New Bespoke Post subscribers get a free mystery gift with your first membership purchase - go to bespokepost.com/nsgift and enter code NSGIFT at checkout. Thanks to Bespoke Post for sponsoring!
Ahh my arch nemesis CMYK... Learning the color values was a nightmare and made no (insert expletive) sense to Me. Even though many of My classmates were eventually able to understand this I gave up. This was the early days of the internet where there was cross publishing between print and internet, so learning CMYK was a must. I have kept out of publishing to a point where I only got as close as marketing in the late 00s. By then RGB was the standard and supplanted CMYK.
I don't really see where the lie is with this, it gives the energy of a redditor smugly claiming you're wrong about something based on a technicality that doesnt really affect the end result? "Ah, but you see! The film was actually 3 different colours laid ontop one another to give the impression of actual colour!" Yeah, wait until you find out it was also multiple pictures a second to give the impression of motion and not actually a moving picture...
YES thank you, this bothered me a lot too lmao. There is no "lie" here, this is not black and white, this is a color film, the method used to capture the colors doesn't change that. Weird af framing
I saw it more as clickbait, but yea, if it was encoded and decoded to show colour, then it's a coloured movie. He even mentions that these days our movies are encoded as 0s and 1s instead of film strips
I mean, *technically* even modern film is the same idea of different layers of colors combined, but the color sensitizing dye layers are all smooshed onto one roll of film rather than three.
This is a really weird way to describe it, it’s not a trick. It is color. When you print color film you print it in 3 stages in the same way. This is chemistry, not trickery.
@@EmperorKonstantine01That’s not true, though. No film is projecting yellow light into your eyes. It’s still a mix of red and green that convinces your eyes it’s seeing yellow. If there’s a lie, it’s one your brain is telling itself.
@@richardcarritt5126 I agree with you, when I read the title I already knew what was meant (Technicolor is based on 3 black and white films). But the title is somewhat clickbait. But I know almost every youtuber use some kind of clickbait, and this is relatively mild cklickbait. I tolerate that ;-)
But we’re not being tricked at all. The final film IS in color. Just because the way it was created required jumping through some hoops doesn’t mean we’re being tricked. It’s just a process.
Yeah, color photography is a process. It always has been. Also, no one thinks the Wizard of Oz is handcolored. I have never in my life heard that. It's common to hear it was the "first" Technicolor movie.
Yeah, it’s like saying we were tricked because they used actors pretending to be witches instead of doing real magic like… we don’t actually think everything that happens in movies is ‘real’???
"uhm akchually, the video you are watching right now is also a lie, since the cmos sensor in the camera uses a colour filter array to trick your eyes into seeing colour"
@@HandiasTobil At least nowadays all 2 million LCDs are adressed at the same time and it's not a CRT anymore, where in reality you only see ONE dot running with a really high speed over a phosphorized glass plate and what you really see as a "picture" is just the afterglow effect of it :D
That's the internet today. Calling everything you know into question and being wrong at the same time. Challenging everything that you learned, strutting around like you know something, and being wrong. All with ads.
Use a proper AdBlock. But other than that, this is all revisionist garbage. If you want actual information on Technicolor, then I suggesting reading books from those who have studied the history of film and worked on film for many years. This is revisionist nonsense meant to drive up views and have a catchy title.
@@NimsQuarlo I can't help you with smartphones, but I do know you can avoid the TV problem entirely by connecting your laptop to the TV with an HDMI cable. That way you can have a big screen *and* any adblock you have installed.
I think the big irony is that sound is way more important than footage. If you watch a movie that has the best possible 4K material but has crappy audio, you'll be put off fast. But take low quality footage (if what you see is interesting) and blend it with top notch audio engineered sound... now that'll fly.
That's exactly the reason why I still enjoy watching movies on Laserdisc to this day. The picture quality is far from the best that's currently available, but the audio can be simply astonishing.
I completely disagree. Yes, audio is important, no bones about that, but in a visual medium it's silly to prioritize it. An entire generation lived in silent films for a reason, because they still communicated without sound or specific auditory cues. I've always found the reverse is true in film circles. Myself and others can handle bad audio because unless you're able to dial in on what constitutes superior audio, it won't kill the experience. Now if you can't see what you're viewing, then you shut it off. Can't say I know a single serious filmmaker who would exchange visuals over audio.
@DavidRYates-tk2tq Exactly. Many of my favorite films are silent films because they use every VISUAL element to create the best experience. It's like saying the music video is more important than the music, it just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Color film is actually individual RGB layers? Say it ain't so! Next you're gonna tell me that the motion picture itself is just a series of still images displayed sequentially at a high enough rate for persistence of vision to create the illusion of movement.
