Was this movie made using Prizma color process or gaumont chronochrome?

[ritonmousquetaire]

Hi,
I recently uploaded this video :

It is from 1919, and was made using an early color process. But I
can't clearly establish what was the process used to film it. The 1919
victory parade in Paris has been filmed in color by two different
companies : Gaumont, using their chronochrome, and by an other one
using the prizma color process (some sources tell that this movie is
from 1921, but I doubt it, as the name "victory parade" was only used
for the 1919 parade). Which one is it here? Some elements make me
think it is chronochrome (we can see blue, green and red, so it seems
that it was made with a trichrome process), but the fact that at the
beginning the flags look more green than blue could be because of the
use of the prizma process (two colors only). Also, Prizma was at this
time mostly additive (as far as I know). You can see a few seconds of
this film at the end of this video :

(better color quality).
What do you think about it?

Riton

(Sorry for my bad english, I'm french, and my apologies if this is not
the right place to ask such questions).

[J. Theakston]

Hi,
I recently uploaded this video http://youtu.be/d7dnSHLkZ58
It is from 1919, and was made using an early color process. But I
can't clearly establish what was the process used to film it. The 1919
victory parade in Paris has been filmed in color by two different
companies : Gaumont, using their chronochrome, and by an other one
using the prizma color process (some sources tell that this movie is
from 1921, but I doubt it, as the name "victory parade" was only used
for the 1919 parade). Which one is it here? Some elements make me
think it is chronochrome (we can see blue, green and red, so it seems
that it was made with a trichrome process), but the fact that at the
beginning the flags look more green than blue could be because of the
use of the prizma process (two colors only). Also, Prizma was at this
time mostly additive (as far as I know). You can see a few seconds of
this film at the end of this video http://youtu.be/eh-W8gPiW-o
(better color quality).
What do you think about it?
Riton

Hi Riton,

It's my understanding that by 1919, William Van Doren Kelley had
turned the Prizma process from additive to subtractive using the
duplitized stock that was newly available on the market from Kodak,
using the now-famous bipack color process. Sequential/additive was
old hat by that point.

Your video looks like a modern composite of a two-color sequential
process. The green and yellows you see in the transfer are sort of an
optical illusion. Do you know who did the transfer? It would be
easier to identify if you have access to the original print.

J. Theakston

[Eric Grayson]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[ritonmousquetaire]

Post by Eric Grayson
In article

Post by J. Theakston

Hi,
I recently uploaded this video http://youtu.be/d7dnSHLkZ58
It is from 1919, and was made using an early color process. But I
can't clearly establish what was the process used to film it. The 1919
victory parade in Paris has been filmed in color by two different
companies : Gaumont, using their chronochrome, and by an other one
using the prizma color process (some sources tell that this movie is
from 1921, but I doubt it, as the name "victory parade" was only used
for the 1919 parade). Which one is it here? Some elements make me
think it is chronochrome (we can see blue, green and red, so it seems
that it was made with a trichrome process), but the fact that at the
beginning the flags look more green than blue could be because of the
use of the prizma process (two colors only). Also, Prizma was at this
time mostly additive (as far as I know). You can see a few seconds of
this film at the end of this video
http://youtu.be/eh-W8gPiW-o
(better color quality).
What do you think about it?
Riton

Hi Riton,
It's my understanding that by 1919, William Van Doren Kelley had
turned the Prizma process from additive to subtractive using the
duplitized stock that was newly available on the market from Kodak,
using the now-famous bipack color process.  Sequential/additive was
old hat by that point.
Your video looks like a modern composite of a two-color sequential
process.  The green and yellows you see in the transfer are sort of an
optical illusion.  Do you know who did the transfer?  It would be
easier to identify if you have access to the original print.

