harry Joe Brown production, setting
the stage for the Budd Boetticher
classic westerns to come.

Cinecolor very realistic, lacking
only the vibrancy of 3 color Tech, far
superior to 2 color Tech. Sometimes
hard to believe this is only a 2 color
process.

While there was something of a muted
quality, the image could look extremely
realistic.

That's not to say that it was accurate, but
you don't get the impression that you're
being starved for color.

Somehow they managed to get
something that looks kind of yellow out
of the system. It was more of a vivid tan,
but you could show wheat fields and blue
skies and green trees that looked quite
natural.

I'd have to say that it was nothing less than astonishing what Cinecolor
could get from their two component system. While there was something of
a muted quality, the image could look extremely realistic. That's not to
say that it was accurate, but you don't get the impression that you're
being starved for color. In many cases only an examination of the film
itself with its characteristic sloppy frame edges provides you with any
indication that only cyan and magenta dyes are present. Somehow they
managed to get something that looks kind of yellow out of the system. It
was more of a vivid tan, but you could show wheat fields and blue skies
and green trees that looked quite natural. Don't ask me how, but I've
got the 1948 film to prove it.

Unfortunately, as I said, I've never seen any satisfying explanation of
the Land effect. I've either seen overarching hand-waving explanations
about how clever the visual system, color constancy blah blah; or we get
explanations that explain why colors other than red/white/pink appear
but don't explain why those other colors are the right colors--or, even
more perplexing, why they look AS IF they're the right colors even when
you can SEE that they aren't.

I've never seen a good discussion connecting the 1960's "Land effect"
and the 2-color motion picture processes.

In the mid-sixties, Edwin Land accidentally discovered a striking
curiosity sometimes called the "Land effect."

--Using black-and-white ......take two pictures: one through a red
Wratten 25 filter and one through a green Wratten 58 filter.
--Set up two slide projectors and superimpose the images as accurately
as possible.
--Now, here's the weird part. Put a red filter over the image taken with
the red filter _and stop_.
--Project the green image using unfiltered _white_ light. NOT green
light, WHITE light.

At this point, exactly _what_ you see is a little hard to describe.

By far the best demonstration I've seen of this that didn't involve
actually setting up two slide projectors was one created by one
taylor@purdue.edu It was located at
http://www.linuxbox.com/~taylor/eisl/land.html
which now, alas, gives a 404. Fortunately I saved his images and you can
see them at

http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/hamb.gif

http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/hamb-org.gif

What it all means is controversial,

Obviously the
appearance of colors outside the red-white-pink gamut is "explained" by
good old simultaneous contrast, but I've never seen any good
semi-quantitative explanation, beyond hand-waving, of why the picture
looks (sort of) like a (somewhat) convincing full-color reproduction of
the original scene.

So. What I'm leading up to is: it would seem as if Cinecolor etc. had,
in fact, created a more sophisticated way of doing the same sort of
thing Land did, and that perhaps they had also evolved some ad-hoc craft
knowledge of how to fine-tune the process for particular kinds of
subject matter.

It would also seem as if there were a satisfying explanation, _whatever
it might be_, for why the Land effect "works" at all, it might also
explain why the commercial 2-color processes worked better than you'd
think they should have.

http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/hamb-org.gif

Sorry, I meant http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/hamb_org.gif

Read the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article, where Land explains it.

Listen to one now!

In a dark room with no reference to compare the color to, the human mind
fixes
the color to what it is used to seeing. Strip off all the theory hogwash
and
this is basically what Land said.