They are actually Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow, for subtractive. Don't even come at us with the grade-school red, blue, yellow garbage. It's why your "purple" mixture looks like grey spit. You're using the wrong primaries for subtractive in the first place.
Calling this "black & white" is kinda like calling a fully coloured-in colouring book "black & white". Just because the original material was black & white, doesn't mean the final result is black & white.
The original is real life, which is in color. So, instead of capturing that color, they filled it in with their best representation of it. So, calling the final product "color" is at least a BIT of a stretch.
@@jeromemckenna7102Film that is exposed through a red filter is an accurate record of the amount of red light it’s exposed to. The colour isn’t being created later, it’s being captured on film.
I agree with you, when I read the title I already knew what was meant (Technicolor is based on 3 black and white films). But the title is somewhat clickbait. But I know almost every youtuber use some kind of clickbait, and this is relatively mild cklickbait. I tolerate that ;-)
It's not complex, we see three colors, Red Green and blue, it's as simple as that. Print is a bit more difficult but not much, but because overlaying colors on print works as a filter, colors are made up by red green and blue filters instead. So starting with white paper, yellow is your blue filter, Cyan is red filter and magenta is green filter. So instead of adding the colors you want you subtract the colors you don't want. Good prints also use black and that makes CMYK for print and RGB for monitors and any sensible image file format.
@@buffalox8492It _really_ is considerably more complex than that. For starters, the three types of color-sensing cells (cones) are all sensitive to a wide array of light wavelengths (which correlate to color) but different wavelengths activate them to different intensities. Our 'red-sensing' cones (termed L, for 'long') do not only react to red light like the R sensor of an RGB digital camera (or the film behind the red filter in Technicolor) would, instead they react to all light but produce a much weaker response with small wavelength bluish light than with long wavelength reddish light (in fact, the sensitivity of our 'red' cones peaks at a wavelength we'll normally perceive as yellow). The M (middle) cones, which we associate with green, actually have almost the same responses to different wavelengths as 'red' L cones except that they are slightly less sensitive to the longer reddish tones. The S (short) cones do mostly react to blue light, though. The signals produced by the activation of these cells is then processed by our brains to create what we perceive as color by contrasting the intensity of the L and M cones (basically producing a "red vs green" channel) as well as the activation of L+M vs S cones (the "yellow vs blue" contrast). Red, green and blue are just the single-wavelength colors that produce the best contrast after going through all that process and whose combination produces the widest range of possible colors given those limitations but, in fact, every RGB screen is unable to account for all the possibilities because our eye vision is fundamentally more complex than a combination of three channels. Look up 'color spaces' for more info on that.
I'm 65, and been around the film industry off and on for over 50 years. I have NEVER heard ANY rumor that "The Wizard of Oz" had been hand-painted, until seeing this video.
My great great grand daddy was the chief hand painter on the Wizard of Oz. The movie was actually filmed in 1879 and it took him 60 years to finish painting it. True story.
I'm in my 30s and I'd also never heard this until this video...but I've no doubt some people were fed this lie/misattribution, but I'm not sure how wide-spread it is.
"By 1954, a company called Eastmancolor..." Except Eastmancolor isn't a company it's a trade name for a film stock and process for color motion pictures. The company who made it is Kodak. The name is a reference to Kodak's founder, George Eastman. And the process was actually introduced in 1950.
While true, it was also way cheaper to process because you only processed _one_ strip of film, not three to four like you do with the old Technicolor process.
Dude, you realise your saying that to someone who thinks there is such a thing as a BAND AID, which is actually just the name of a company that sells plasters... It's Hoovers and Vacuum Cleaners again.
Eastmancolor movie film from Kodak was introduced in 1950 but really wide use didn't occur until the likes of Panavision, Mitchell and ARRI developed cameras that could take full advantage of the one-strip process of color filmmaking properly in the middle to late 1950's.
thanks for the warning. i am reading this after 2 minutes of watching and skipping the commercial at the beginning. so i ll let the thumb down and hit the road 😎🙌
It's no longer a black and white photo after it's been dyed into cyan/magenta/yellow though. It's like saying all of your clothes in the video are white despite being dyed brown and black, because of course they aren't. Yes, it is very interesting that each of the images were recorded in black & white to capture the brightest spots after being passed through a filter, that the process allowed dying the frames to combine to create a the color we see. That is absolutely fascinating and definitely worth making this video for. But after the frames are dyed, they're not black and white like you keep saying.