I agree with Jack.  There's fringing in this that suggests to me it's a
sequential process, and it looks like a two-color process to me.  In
addition, Cronochrome was approximately 1.7:1, which this isn't.  That
doesn't mean it could have been transferred at a wonky aspect ratio
later, but it isn't obvious.
The presence of a third color is likely just an artifact from the
transfer process and not something that original existed in the film.
You can adjust colors any which way you like in a transfer and have
them come out in a semi-pleasing way.
My vote is Prizma color.
Oh, for the days that this was a nice forum for such topics and not
just endless sniping about Irving Thalberg and Erich Von Stroheim.
Eric

Thank you for your answers.
Unfortunately I don't know who made the transfer (I got this video
from a friend). But you are probably right, the fringing seems to
indicate that this can't be chronochrome... It would be interesting to
compare it with gaumont's version if this one still exists (it is
great that this event was filmed in color in two different versions;
we can still see it even if one is lost). I don't know if there were a
lot of events filmed simultaneously in two different color process at
this time. It is the first prizma movie I see, but it was apparently a
quite good process (even if blue was added in the transfer process) in
comparison to the two-color additive ones (such as kinemacolor). I
know that this may be a bit off-topic, but are there a lot of prizma
movies still surviving today? Are there any DVD which show such films
(I would like to see what it looked like)?
Regards,

Riton

[Derek Gee]

Post by ritonmousquetaire
Are there any DVD which show such films
(I would like to see what it looked like)?

I sure wish somebody would release a documentary on the entire history of
color motion pictures, not just Technicolor (as in the Glorious Technicolor
documentary). I'm not aware of a film on the subject, let alone one
released on DVD.

Derek

[Eric Grayson]

Post by Derek Gee

Post by ritonmousquetaire
Are there any DVD which show such films
(I would like to see what it looked like)?

I sure wish somebody would release a documentary on the entire history of
color motion pictures, not just Technicolor (as in the Glorious Technicolor
documentary). I'm not aware of a film on the subject, let alone one
released on DVD.

There's an episode of Dr. Film planned to address just this need,
starting with the very first stuff and ending with Technicolor. Part
of what I show will depend of what clips I can get, but it will
absolutely address the technology and how the different ones worked
with some good examples.

So far I can't get anyone to watch the pilot and buy it, so have a look
again at http://www.drfilm.net and you can see a clip (along with the
trailer) of what I'm wanting to do. If anyone here has a good contact
at a real network, let me know. I'm getting stuck in SPAM filters, I
think.

Back on the track of this thread, though:

Chronochrome can have fringing too, but it has 3-color fringing instead
of two-color fringing. The evidence I see in this clip is that it's
two-color with telecine color correction.

Two-color processes look funny on a standard telecine so it's easy to
see that an image colorist would simply adjust the colors until they
looked more correct on the transfer, which would goose more yellow into
it, regardless of whether it's in the film or not. This won't affect
the actual color content, only the balance of the color. It will look
more realistic to the eye but it will still not contain the full
spectrum.

Hope this helps a bit more.

Eric

[Donald4564]

Post by Eric Grayson
There's an episode of Dr. Film planned to address just this need,
starting with the very first stuff and ending with Technicolor.  Part
of what I show will depend of what clips I can get, but it will
absolutely address the technology and how the different ones worked
with some good examples.
So far I can't get anyone to watch the pilot and buy it, so have a look
again athttp://www.drfilm.netand you can see a clip (along with the
trailer) of what I'm wanting to do.  If anyone here has a good contact
at a real network, let me know.  I'm getting stuck in SPAM filters, I
think.

Couldn't see anything on colour? If I wanted to be pedantic Bela
Lugosi is pronounced "Baylah Loogachi", but then everyone
mispronounces it I suppose.

Regards
Donald BInks

[J. Theakston]

Post by Donald4564

Post by Eric Grayson
There's an episode of Dr. Film planned to address just this need,
starting with the very first stuff and ending with Technicolor.  Part
of what I show will depend of what clips I can get, but it will
absolutely address the technology and how the different ones worked
with some good examples.
So far I can't get anyone to watch the pilot and buy it, so have a look
again athttp://www.drfilm.netandyou can see a clip (along with the
trailer) of what I'm wanting to do.  If anyone here has a good contact
at a real network, let me know.  I'm getting stuck in SPAM filters, I
think.

Couldn't see anything on colour? If I wanted to be pedantic Bela
Lugosi is pronounced "Baylah Loogachi", but then everyone
mispronounces it I suppose.

