3 ms·
"Technicolor cameras didn't film in color. Instead they filmed in black and white, with different filters." That's kind of semantics. It used a mechanism for c
by robbrown451 5y ago
"Technicolor cameras didn't film in color. Instead they filmed in black and white, with different filters."
That's kind of semantics. It used a mechanism for capturing 3 color channels, red green and blue. The fact that this wasn't fully integrated into the film itself, via chemistry, is really irrelevant.
The technology was fairly crude and unwieldy compared to using color film, which itself is pretty unwieldy compared to filming digitally. But saying it wasn't "filmed in color" is, to me, simply false.
- happytoexplain 5y agoEhh, they recorded onto three film strips at once, each a grayscale representation of one color, then dyed each one and combined them. I totally get what you're saying, but I feel like the sentence you quoted is a reasonable interpretation of that. At least they explained what they meant by it.
- sib 5y agoI guess... But it's sort of like saying "digital cameras[1] don't record in color, they record in greyscale," which is technically true, but also misses the point. By the definition they are using, even color film doesn't really record in color. [1] Other than the minuscule # of Foveon sensor cameras.
- robbrown451 5y agoThey explained what they meant by it, sure, but it is also a typical example of saying something that is not true to get attention, and then backing off of it. Gets clicks and such. A common example (also having to do with color) is "the color magenta doesn't exist." Yes it does, it is simply a non-spectral hue. "Magenta lasers don't exist" would be true, but less attention getting.