The Technicolor imbibition process was much more complicated than that. The negatives were not dyed. Black and white prints were made from which negative matrices were produced. These carried the dyes which were transferred, one after the other, in perfect register, under pressure to clear film stock. The final prints do not use a photochemical process to capture the image, only the optical soundtrack. Because the dyes were very stable the colors do not fade like later photochemical processes such as Eastman Color.
This video should be taken as example of how information flows in the digital age. Someone with very basic knowledge about a topic makes a clickbait video more or less viral and many people take it as Moses' boards. It's scary how misinformed people are becoming.
Very scary. I can remember when conspiracy theories were fun and silly. Now they are being pushed as gospel, and worse, a large segment of society believes them, even sometimes to the point of violence. We are in strange times right now. Critical thinking and research skills need to be taught in school now more than ever.
The biggest lie in the music industry: when your headphones are "playing sound", they're actually just creating oscillations in the air and making your eardrums vibrate
That's also the way the tri-chromatic human eye/brain system works, too. Color only exists in the brain's perception created from the bio-chemical response of the human retinal cones to various combinations of wavelengths of "visible light", which is more properly defined as that very narrow portion of the vast electromagnetic spectrum to which human retinal cones are sensitive.
Well, what our eyes see are a light source's reflections on whatever object happens to be there so depending on the warmth and the intensity of the light source, colors change: no light, no image. On a picture, one thousands of a seconds of it is captured and it will never change, no matter the light source... Does that make sense? Hummmmm... not really, but I tried!
It's not exactly how digital photography works. There's no dyeing process with Cyan Yellow and Magenta. The colour editors on "Barbie" movie had to go through a complex process to imitate the look of Technicolor. ♥💙💚 Those CYM secondary colours were also an important part of Cibachrome processing, which has sadly not survived. I have a few photos I took in the 70s which I had Cibachrome printed. 💛
I could see that being the case with some of the backgrounds used on the set, and not with the film itself. I like how Squid explained how the technology actually works and how it makes black-and-white film look like colour to us.
To be fair, there are color films from the early days of film that they did hand paint every frame. The colors are funky in them because sometimes different people would work on the frames, or they ran out of a paint color and had to remix it... so it makes sense to me that people would believe that
There was never a time when anybody believed that The Wizard of Oz was hand painted frame by frame. Hand painting of film was never convincing and couldn't possibly be done with such perfection. You also took too long to get to the point and when you finally got to the point....it was wrong. The Wizard of Oz WAS in colour and we weren't tricked!
Your dead right you have no idea how bad I want to leave a comment saying skip to the time stamp of the explanation maybe this guy just need to get all the hot air out of his wind bag self
i always like joking about that one meme where it says "your brain tricks you into thinking this image is moving" and the image actually rotates because it's still technically correct. there's no actual... movement happening, lights on a screen are just constantly brightening and darkening to represent an image
Reminds me of that post with intentionally poor grammar about two colors being the same when they're completely different, and it abruptly ends with a proof check suggestion to finger yourself
I'm so tired of people thinking it's red blue and yellow. Education really failed us there. There are still art-teachers that think and teach this even though we've known better for a hundred years...
@@bronzekoala9141 me too. And it's such a simple, innocuous, and objective correction that it should be an "oh, that's neat, good to know!" moment. Yet I see so many people try to argue that RBY are, in fact, primary colors. It really highlights a deep psychological resistance many people have against updating their beliefs!
@@bronzekoala9141 It's still used in painting. Plus it works well enough for painting, so there's no reason to change it. We were taught that it applied specifically to paints and painting, not that it was the general subtractive colours. For it to change in painting the manufacturers would have to start making cyan and magenta as common colours. I know they don't because any time we buy paints it is always red, blue and yellow that are readily available everywhere.
"You were probably told growing up that The Wizard of Oz was hand-painted, frame by frame" No. We were almost certainly not. Maybe you were also told the moon was made of cheese?
As the video is presented, that's what he's trying to worm into your brain. I stopped the video when it reached the sponsoring because I was genuinely confused about the coloring being a lie. "Ho but the wizard of oz was a lie ! And they did it for 50 years !" "Wait, what ? What do you mean a lie ? They didn't use coloring technique ? Was it top-notch rotoscoping techniques and hand coloring ? But then why use rotoscoping if for a normal movie you hand paint the frames anyway ? And it doesn't make sense because... And... " *checks the comments in confusion* "I mean it's a lie, they did not paint the frames like you didn't believe 3 secondes before I told you it's a lie and instead use coloring techniques."