I dunno. In the MARK OF THE VAMPIRE trailer (http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=fKoia0nGKbQ), Lugosi clearly pronounces it Bay-lah Loo-go-si.

Regarding what the original topic was, I don't believe the system here
is Prizma, but one of the many Kinemacolor knock-offs. I could be
wrong, but the Prizma material that I've seen from their subtractive
system didn't have these fringing problems. David Pierce, who lurks
on this group, has a pretty good grasp on color systems and I believe
has some extensive experience with the surviving Prizma films.

J. Theakston

[Donald4564]

I dunno.  In the MARK OF THE VAMPIRE trailer (http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=fKoia0nGKbQ), Lugosi clearly pronounces it Bay-lah Loo-go-si.

Bela Lugosi by this time had become an American and had probably
despaired of Americans misprouncing his name and so just went along
with the flow. I was just being my pedantic self pointing out the
correct Hungarian.


Regards
Donald BInks

[Eric Grayson]

In article

Post by J. Theakston

Post by Donald4564

Post by Eric Grayson
There's an episode of Dr. Film planned to address just this need,
starting with the very first stuff and ending with Technicolor.  Part
of what I show will depend of what clips I can get, but it will
absolutely address the technology and how the different ones worked
with some good examples.
So far I can't get anyone to watch the pilot and buy it, so have a look
again athttp://www.drfilm.netandyou can see a clip (along with the
trailer) of what I'm wanting to do.  If anyone here has a good contact
at a real network, let me know.  I'm getting stuck in SPAM filters, I
think.

Couldn't see anything on colour? If I wanted to be pedantic Bela
Lugosi is pronounced "Baylah Loogachi", but then everyone
mispronounces it I suppose.

I dunno. In the MARK OF THE VAMPIRE trailer (http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=fKoia0nGKbQ), Lugosi clearly pronounces it Bay-lah Loo-go-si.
Regarding what the original topic was, I don't believe the system here
is Prizma, but one of the many Kinemacolor knock-offs. I could be
wrong, but the Prizma material that I've seen from their subtractive
system didn't have these fringing problems. David Pierce, who lurks
on this group, has a pretty good grasp on color systems and I believe
has some extensive experience with the surviving Prizma films.

You may be right about it being a Kinemacolor knock-off. There
certainly were some. However, I seem to recall that there were various
flavors of Prizma until it got better about 1920-1. I was never quite
able to understand why it didn't catch on more. It seemed at least as
good as two-color Technicolor.

I'm not quite sure I'm remembering correctly but I think it was Prizma
that eventually became Cinecolor and Multicolor, which was a similar
process, sorta stayed with Hughes and stagnated.

I don't think David Pierce lurks here anymore. Even I barely do.

Eric

[ritonmousquetaire]

Post by Eric Grayson
In article

Post by Donald4564

Post by Eric Grayson
There's an episode of Dr. Film planned to address just this need,
starting with the very first stuff and ending with Technicolor.  Part
of what I show will depend of what clips I can get, but it will
absolutely address the technology and how the different ones worked
with some good examples.
So far I can't get anyone to watch the pilot and buy it, so have a look
again athttp://www.drfilm.netandyoucan see a clip (along with the
trailer) of what I'm wanting to do.  If anyone here has a good contact
at a real network, let me know.  I'm getting stuck in SPAM filters, I
think.

Couldn't see anything on colour? If I wanted to be pedantic Bela
Lugosi is pronounced "Baylah Loogachi", but then everyone
mispronounces it I suppose.

I dunno.  In the MARK OF THE VAMPIRE trailer (http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=fKoia0nGKbQ), Lugosi clearly pronounces it Bay-lah Loo-go-si.
Regarding what the original topic was, I don't believe the system here
is Prizma, but one of the many Kinemacolor knock-offs.  I could be
wrong, but the Prizma material that I've seen from their subtractive
system didn't have these fringing problems.  David Pierce, who lurks
on this group, has a pretty good grasp on color systems and I believe
has some extensive experience with the surviving Prizma films.

