Object Based Broadcasting/Perceptive media

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Only pandemics interfere with progress; didn't you know?

Well . . . the last big Pandemic (1918 Spanish Flu) did decimate the movie theater industry. It put all the theater owners out of business. That's when the Hollywood studios began buying bankrupt theaters to start their own theater chains. This lead to the government declaring them monopolies which had the studios divesting themselves of their theaters (1947 Paramount Consent Decrees)

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Well . . . the last big Pandemic (1918 Spanish Flu) did decimate the movie theater industry. It put all the theater owners out of business. That's when the Hollywood studios began buying bankrupt theaters to start their own theater chains. This lead to the government declaring them monopolies which had the studios divesting themselves of their theaters (1947 Paramount Consent Decrees)

It decimated a lot of things.

My paternal grandfather was lucky enough to survive being infected with it, but he never fully recovered. He actually woke up to find himself on a pile of corpses in the back of an Army truck; he had been mistaken for dead.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

It's 2 Color not 2 Strip. There is no such thing as 2 Strip. 2 Color and 3 Strip.

And it was never a fad or a gimmick (ala 3D). It was the industry moving from B&W to Color. They just hadn't figured out how to go full color. That's why it wasn't used for many films.

At the same time 2 Color was being used, Hollywood was adding Sound to movies (mid 1920s) which wasn't 100% "solid" because it was first a synced record to the film (Vitaphone). All kinds of issues and problems arose. But once it was Sound On Film, that cemented the death of silent films. This happened during the 1930s and again the Depression didn't help with advancements in Movie Theater technology.

It used two three strip cameras and was sometimes referred to as two strip. You know what I meant.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Many of the 2 Color films of the 1920s were not 100% color. They were B&W with Color inserts. Sorta like the way IMAX 15/70 is used today.

I’m trying to think of the film that actually opened with a colour sequence before returning to B&W. A Charlie Chaplin film maybe?

[Steedeel]

Anyway, back to OBM.

Will it change film like full colour did?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It used two three strip cameras and was sometimes referred to as two strip. You know what I meant.

Technicolor’s two-color subtractive camera was designed by 27-year-old Joseph Arthur Ball in 1921. It used a beam-splitting prism behind the lens to divide light into two paths; half was filtered red and the other half green. These two color records were then captured onto black-and-white film one above the other, vertically flipped. Because this technique used only two color separations, the process was incapable of replicating accurate blues, purples, and yellows, although pleasing results could be obtained with careful color coordination.

https://www.eastman.org/technicolor/...-color-process

Only those people who are not famaliar with the process called it "two strip." It can be called Technicolor 2 Color or Technicolor Process 2 or Technicolor Process 3.

The cameras that used 3 Strip Technicolor are different than those used for Techicolor 2 Color.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It used two three strip cameras and was sometimes referred to as two strip. You know what I meant.

Nope.

"In Process 1 (1916), a prism beam-splitter behind the camera lens exposed two consecutive frames of a single strip of black-and-white negative film simultaneously, one behind a red filter, the other behind a green filter."

Process 2:

"As before, the special Technicolor camera used a beam-splitter that simultaneously exposed two consecutive frames of a single strip of black-and-white film, one behind a green filter and one behind a red filter.

The difference was that the two-component negative was now used to produce a subtractive color print."

"Technicolor Process 3 (1928) was developed to eliminate the projection print made of double-cemented prints in favor of a print created by dye imbibition. The Technicolor camera for Process 3 was identical to that for Process 2, simultaneously photographing two consecutive frames of a black-and-white film behind red and green filters

Notice how in all three explanations the word "camera" is singular. Processes 1-3 had nothing to do with the number of cameras used, but rather the number of frames being exposed. There is no mention whatsoever of a "three strip" camera in defining Processes 1-3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Anyway, back to OBM.

Will it change film like full colour did?

Not a snowball's chance in Hell. It's a gimmick that has so far gone nowhere.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Nope.

"In Process 1 (1916), a prism beam-splitter behind the camera lens exposed two consecutive frames of a single strip of black-and-white negative film simultaneously, one behind a red filter, the other behind a green filter."

Process 2:

"As before, the special Technicolor camera used a beam-splitter that simultaneously exposed two consecutive frames of a single strip of black-and-white film, one behind a green filter and one behind a red filter.

The difference was that the two-component negative was now used to produce a subtractive color print."