@@ZheinPasRoux If you watch past the sponsor it doesn't help. I think he's talking about how technicolor works. I'm not 100% sure of much of what he's trying to prove since the facts vary from "worded wrong" to "missing the point" to "just wrong". A friend of mine called this a "RUclips Blender" video (I'm not sure if he got the term from somewhere else). He takes facts from other places and blends them into a new video, but he doesn't quite get all the places he pulled info from. There's also a lack of clarity on what the point is. In this case, I believe he's primarily copying a Vox video from six years ago, "How Technicolor Changed Movies." It's not wrong to use other sources (credited), but you should get it right. Interestingly, the Vox video talks about a "lie" in The Wizard of Oz, but it's nearly the opposite of this video. I went through several other of the creator's videos and the same feeling runs throughout. It might be he's running a "being slightly off for engagement" scheme, in which case we're playing into him.
Still today, color photos and videos are just 3 black-and-white photos taken by the same camera. The photoreceptors in your digital camera can only detect one color of light; the advancement is that the filters aren't big spinning cellophane sheets or expensive prisms, but very tiny filters that cover individual photoreceptors. It's a mechanical recreation of the human retina with its short, medium, and long cones.
Digital camera sensors take just 1 black-and-white photo, not 3. The coloured filter in front of that sensor distributes which pixels have red, green or blue in front in a fixed pattern called a Bayer filter. From this single image, 3 images can then be extrapolated even though 50-75% of the data is not real and guessed from the surrounding pixels that do have real data automatically. I think the author here missed a trick in mentioning that at the end. It's every bit as impressive as Technicolor
@@MrStratofish Only some cameras are made this way. More expensive digital cameras, like those used for movies, are 3CCD cameras, so they have three sensors, one for each channel of RGB. But these still use a prism to split the light into 3 separate beams to hit each sensor, rather than a filter.
get over yourself, the video was interesting. Yes, color is just a trickery of our own brains to represent the physical world we live in. It takes the light that bounces off of things and reflect back to our eyes retina to represent things in a way that give a better way to differentiate things. Different colors are simply EM light waves with different wave lengths. When you combine R B and G, you end up with light of a different wave length, whose result is one of the countless colors of the chromatic spectrum (visible light). Colors are math, it's almost like Arithmetic, you add and subtract.
Or worse, has a clue, but doesn't go through the needed research to know exactly WHY some things are the way they are. Just as a lot of the responses show a similar level of ignorant knowledge. And to be hones, I don't the he doesn't know the details, but decided not to go over all of them due to time constraints. Also, it drives people to actually look into it and learn more, saving him the trouble of having to do four times as much recording when he can get his viewers to do it as well. In short, give a layman's introduction, and get people who want to know more or refute what he said to do their own homework on the thing. A tactic I am more than familiar with, both on the receiving end, and on the giving end.
Sounds like the only lie is saying the image is black and white. Part of it is, but part of it isn't, and than the parts are layered to create color. It's not an illusion at all, it's a technique to create the same wavelength your eyes see in the everyday world.
Because Technicolor required *THREE* cameras, that's why few films were shot in that process. It wasn't until the arrival of the single-strip Eastmancolor movie film from Kodak that color films started to take over the movie industry, one that was pretty much complete by the late 1960's.
Yeah, color by Technicolor told us that there was a really, really short artist painting each frame in real time, just as the moon was made of cream cheese and profanity would curve our spines, infect our minds and keep the country from winning the war. Save that not a syllable of the above was true. Technicolor was and remains a CYMK process color film process and is no more fake than modern color computer monitors or color laser/ink printing. But, there is a fake here - the videographer, who I have now blocked on youtube. I don't have time to waste on bullshitters and the advertisers should count themselves fortunate that I bailed from the video before blacklisting them in order of appearance.
There was a VERY popular sitcom made by the BBC called Are You Being Served. For years the pilot episode was only shown in black and white, because the colour tape from the early 70's was wiped ( the pilot was also recorded on B/W telecine from a colour tv ). Decades later it was noticed that the RGB dots could be made out on the film. With bespoke software, the pixels were recreated ( NOT just colourizeing the filmed pixels ).The pilot is now in colour, and identical to the original video tape.
I've read something similar once, how some older color BBC productions were put onto B/W film for distribution and remained the only existing backups of those productions. Tho the story I heard went a bit different: Because the color information on a normal TV signal is actually causing certain interference patterns in the signal most TVs made after the invention of color TV (even those that were only B/W) had an extra filter installed to filter out the interference from the color signal on the luminance information. The telecine systems used by the BBC at the time however did not have those filters, and so some clever people found out you can extract the color information from those interference patterns instead...
@@Chickenbreadlp WOW! Thanks so much for that. That there is even ONE method is astonishing. But potentially TWO? All of the early Dr Who episodes only exist because they too were also on telecine. Unfortunately they were B/W anyway. Dammit.