You may be right about it being a Kinemacolor knock-off.  There
certainly were some.  However, I seem to recall that there were various
flavors of Prizma until it got better about 1920-1.  I was never quite
able to understand why it didn't catch on more.  It seemed at least as
good as two-color Technicolor.
I'm not quite sure I'm remembering correctly but I think it was Prizma
that eventually became Cinecolor and Multicolor, which was a similar
process, sorta stayed with Hughes and stagnated.
I don't think David Pierce lurks here anymore.  Even I barely do.
Eric

It could also be a kinemacolor knock-off, but I haven't enough
informations about it. So far the only processes I know to have been
used to film this event were prizma and chronochrome. It is totally
possible that there were even more color movies from it though, as
this victory parade was quite an important event, with a lot of
different nations involved in it. It would be easier to know the
answer if such a film was referenced with the name of the process
used...

regards,

Riton

[J. Theakston]

Post by Eric Grayson
I'm not quite sure I'm remembering correctly but I think it was Prizma
that eventually became Cinecolor and Multicolor, which was a similar
process, sorta stayed with Hughes and stagnated.

The problem with Prizma and Multicolor, from what I understand, is
that it was a labor intensive process. When William Van Doren Kelley
started doing the color prints on duplitized stock, he was lacquering
one side, dunking it in toner, removing the lacquer, lacquering the
other side, dunking the film in toner again, and then removing the
lacquer. Multicolor (and to a more successful degree, Cinecolor) got
around this with float tanks. By the '20s, a lot of color companies
sprung up with the same idea of using bipack photography (or some sort
of beam splitting camera) and printing on duplitized stock, because
there was no patent issues to stop them.

The lineage of the color processes is a tangled mess, and a small
group of the same people over and over. Prizma was run by Kelley and
William Crespinel. Crespinel left to the West coast in 1926 to work
with Jos. B. Harris on Harriscolor. Then in 1927, Crespinel left
Harriscolor and with Harry K. Fairall started Multicolor, the offshoot
of Prizma, which in itself was the direct descendant of the first
Kodachrome in the 1910s (the first time duplitized stock was used).
The following year, Kelley moved out west to start Kellycolor.
Fairall left Multicolor for Harriscolor that same year, and Harris
bought Kelley out (maybe--this is unconfirmed). Hughes bought
Multicolor in 1928 (undoubtedly for HELL'S ANGELS), forcing Crespinel
out. Crespinel hooked up with Alan McCormick, William Loss, and Alan
Gundelfinger and started Cinecolor, while Multicolor was still
around. By the end of 1932, Multicolor had folded, and Cinecolor
bought their equipment. Harris continued to offer his color process
into the '40s.

I now see that THE GLORIOUS ADVENTURE in 1921 used the frame-
sequential camera, so it's very likely that the initial footage in
this thread was shot with this camera.

J. Theakston

[Eric Grayson]

In article

Post by J. Theakston

Post by Eric Grayson
I'm not quite sure I'm remembering correctly but I think it was Prizma
that eventually became Cinecolor and Multicolor, which was a similar
process, sorta stayed with Hughes and stagnated.

The problem with Prizma and Multicolor, from what I understand, is
that it was a labor intensive process. When William Van Doren Kelley
started doing the color prints on duplitized stock, he was lacquering
one side, dunking it in toner, removing the lacquer, lacquering the
other side, dunking the film in toner again, and then removing the
lacquer. Multicolor (and to a more successful degree, Cinecolor) got
around this with float tanks. By the '20s, a lot of color companies
sprung up with the same idea of using bipack photography (or some sort
of beam splitting camera) and printing on duplitized stock, because
there was no patent issues to stop them.
The lineage of the color processes is a tangled mess, and a small
group of the same people over and over. Prizma was run by Kelley and
William Crespinel. Crespinel left to the West coast in 1926 to work
with Jos. B. Harris on Harriscolor. Then in 1927, Crespinel left
Harriscolor and with Harry K. Fairall started Multicolor, the offshoot
of Prizma, which in itself was the direct descendant of the first
Kodachrome in the 1910s (the first time duplitized stock was used).
The following year, Kelley moved out west to start Kellycolor.
Fairall left Multicolor for Harriscolor that same year, and Harris
bought Kelley out (maybe--this is unconfirmed). Hughes bought
Multicolor in 1928 (undoubtedly for HELL'S ANGELS), forcing Crespinel
out. Crespinel hooked up with Alan McCormick, William Loss, and Alan
Gundelfinger and started Cinecolor, while Multicolor was still
around. By the end of 1932, Multicolor had folded, and Cinecolor
bought their equipment. Harris continued to offer his color process
into the '40s.
I now see that THE GLORIOUS ADVENTURE in 1921 used the frame-
sequential camera, so it's very likely that the initial footage in
this thread was shot with this camera.

