Talk:Color motion picture film

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Film: Filmmaking

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Color Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Current color film stocks

I'm not so hot on this section - I don't think that it's a bad thing to be listed, but perhaps it would be better placed in a list article, such as list of motion picture film stocks? Which could then be broken down in available and discontinued stocks, and by manufacturer, and so on... But in this article, it just looks wrong. IM(H?)O. Girolamo Savonarola 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. You are pretty keen to catch my afterthoughts. :) Again - I agree. The article is fine without it. Would a list of that kind really merit it's own article? I could easily contribute Kodak to the old EXR stocks... But beyond that I'd have to do some digging. If you want to pull this section, I'm cool with that. LACameraman 01:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture sugestion..

The shot of undeveloped film , looks almost like Unexposued but developed film as it just is an Orngish COlor. Perhaps a shot of a stip with a twist to show both sides? The black coating is mentioned in the article and it is one way that MP Negative is differnt from Still film

Please sign your comments. It's a good suggestion. I tried to scan the non-emulsion side, but it only comes off as back - very hard to represent. Perhaps I'll shoot a picture of both... I'll try that soon. LACameraman 03:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went to bed last night with the naging feeling that I forgot to sign the post.= sorry guys. cmacd 01:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date Codes and such

I wonder WHERE to put an atricle on teh Date codes. your shot of a finished film is stock from Kodak UK by the KOD"AK code. the date is in plain text for print film these days...(they probaly got sick of folks asking them questions) but the negative film is coded, and the pre Y2K films had thoise funky dots squares and Triangles ot inicate the date.

I am not sure how the curent Fuji stock is dated. (my playing with MP film has been done on ends using a FILMO, and the lab work prints it for me (as far as it will ever likly get) on Kodak UK stock.

Again - please sign your comments. Just use four tildes in a row "~". The film isn't from the UK, it's from right here in Los Angeles. Printed by Kodak themselves. What makes you think it's from the UK? There is an article on Keykode, do you think date codes should merit an article? It would certainly be a stub and not necessarily fit into anything - except maybe the filmstock article... Perhaps there? Please feel free to contribute. Please remember to cite your sources. All the best, LACameraman 03:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where it would fit myself, Their are three kinds.

1) The Star-dot-square repeating codes. 2) the two letter code as part of Keycode 3) modern print film has the actual date.

Those could all go in the Keykode article. No reason why not. I have the references here, I can put something together. LACameraman 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where the Sources are for the information about the Kodak Plant COdes..and I don't want to put them without a cite, which is why I was hopping that someone who has a reference would chime in

For the record

K'ODAK or S'AFETY - Rochester

KO'DAK or SA'Fery - Toronto

KOD'AK or SAF'ETY - LONDON

KODA'K or SAFE'TY (I belive france) My super 8 is coded this way..

Very interesting... Where'd you get that from? I've never seen that info before and, honestly, haven't look at enough prints to really see a difference. It's not in the H1. Do you have a source for that info? LACameraman 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found one online source, I don't know if that is enough for to be fully refered. The link is at [[1]]

It also has a table of the older date codes.

cmacd 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Great resoruce. We'll have to integrate that into the piece. LACameraman 19:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the negative stock is suposed ot be all coated in Kodak park, but perhaps they are still converting at Kodak Limited.- or perhaps they have changed their codes?

cmacd 01:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, all Kodak film is manufactured in Rochester, not LA. And the date code should be included with the keykode article, since it is now included with the keykode [2] Girolamo Savonarola 11:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I should have made a more clear statement. The film image that we're talking about is a laser recorded image from DI onto negative by Cinesite, Hollywood (Kodak) and the print was made by Deluxe Hollywood. Perhaps the stock is from elsewhere? I have no clue why that would be. LACameraman 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern stocks

I've changed the term tri-pack (which technically means three-strip) to monopack, as that's the more common terminology among laboratories. I've also taken away most of the references to how long low-fade stocks can last-- those printed on acetate stock will certainly have their base disintegrate within a couple of hundred years and it is impossible to project how long any format will last, Estar or Acetate aside.

I've also changed some terminology in the subtractive color sections. Rather than glorifying Technicolor (which has already been done on that page's article and technically goes against NPOV), which certainly wasn't the first subtractive color format, I think we should also focus on other, early and pioneering formats such as Prizmacolor, which offshot many other processes such as Multicolor and Cinecolor. I realize that published information is either hard to find or non-extant on some of this stuff, but there is enough out there to cite some general information.

I've also noticed that while subtractive and general additive systems are covered, there is absolutely nothing to be said about lenticular additive film, which was in use all the way into the 1960s with color TV kinescopes. Keller-Dorian and Kodacolor should be the main examples.

Also, is anyone else up for creating a chart of natural color systems over the years? The Photoplayer 20:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely be up for doing a chart; I already hatched back-burner plans after making my list of film formats and adding red links to charts for color and 3D systems each. I've been very busy this past week, and that won't likely change until the end of the month, but I'd be happy to consult, especially in the devising of a good chart format and breakdown. Girolamo Savonarola 20:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film thickness

Actually, the Kodak H1 says that the individual color layers are about 0.0003" (about 8 μm). The entire film is presumed to be much thicker than this (it's typically on the order of 0.0060" or 150 μm).

The article claims that the film is 0.0003" thick. This is thin indeed.

I don't feel qualified to correct the article, but it should probably be corrected. 67.101.123.107 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How modern colour film works

"When the exposed silver-halide crystal is developed, it is coupled with a dye grain of its complementary color."

This is incorrect. The development of exposed silver halide caused the developer in the vicinity to be oxidised. The oxidised developer reacts with a dye coupler to produce a cloud of complementary coloured dye.

"This forms a dye 'cloud' (like a drop of water on a paper towel)..."

How can a dye cloud be likened to a drop of water on a paper towel? This doesn't make any sense at all. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Raymond Turner

would some mention of Edward Raymond Turner be appropriate? seems he successfully recorded a colour film in 1899, by using colour filters to split the image into seperations, and then recording those seperatations on to seperate monochrome frames. playback didn't work at the time, but the process would have worked if the projector had actually followed it --82.47.140.47 (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, 82.47.140.47. You are welcome to make the changes and have them reviewed by our wiki editor. BR Sebastian (--109.70.49.30 (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Color motion picture film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the right wording

"The few color films still being made in the 2010s are of this type."
Unless modern films are somehow not called "color film", I think this needs to be a bit more specific. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: 20th-21st Century Art, Performance and Media

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 March 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carol.G.Higgins (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Carol.G.Higgins (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution: Psychological and theoretical uses of color in film

Hello Wikipedia Family,

I would like to contribute to this article by adding information regarding the psychological and theoretical uses of color in film. I cannot find another article that addresses the topic, so I think this would be the best place for a subheading. There are however articles that can be cross-referenced such as Theory of Colours and Color theory. I believe it is a strong enough topic to have its own page, so perhaps my contribution will attribute to moving forward in that regard.

I have provided a couple of academic resources below I would be referencing. Let me know your thoughts.

Flueckiger, None Barbara. “A Digital Humanities Approach to Film Colors.” The Moving Image, vol. 17, no. 2, University of Minnesota Press, Jan. 2017, p. 71. https://doi.org/10.5749/movingimage.17.2.0071.

Murray, Susan. Bright Signals: A History of Color Television. Duke UP, 2018.

—~~~~ Carol.G.Higgins (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]