I believe they did it with some of the wiped Jon Pertwee Doctor Who episodes where only black and white copies reminded, one that comes to mind is Invasion of the Dinosaurs episode 1 I think it was
@@Chickenbreadlp Both you and @geordiebrit1461 have got part of the story. When making a B&W film recording of a colour show, it was meant to be standard practice at the BBC to insert a chroma filter to completely remove the chroma signal to prevent the dot patterning. However, this was not always done, so *some* (but by no means all) of their B&W film recordings of colour shows have the chroma dots and can be processed via the Colour Recovery system.
'ok tell me what was the lie!!' 1 minute later... introduction 2 minutes later... introduction 3 minutes later... advertisement 5 minutes later... end of advertisement start of another intro 7 minutes later... getting closer but started with BS ('light is light. you are only going to get the outline' WTF?!)
8:45 Small mistake about subtractive coloring : the primary colors are actually magenta, cyan and yellow, hence the C(yan)M(agenta)Y(Yellow)K(ey, black) system used for printing.
I was just thinking the same thing. It frustrated me when I learned that the primary colors weren't red, yellow, and blue like we had been taught in elementary school because then I had to re-learn it when I was taking physics years later as CMYK.
@@pineapplequeen13 Light, dyes/inks, and paints all mix differently. The range of colors that can be achieved by mixing white, black, red, green, and blue paints will often be better than could be achieved using white, black, red, green, and blue, or using white, black, cyan, magenta, and yellow. It's funny how many people think the red/green/blue color theory is "wrong", without recognizing that it's more accurate than the other theories when mixing most kinds of *paint*.
Technicolor is no more a lie than any other color film process. They ALL rely on dyes, sometimes layer specific, or chemically attached to the light reactive agent to create color. There are no light-reactive agents that directly result in an appropriate "color". All film is essentially black and white, with dye doing the job of providing the appropriate colors. Technicolor's multi-strip process only made the true technology behind the result more obvious.
Funfact about Clerks that really shows how movie-making has changed: It cost almost as much to have the credits made as it did to shoot the whole film. Back in the day, making credits for a film was not a DIY process. You had to hire a company to print all that text out on reels of film so it would move at the right speed.
I don't really see the distinction between being tricked into seeing colour and actually seeing colour. Seeing colour in real life is basically being tricked into seeing colour.
Schopenhauer spent much of his life studying colour perception. Colour is a subjective phenomenon. I have no way of knowing how you see the colour "blue" - we can only agree that it's called "blue".
There is no trick. The black and white values representing each color on the separation strips are translated into actual shades of color dyes on the projection prints.
The distinction is that colors in "real life" have wavelengths that actually correspond to their colors. Like say sunlight that bounced off a yellow flower petal will have a wavelength of around 580 nm, whereas the same yellow displayed by an RGB screen will be a mix of different intensity green (550 nm) and red (650 nm) wavelengths that our brains will interpret at yellow, but it's not yellow.
@@maxiuca But 580 nm is not actually "yellow". Our eye-brain systems perceive it as yellow. The vision systems of other species may not perceive it as anything at all, and their vision systems sometimes perceive wavelengths that we can't. What is the "color" of 300nm UV light that many birds, bees, and even mammals such as reindeer and mice can perceive?
@@michaelclark9762 I'm not sure what you mean and what you're getting at. 580 nm is the yellow color as perceived by humans and defined by science. Whereas the same yellow will be displayed by a monitor by simultaneously "shining" the red and green components. 300 nm is not perceived by humans therefore has no name and is called, as you've already mentioned, UV light, which is a short for Ultra-Violet (so it actually has a name...). You can also define a color as a coordinate in the XYZ space (like CIE 1931) if don't like calling certain wavelengths using their traditional names.
Shockingly Technicolor is still around today and it looks like they are a decently successful VFX studio now. Crazy to see a company doing the same thing 100 years later.
Surviving as much as any VFX company can in 2024. They also do Animation and Advertising, They own 3 companies that work in each. MPC - VFX, Mikros - Animation, The Mill - ADs. Technicolor has had many owners over the decades though, Its based out of Paris now.