I've read many times that Multicolor didn't really fold; it just didn't
do any work. Apparently, and this is the legend at least, Hughes had
the guys on staff there doing nothing, waiting for an order that never
came --for years. They sat around and drew a salary while doing
nothing.

This is the first I've seen that Cinecolor bought Multicolor's
equipment. It wouldn't surprise me. I just hadn't heard it before.
I've never seen a Harris color print, but I've sure seen plenty of
Cinecolor and Trucolor ones. They really seemed to dominate the cheap
color field after 1932.

Eric

[J. Theakston]

Post by Eric Grayson
I've read many times that Multicolor didn't really fold; it just didn't
do any work.  Apparently, and this is the legend at least, Hughes had
the guys on staff there doing nothing, waiting for an order that never
came --for years.  They sat around and drew a salary while doing
nothing.

Well, I don't know how long that gravy train lasted, but it wasn't
long. Hughes was notorious for making people wait, but not years, and
not for projects that he didn't care about anymore. A 1938 article I
have written by Alan McCormick talks about when he first met Crespinel
in 1932, and says Multicolor at the time was "recently defunct."
Cinecolor took over printing certain titles which were supposed to be
processed by Multicolor.

Post by Eric Grayson
This is the first I've seen that Cinecolor bought Multicolor's
equipment.  It wouldn't surprise me.  I just hadn't heard it before.
I've never seen a Harris color print, but I've sure seen plenty of
Cinecolor and Trucolor ones.  They really seemed to dominate the cheap
color field after 1932.

What's funny in hindsight is how everyone in that era (except for
Technicolor) were printing in almost exactly the same process.
Harriscolor was the same process-- duplitized stock, red and blue (or
green, not sure). Harris had a special camera for photography
purposes.

Technicolor and Cinecolor had a hold on the market because they knew
not only how to get the stuff out fast and cheap, but because they had
good PR people who could make the trade name mean something in the
industry. Likewise, CFI had a stake in Republic Pictures, which is
why so many Republics are in Trucolor. They made their own business.
Their downfall was during the large-screen/widescreen era, when
Eastman Color became popular, and monopacks could hold up better on
large screens than the duplitized stock could.

J. Theakston

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by ritonmousquetaire
Hi,
I recently uploaded this video : http://youtu.be/d7dnSHLkZ58
It is from 1919, and was made using an early color process. But I
can't clearly establish what was the process used to film it. The 1919
victory parade in Paris has been filmed in color by two different
companies : Gaumont, using their chronochrome, and by an other one
using the prizma color process (some sources tell that this movie is
from 1921, but I doubt it, as the name "victory parade" was only used
for the 1919 parade). Which one is it here? Some elements make me
think it is chronochrome (we can see blue, green and red, so it seems
that it was made with a trichrome process), but the fact that at the
beginning the flags look more green than blue could be because of the
use of the prizma process (two colors only). Also, Prizma was at this
time mostly additive (as far as I know). You can see a few seconds of
this film at the end of this video : http://youtu.be/eh-W8gPiW-o
(better color quality).
What do you think about it?
Riton
(Sorry for my bad english, I'm french, and my apologies if this is not
the right place to ask such questions).

One thing we used to have trouble with in the old film labs was reprinting old color film. It just never came out right, as nothing in the earlier films was really planned to be printed onto Eastman (or agfa or fuji) film. I imagine in this new digital age people will simply add color if, say, the sky isn't blue. There no such thing as a color timing standard. It's an art, and a frequently abused art.