BroBear (imported) wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:25 am The reason that Technicolor resorations look so good now is partly the ability to clean up and color balanace film that is avalable now.

However the most important factor is that Technicolor was shot with a camera that used 3 monochrome (B&W) negitives to capture Red Green and Blue (RGB). These negitives captured each color at what today we would call a very high bandwith and bit depth. So using the new technology for film transfer there is far more to work with in restoration.

In the old days Technicolor prints were literally printed using colored dyes, which have outlasted many Eastman Kodak film emusions.

BroBear

Thank You for that point, bold fonted above.

Gave you a reputation tag, see your new sun bursts.

It occurs to me that NASA uses a similar system of monochromes to create real color images. All in digital. Correct?

Three systems to capture their part of the optical bandwidth seems better then one. Would more be better? Like five? Or are we victims of our retinal cone's limitations <sigh>

Then we could get into is what you call blue really the same as what I call blue or are we just trained to name our respective blue's , blue.

Opps, wondering off topic here.

Thanks again for the upload about a three monochrome system. Do any modern film makers use such a system even in digital as NASA?

Moi

...

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:05 pm It occurs to me that NASA uses a similar system of monochromes to create real color images. All in digital. Correct?

...

That's almost true.

The colors are the mass spectral colors of various atoms. They tune the camera to a frequency of various energized atoms like oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen etc... then the satellite takes separate images and the scientists can combine them into pretty pictures.

If you look at this picture of the Large Magellenic Cloud, it's in a pretty red representative of a ionization that the human eye cannot see. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap101016.html

Here's a natural color picture which isn't as vibrant but would still be quite lovely in a telescope. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap101107.html

They also overlay X-ray (Chandra telescope) and Infrared or optical results which no single camera can do. It's two separate satellites. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090205.html

Here is another composite: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080804.html

Technicolor was done in one camera. Same technique.

Those are space telescopes,

I mean the Mars landers and rovers as are attempting to give true color images.

? ?

Several Monochrome imagers?

Thanks

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:17 pm Those are space telescopes,

I mean the Mars landers and rovers as are attempting to give true color images.

? ?

Several Monochrome imagers?

Thanks

I do remember reading something about one camera and switchable filters. As far as I remember it was green, blue and near infrared.

A particularly gorgeous picture in false colors:

Dave (imported) wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:19 pm http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap1

10416.html

The Tadpoles of IC 410

Image Credit & Copyright: Mark Hanson

Explanation: This telescopic close-up shows off the otherwise faint emission nebula IC 410 in striking false-colors. It also features two remarkable inhabitants of the cosmic pond of gas and dust above and left of center, the tadpoles of IC 410. The picture is a composite of images taken through both broad and narrow band filters. The narrow band data traces atoms in the nebula, with emission from sulfur atoms in red, hydrogen atoms in green, and oxygen in blue. Partly obscured by foreground dust, the nebula itself surrounds NGC 1893, a young galactic cluster of stars that energizes the glowing gas. Composed of denser cooler gas and dust the tadpoles are around 10 light-years long, potentially sites of ongoing star formation. Sculpted by wind and radiation from the cluster stars, their tails trail away from the cluster's central region. IC 410 lies some 12,000 light-years away, toward the constellation Auriga.

Now, do you REALLY believe that there's a rover or 2 on Mars? Personally, I don't believe we ever went TO the moon.

My father worked on the Viking Landers.

Now there was some aerospace!

As with landing on the moon, there was then decades of "no interest". NIXON as I remember pulled the plug on aerospace and yet NIXON was the President to speak with Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon, as placed there by JFK.

Go figure.

Now, on topic, should EA ask Hollywood to design three or more monochrome digital cameras as to create a final digital product that would compare to Elizabeth Taylor in Ivanhoe. Or GWTW.

Would that create the video I miss in the digital age? As the oldies can be transferred to DVD's I suspect the loss is in the original "filming".

Moi