You're talking absolute nonsense here. Technicolor is real color using a three strip process with black and white negatives. Not only is the color real, but Technicolor is more stable and lasts longer than one strip color film. It does not fade, has no side absorption, and looks the same today as it did when new. Color negatives like the kind used in Star Wars or The Godfather faded badly and were almost lost due to the use of CRVs or Color Internegatives before 1983. None of the movies shot on those formats have their original color anymore, and the versions seen today are electronically enhanced to make them look acceptable, that is why the Death Star interior is no longer khaki gray, and why there are purple highlights in Michael Corleone's hair. The original Technicolor films are not only real, but the color is fully intact and will continue to be for centuries to come. That is also why Disney continued to use it when he ran the company well into the 1960s. He did not want his films to fade away like so many others from the 1950s and 60s did. In the early 50s the Eastman Technicolor process used one strip color and required no special cameras. The colors were separated in the lab onto black and white negative. Singing in the Rain is a good example of it, the one strip film faded in only months, but the Eastman Technicolor negatives look just like they did back in the 1950s.
One negative (no pun intended) with technicolor as an archival method over a long period is film shrinkage. The three negatives would very slightly shrink at different rates causing misalignment. In the 90s some “restored” theatrical films from the technicolor negatives had strange chromic “fringe” effects. Almost like 3D anaglyph films but not as extreme. Computer scanning and auto alignment solved this problem thankfully.
Natalie M. Kalmus was the executive head of the Technicolor art department and credited (on-screen) as the director or "color consultant" of all Technicolor films produced from 1934 to 1949. Her husband, from 1902 to 1921, was Herbert Kalmus co-founder and president of the Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation.
Technicolor most amazing feature nowadays is that even via a digital media you recognize it immediately. The "lie" is a lie in spectral sense, but color is not really a thing that exists, light has a wavelength, and you see a spectral distribution of those things when you look at some thing. But our sensors are simple, faulty, like a spectograph with only three bands that are very large and asymmetrical, this allows different stimuli produce the exact same sensation because color is a cognitive process not a physical one.
No, neither our eyes nor our cameras are like spectrographs with three narrow bands. They have wide sensitivity curves that overlap significantly. That's how the brain creates a perception of color from the way our three types of retinal cones are stimulated at different response rates to the same wavelengths of light.
@@michaelclark9762 I said: " *but very large* " meaning exactly that they are wideband ; " *and assymetrical this allows different stimuli produce the exact same sensation* " meaning exactly that they overlap, or that would not be possible.
I remember hearing that too. Plus, the silver paint used on Buddy Epsen made him ill. The old theatre and movie productions were done as inexpensive as possible because the film was so expensive.
"You've probably been told the Wizard of Oz has been hand painted frame by frame." No one did, ever. Not at school, not in documentaries. Technicolour is as much real colour as press printed images are. Which also works with three colour layers and a black and white. There is no lie in the way colour is produced, as long as your eyes perceive it as colour. That's the way the world and physics work. The only reason to call it a lie is clickbait.
In fact, well before any photographic process, color layering techniques such as chromolithography, nishiki-e, chromoxylography, etc. already existed. So when photography came along, folks knew WHAT to do to get color. The problem was HOW... that took a bit longer.
I kind of had the same experience. I browsed the comments beforehand, but still decided to watch it, albeit on 2x speed, out of curiosity. I can't say I learned anything particularly surprising, it's just kinda how our eyes work.
same, also was pretty annoyed when he incorrectly stated that subtractive color is formed by red, blue and yellow (its cyan, magenta, and yellow, not sure were he got the red and blue from)
@@fairportfan2 I watched it until the very end, hoping for that surprising fun fact that would make having to sit through it worthwhile. Sadly it never came. So you didn't miss anything.
I have never heard that the Wizard of Oz was hand painted. I am 62 years old. I think only very, VERY ignorant people would think such a thing. It disturbs me that young adults are so ignorant of things from just a few decades ago. Sad.
Coming up next: "We still don't have color! All we have are red, green and blue pixels being packed tightly and lit up! It happened with the earliest color tubes! It happened with the Trinitrons and Indextrons! It happened with the LCDs, the Plasmas, the LEDs and the OLEDs! Heck, it still happens today with Nano LEDs and Quantum Dots. And don't get me started on the NTSC Color Burst!"
I watched the whole video and I still don't understand why it's a lie. Is the whole movie a lie? After all, those people aren't really there in front of you, it's a trick, an illusion, just as much as the colour. The colour could be a lie if it were being added at a later time through a manual colouring process. But just because the process of capturing colour is intricate, that doesn't make it a lie.
It's one of two options: 1) Dude knows he is lying, so he can generate engagement. 2) Dude is so oblivious to what he is talking about, that he thinks what he is saying is true. I know know which is worse frankly. I'm going to lean on 1), manipulating engagement like this is bad, and we all fall for it.
If technicolor is a 'trick', then so is every type of video ever produced since they essentially use the same methods. AND that includes human vision since we see in basically the same way and it's reassembled in our brain.
