|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 742
|
![]()
Is it Kodachrome? Some commenters say Kodachrome was not yet invented.
In any case, it is interesting. The music is not contemporary but newly added. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_RTn...layer_embedded |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 742
|
![]()
"In these newly preserved tests, made in 1922 at the Paragon Studios in Fort Lee, New Jersey, actress Mae Murray appears almost translucent, her flesh a pale white that is reminiscent of perfectly sculpted marble, enhanced with touches of color to her lips, eyes, and hair. She is joined by actress Hope Hampton modeling costumes from The Light in the Dark (1922), which contained the first commercial use of Two-Color Kodachrome in a feature film. Ziegfeld Follies actress Mary Eaton and an unidentified woman and child also appear.
George Eastman House is the repository for many of the early tests made by the Eastman Kodak Company of their various motion picture film stocks and color processes. The Two-Color Kodachrome Process was an attempt to bring natural lifelike colors to the screen through the photochemical method in a subtractive color system. First tests on the Two-Color Kodachrome Process were begun in late 1914. Shot with a dual-lens camera, the process recorded filtered images on black/white negative stock, then made black/white separation positives. The final prints were actually produced by bleaching and tanning a double-coated duplicate negative (made from the positive separations), then dyeing the emulsion green/blue on one side and red on the other. Combined they created a rather ethereal palette of hues." |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
|
![]()
for being 1922, the film looks pretty darn good imo. pretty interesting.
__________________
MyFlickr |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
|
![]()
Thanks for posting this, domang-
It shows how far we have progressed. Sarah Joyce |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,456
|
![]()
Cool and a good example of how lighting changes when they turn their heads, helpful for anyone interested in portraits and the importance of moving a light when the subject moves if you want to keep it flattering.
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 742
|
![]()
Thanks to all for the nice replies.
I liked both the video and the comments at the linked site and at boingboing.net. There was a lot of interest in the women in the video. Some commenters seemed fascinated with them, some believed they show a change in our standards of beauty and at least one said they were ugly. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
|
![]() Quote:
i would agree with that, i think our perception of beauty changes over time. if you track the people in the media that are the "icons of beauty" so to speak. the first 2 didnt do anything for me, but the girl in green velvet, i thought she was quite pretty.
__________________
MyFlickr |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|