Talk:Cinecolor

	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.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Film magazines and lighting[edit]

The article states,

Aside from growing stock prices, they introduced 1000-foot film magazines, which cut back on the lighting costs by 50 percent

Perhaps an explanation is in order on what one has to do with the other. I don't see the connection between film magazine size and lighting costs. — Walloon 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting with smaller magazines (such as 200' or 500') means stopping the camera during takes, which means leaving the lights on while you reload the camera and reset your shot. Shorter magazines mean longer shoots. The Photoplayer 07:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should explain that in the article. — Walloon 08:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get around to it, but better yet, I will cite my source when I have some time. The Photoplayer 12:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything yet? — Walloon 06:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another year. — Walloon (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 2009. — Walloon (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. The article also mentions the fact that I forgot to mention above-- 1000' magazines save on short ends and wasted footage, which accumulates to a large amount of wasted budget.The Photoplayer 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trucolor[edit]

I have deleted this section from the article:

Trucolor was similar to Cinecolor. The process was used and owned by Consolidated Film Industries division of Republic Pictures Corp. Trucolor was a two strip (red and blue-green) process used by Republic for its westerns (mostly Roy Rogers epics.) The process was used in the late 1940s and early 50s. Possibly the last film photographed in the process was "Johnny Guitar", starring Joan Crawford and Sterling Hayden. With the advent of more natural Eastman and Ansco color stock, Trucolor was abandoned.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trucolor"

This isn't an article about Trucolor, and Trucolor had no corporate relationship to Cinecolor. They both happen to be two-color motion picture processes, and that's it. If this were an article about two-color motion picture processes, it would be appropriate. — Walloon 06:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

partial monopoly?[edit]

That article states that Technicolor had a "partial monopoly" on color processes.

A "partial" monopoly is not a monopoly at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.218.224 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand National Films[edit]

I have removed:

Grand National Pictures used the process under the name "Hirlicolor" named after producer George Hirliman for several of its films, beginning with Captain Calamity in 1936.

All the information I have is that Grand National Films used Magnacolor, not Cinecolor, as the process behind "Hirlicolor". Sources: AFI Catalog of Motion Pictures entries for those Grand National features, and the article "Posting a Dark Horse", The New York Times, August 2, 1936, p. X3. I have not seen any information that Cinecolor owned Magnacolor. Magnacolor appears to have been the predecessor of Consolidated Film Industries' TruColor. — Walloon (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't know why the page links here. Magnacolor was by CFI, as was Trucolor, but they're not the same process and even existed at the same time. -The Photoplayer 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoons[edit]

Cinecolor was not really used "extensively" for cartoons in the period 1932–1935. It was used for one Fleischer cartoon (Betty Boop in Poor Cinderella), none of Columbia's "Color Rhapsody Cartoons", none of the TerryToons, two Merrie Melodies cartoons (Honeymoon Hotel and Beauty and the Beast), none of the Looney Tunes, two of MGM's Happy Harmonies cartoons (The Discontented Canary and The Old Pioneer), and Ub Iwerks' ComiColor series that began in November 1933. — Walloon (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that that's far more notable than, say, Brewster Color, which only had two cartoons that I know of to its credence. Cinecolor was the choice of animators who couldn't use Technicolor, seldom any other process. -The Photoplayer 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC) --[reply]

According to Leslie Cabarga, The Fleischer Story, (Nostalgia Press, 1976) p. 87, the Fleischers used Cinecolor from their first color short, Poor Cinderella (released August 1934) through March 1935, when they switched to two-strip Technicolor. If Cabarga is correct, then several other Fleischers were made with the Cinecolor process, assuming that Cabarga is referring to release dates rather than dates of production: Little Dutch Mill (October 1934); An Elephant Never Forgets (January 1935); The Song of the Birds (February 1935). What is the evidence that only one cartoon was made in Cinecolor? --Walterburns (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't. All of those, and others, including Dancing on the Moon were in Cinecolor. The Photoplayer 19:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question, please[edit]

Hello Wizards of Cinecolor. I've recently been enjoying several films produced and credited to Cinecolor that are shown in excellent prints on my HDTV. I've read some feature films credited to Cinecolor were filmed in Kodachrome. Could you elaborate if there is a difference between those two processes and if there is, why a film shot in Kodachrome was credited as Cinecolor? ThanksFoofbun (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read to the end of this article, you'll see that Cinecolor prints could be made from tripack sources (including Kodachrome). The article is slightly confusing (and might need editing), because it starts off stating that Cinecolor was a two-color process, then describes its use in creating prints from tripack sources.

I came to this article because I had just seen Coroner Creek. It's billed as Cinecolor, yet (other than its garish oranges) it looks like a three-color image. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clear things up, even in this day and age film stock used for shooting might vary from the stock for theatrical release. Nowadays both kinds of film stock are mentioned and appear with their logos at the end of the credits. Such was the relation back then for Kodachrome and Cinecolor, but only the process for the release was billed on the poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.81.94 (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]