8mm Forum: Technicolor? No!

This is topic Technicolor? No! in forum 16mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001838

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on July 17, 2018, 04:21 AM:

If you had a film on Eastman LPP would you stick a yellow Technicolor label to the can?
No? Nor would I.
I've just received a film which was originally Technicolor on 35mm and the 16mm copy I received had a British Technicolor label.
Yes. The colour was excellent, but no Technicolor edge markings. Further examination revealed the print was on Eastman LPP.
Removed the label now!

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on July 17, 2018, 04:30 PM:

Agreed, because the distinctive image characteristics of Technicolor are lost if the destination negative and print are composite.

But at least it was beautiful LPP and not faded!

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on July 20, 2018, 02:44 AM:

Perhaps it was LPP processed by the British Technicolor lab after they gave up IB printing.

Posted by Steven Sigel (Member # 21) on August 07, 2018, 12:16 PM:

As Brian suggested - Technicolor labs kept printing film long after they stopped printing in IB - so you may even find red prints with labels that say "Technicolor" on the can or leader. Doesn't mean anything.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on August 09, 2018, 02:34 PM:

I wrongly assumed that in view of Technicolor's long and distinguished history, even non-IB prints would be their own stock. I have one or two non-IBs from around the late 1970s that are of superb quality, so I must check the markings. If their labs made use of LPP and other stocks, I'd say it was fair enough to use their labels on the cans as other labs would also have done this, but I appreciate that this could create the impression that the film is IB.

What's worse are the cases I've heard of when a 16mm print has been wrongly described as "Tecniciolor" because the seller has seen the logo on the credits, although I suppose it's sometimes a genuine mistake!

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2