@@GBOACBooks are also a legal form of drugs because somehow they've tricked us into looking at random splodges of ink on that wood fiber, and suddenly we're hearing people talk in our heads and feeling like we're flying or being a wizard. _"This one weird trick writers use to make you hallucinate!"_
_"That's a complete misunderstanding of both color vision and photography."_ This happens far too often... so many people _completely_ misinterpret a situation but don't want to take the time to question themselves... and therefore they release a three hour video about how someone who watched the same horror movie I watched-but DIDN'T arrive at the same conclusion I did-is actually a secret fascist and is therefore not welcome in society. Oh, and all their friends are secret fascists as well. Jokes aside, this mentality drives me nuts, especially when someone turns it into a video like this. It spreads misinformation about things via a compelling narrative... and the consequence of such misunderstanding is having fake facts permeating through our society, such as "we only use 10% of our brains!" or "lemmings perform mass suicide", only to have people act upon that false facts. Just because those facts aren't wrong doesn't change the reality of people acting upon them.
Nobody ever told me the Wizard of Oz was hand painted. The posters ALL clearly proclaim it's in Technicolor. You must live in a weird, sheltered world.
Because this person tells lies on something that countless film historians and Hollywood people have already pointed out years ago. This video was honestly made for the click bait.
Technicolor credit or not, some people did believe that it was hand painted. Probably a distorted version of the fact that in one shot, some of the scenery was painted monochromatic.
It's not a lie, more of a way to decompose light and reassemble it. The very same process is still used with standard color film these days except the three separate color layers are stacked on a single film roll instead of 3.
But it is a lie. Everyone sees color in these films The issue is how it was possible to photograph color and recreate it on film. The end result was color. Anyone who does not see it would have to be color blind.
Right. The separate colors are combined into a single full- color print that goes into the projector. I don't believe there was ever a projector that projected 3 or 4 prints simultaneously.
Yeah same, maybe at the time when it first came out. But in the mid 80s when i first saw it as a kid i seem to remember thinking it was layers of colors that were used. There were pictures floating around in magazines and on tv like on the back of his wall that were the same picture just different colors. I imagined that's how they did it. And they did.
I think the narrator treated the "hand painted" thing as an old wives tale. And that Technicolor gave an almost hand painted appearance. BTW, why did nobody answer the question as to why today's big digital advances - including even AI - still cannot give the same or better look as Technicolor? Look at even the recently colorful Wonka - 1939's Technicolor Gone With The Wind still kicks its butt and all other butts, technically speaking.
@@MrEdWeirdoShow I don't even think it was an old wives tales to begin with. It would be like if said _"the story we were all told that remote controls were powered by plutonium... was actually a lie!"_ Like, no, literally _no one_ ever claimed that.
It was really interesting to see the process of how this stuff works but constantly saying stuff like "we're being tricked to see something that's not there" is just not true and it get's quite annoying hearing it over and over again. The end result of those movies and photos and stuff does have color, that's not a trick. He might as well say food isn't real, we're being tricked to think that we're actually eating food but in reality we're eating ingredients that have been mixed together, woah my mind is blown!
I miss the days when the production of content like this was so expensive and complicated that it was mostly limited to people who didn't want to risk making something without making damn sure they knew what they were talking about. I get so tired of endless channels of twentysomethings trying to sound smart or fill time with longform video essays full of weak research, catchy takes and words they don't know how to use.
Or when there was no monetary incentive to make content like this so only truly knowledgeable hobbyists and the like would put effort into making such content. Whenever you find a website from the 2000s or heck, even the 90s, you just know that it's going to contain some _actual_ information for once.
Yep. This is not an epic reveal of how you've been misled all these years. Somebody learned a little about color photography and thinks they're a ground=breaking expert. . . Typical RUclipsr discovers he can make a video and thinks he's something special. Sorry. Junior discovers color photography and totally ignores the fact that color is a complete fabrication of the brain. Color doesn't even exist in the physical world outside the body. He uses terminology incorrectly. . He needs to concentrate on something he does understand. .
bad take even though this guy is a dumbass, we shouldnt want creativity to be, if it was expensive we'd have more entitled white 20 year olds whos parents could afford to make them feel smart and less true creativity
You are right and I hope you do the same reasoning when you post useless pictures about the food you eat. Back when you had to buy films, you would not do pictures of the food you eat. That's the bad thing about technology. When something new comes out, people think it's the end of something older. Baudelaire said that photography was the end of painting: he was wrong. When electronic music came, people thought "it's the end of live music": they were wrong.
