Re: [photo-3d] Re: pissing contest (was re re re re the fly)

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What could be more relevant than a 3-D topic?  I think this subject should
be explored more extensively than many other more trivial subjects that have
had very long threads.

Vectographs are one of the finest forms of presenting high quality
stereoscopic images that have ever existed.

As far as motion pictures are concerned, a major goal of both stereoscopic
imaging and motion picture imaging is realism.  Therefore what better
combination than stereoscopic motion pictures?

A very legitimate question was asked about the source of my information.  I
have not answered this completely yet, as quite frankly I have forgotten the
name of the person at Technicolor who originally told me this.  But, I do
have it written down somewhere, (I may even have it in writing; I seem to
recall some correspondence a few months ago).  In any case, I do intend to
look it up as soon as I find time to search my files.  Perhaps I will do
that when I stop making responses to irrelevant comments like the one about
irrelevancy.

I had been searching for this information (on motion picture Vectographs)
for years.

Then quite some time ago, a gentleman from China gave a paper at a SMPTE
chapter meeting on dye imbibition in motion pictures.  At that time, his lab
in China was the only one in the world doing this.   During the
question-and-answer session after he gave the reading on his paper, I asked
him about this.  He said something to the effect that they were not pursuing
this at the time.  Later, on questioning him privately, he indicated that
they might think of doing this sometime in the future.

I was understandably disappointed in his less-than-enthusiastic response.
No other word on the subject appeared for quite some time.

Then, I was heartened to hear that Technicolor was planning to get back into
IB printing and processing again after all these years.  Shortly after this
announcement, a gentleman from Technicolor gave a talk (it might have been a
paper, I don't recall) on the subject of IB dye imbibition (the motion
picture version of dye transfer; essentially the same process).  Again, I
asked him the same question.  His response was very good:  He said that yes,
absolutely Technicolor was once again investigating the Vectograph version,
that they were capable of doing it, and only needed someone to want to
produce a film in the process.    He gave me his card (I know I have it
somewhere) and I gathered more details by telephone the following day.
Unlike the old system, which was very labor intensive, the new one is highly
automated.

If this was a paper, and not just a chapter presentation (I think it was) it
will have been published in the SMPTE Journal.  Once I find it, this will
have his name on it, and I will call them and ask to speak to him.

In any case, this is part of an ongoing research project on my part, and I
want to thank you for reminding me to look up my previous information and
continue this.

I can't think of a more important or relevant subject to be discussed among
the photo-3d group.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: <CanterMike@xxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:16 PM
Subject: [photo-3d] Re: pissing contest (was re re re re the fly)


> In a message dated 10/19/00 10:20:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> <<
>  > >>Technicolor (yes, the original company of IB print fame that tried to
>  > >>introduce Vectographs to the movie theater in 1953-1954) is now
>  trying
>  > >>again.  They say they can do it, but need for someone to produce and
>  > release
>  > >>a 3-D film in the process.  No takers yet.
>  >
>  > Where is your information coming from?
>
>  Who specifically did you talk to at Technicolor about this? Did you find
>  the info on some web site somewhere?  >>
>
>
> Am I the only one who finds this thread increasingly irrelevant and off
topic?
>
> Can we put this to bed now?
>
> Mike (tired and grumpy myself)
>
>
> ps.  the thread about motion picture film is getting stale, too
>
>
>
>