"Technicolor Process 3 (1928) was developed to eliminate the projection print made of double-cemented prints in favor of a print created by dye imbibition. The Technicolor camera for Process 3 was identical to that for Process 2, simultaneously photographing two consecutive frames of a black-and-white film behind red and green filters

Notice how in all three explanations the word "camera" is singular. Processes 1-3 had nothing to do with the number of cameras used, but rather the number of frames being exposed. There is no mention whatsoever of a "three strip" camera in defining Processes 1-3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor

Sorry, I didn’t realise every loose term was to be micro analysed. I will give it its full title from now on.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Not a snowball's chance in Hell. It's a gimmick that has so far gone nowhere.

If it hasn’t yet been used, how can it be a gimmick?

Also, what happens if all the content suppliers switch to OBM? Do they just pretend that it didn’t happen and not look to maximise their new ability to personalise the experience for every single viewer? Let’s not forget it is currently expensive but when established and scaled should save money.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Sorry, I didn’t realise every loose term was to be micro analysed. I will give it its full title from now on.

It has nothing to do with "micro analysing" and everything to do with being factually correct. Processes 1-3 did not require multiple cameras and these three processes had nothing to do with "three strip cameras."

Everything that you said was completely wrong which underscores why documentation is so helpful.

[gotmule]

Originally Posted by Vilya

It decimated a lot of things.

My paternal grandfather was lucky enough to survive being infected with it, but he never fully recovered. He actually woke up to find himself on a pile of corpses in the back of an Army truck; he had been mistaken for dead.

Holy crap!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

If it hasn’t yet been used, how can it be a gimmick?

Also, what happens if all the content suppliers switch to OBM? Do they just pretend that it didn’t happen and not look to maximise their new ability to personalise the experience for every single viewer? Let’s not forget it is currently expensive but when established and scaled should save money.

If it hasn't even been used, predicting its popularity and impact is entirely speculative at best. Those who invested in Quibi found that out, didn't they?

It does not matter if all content providers offer OBM unless you mean that is the only thing that they will offer. And why would they do that? Traditional content is profitable, established, and a proven hit. Nothing about OBM is proven.

We have no idea what OBB would cost; was that even mentioned in any of your OBB links? Without knowing that, how can any savings be inferred?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

If it hasn’t yet been used, how can it be a gimmick?

As I previously said, only the UK has shown any interest in OBB and you tell me . . . how's it doing?

Oh . . . BTW . . . how's the BBC doing nowadays?

Also, what happens if all the content suppliers switch to OBM? Do they just pretend that it didn’t happen and not look to maximise their new ability to personalise the experience for every single viewer? Let’s not forget it is currently expensive but when established and scaled should save money.

The game of WHAT IF

[Vilya]

It is time for me to resume watching Season 2 of The Last Ship.

No matter how much I may have aggravated you today Steedeel, I have done my part to keep your thread listed on the home page. I will have a nice tall glass of STFU and allow others to play in your sandbox.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by gotmule

Holy crap!

1917 was not his favorite year.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

If it hasn't even been used, predicting its popularity and impact is entirely speculative at best. Those who invested in Quibi found that out, didn't they?

How could Quibi have possibly failed? It's a known fact that hundreds of millions of people watch movies on their smart phones. And they have the attention span of 3 year olds (10 minutes). This will be a 100 Billion company in just a few short years!

EPIC FAILURE!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

How could Quibi have possibly failed? It's a known fact that hundreds of millions of people watch movies on their smart phones. And they have the attention span of 3 year olds (10 minutes). This will be a 100 Billion company in just a few short years!

EPIC FAILURE!

What were we talking about? I was watching otters doing something or another on my phone...

ã�šã�£ã�¨æˆ‘æ…¢ã�—ã�¦ã�Ÿã‚µãƒ¼ãƒ¢ãƒ³ç™»å*´ã�«å¬‰ã�—ã�•å¤§çˆ†ç™ºã�®ã‚«ãƒ¯ã‚¦ã‚½ã€€Otter Excited about Salmon Cheat Day - YouTube

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

What were we talking about? I was watching otters doing something or another on my phone...

That's OK. I just learned that way back in 1930 there was a movie called Song of the Flame that had a Process 3 insert in widescreen. The very first time Process 3 was used in widescreen. It was shot and shown on 65mm film and called Vitascope, the trademark name for Warner Bros.' widescreen process.

Unfortunately the film no longer exists. Only the Vitaphone records that provided the sound for the movie. It was made from the 1925 Broadway show - same name.

[Lee A Stewart]

Process 2: The Toll of the Sea (1922) - Left. The Phantom of the Opera (1925) - Right.

Knowing the limitations of Process 2 all they had to do was avoid Blue, Purple & Yellow as much as possible. They look pretty damn good to me. Almost 100 years old.