@@mister_eee76 i think the freedom of creativity is great, if people want to take pictures of good thats amazing, im glad they dont have to worry about the film it wastes, the ability to take pictures anywhere without worry about wasting anything has only increased the number of beautiful pictures taken, and the accessibility of cameras and video software has only increased the number of great videos, would jon bois even be allowed to exist in the 80s? sure we have to deal with some bad videos like this one, but we get a lot more great creative pieces
3:14 I was half expecting to hear the cash registers roll from Pink Floyd’s “Money” tbh I’ve probably watched Wizard of Oz more times with Dark Side than not...
yeah he did. "To cope with the heat, Lahr had to take frequent breaks, and the costume department had to regularly dry out the costume because it would become soaked with sweat. These conditions were part of the many challenges faced during the production of "The Wizard of Oz.""
@@james-transitfan-pz3gulol there is no such thing as the Apple VR Pro. It’s called the Apple Vision Pro. Also you can already watch RUclips on it. And it’s not hologram
Certain films use black and white to great effect. For example, 'Eraserhead' is even more surreal and creepy because at the time of black and white, those special effects wouldn't have been possible. It's the same with 'Eyes Without a Face' and even the aging make up in 'Raging Bull'.
Fun Fact: It took until 1972 Color TV sets to out sell B/W sets although NTSC color sets were available since 1954! What's real weird is that it took until the mid 1980s for TV sound to be in )))Stereo((( Analog TV used AM for the video and FM for sound. FM Stereo radio has been around since 1961. (The 88-108 FM radio band fit within the space between the analog TV channels 6&7!) Why did it take over 20 years for TV to adopt this tech?
Most likely because the speakers built into TVs themselves weren't far enough apart for viewers to tell the difference between sounds coming from one side or the other. It was all just in front of them.
In Metal Gear Solid 1, one of the boss fights requires the player to pay attention to which direction the sound of a helicopter is flying. If you play the game on a TV with a mono speaker the side characters break the fourth wall and basically roast you for being poor. What makes it even funnier is that the plot of Metal Gear Solid 1 is set in 2005 (the game came out in 1998) so the characters were roasting the player for still using a mono speaker TV in 2005.
@@GANONdork123 Fair argument, BUT there were portable stereos (later dubbed "boom boxes") available since the early-mid 1970s and they were not as wide as a 19" let alone aa 21" or 25" TV so their speakers wern't all that far away from each other (4"-5" seperation) .
This video demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how color photography works. With dedicated color film, there are three layers of silver halide each sensitive to either red, green, or blue light, with each layer dyed. With digital photography, each lights sensitive pixel has either a red, green, or blue mask over it so that it’s only sensitive to one of those colors, and then the image is reconstructed applying the colors appropriately. In other words, by this definition ALL color photography has always been a hoax. While there were efforts to find materials that would natively render different colors of light differently early on, no such material has ever been found
A huge advantage of Technicolor in hindsight it that having the original masters filmed as monochrome through filters is far more robust against ageing and fading than having three layers sandwiched in a single strip of film that get converted to dyes during processing. Monochrome films tend to hold out so long as they physically remain intact, color films can fade quite quickly (and this is hard to correct, given the problems of dyes fading unevenly, plus the inevitable mismatches and compromises between dye primaries, scanner primaries, display primaries and human cone cell responses). So, Technicolor films can more easily be restored to pristine condition provided the original monochrome masters are available. With modern technology (wide gamut HDR, digital scratch and dust removal carefully applied) they can be restored to significantly higher quality than what originally would have been seen when they were new.
This is somewhat misleading as others have noted. BTW the subtractive primaries are of course Yellow, magenta and cyan. Misnaming them as red, blue and yellow suggests the author of this script didn't really understand the underlying principles which accord with the physiology of the eye.
And completely missing the very clear relationship between Red-Green-Blue and CMYK. But most elementary schools still teach Red-Yellow-Blue as primary and skip science modules on light, wavelengths, perception, and color, so can you blame him for missing his own point?
I had heard that it was hand-painted. Not the whole movie. Only in the transition from black-and-white to color and vice versa and also the horse of a different color. They could rotoscope film to create masks so that effects can only be applied to certain pieces each individual frame. A special effects technique in use for decades.
i have never once, in my 50 years, heard anyone claim Wizard of Oz was painted frame by frame. No one ever thought anything because it is common knowledge that it was Technicolor. Most people know about RGB, it was the television standard for decades. It is obviously color, not sure why you claim the path that gets us there invalidates it. Light doesn't have color in the literal sense either, it doesn't mean we don't see color.
what a waste of 25 minutes. "did u know colour film was made...by selectively filming 3 primary colour channels and then dying them???" like yes that's literally how all practical colour representation works thanks dude
I think he was just trying to show what a hassle it was back then compared to now. Can you imagine having to do that process for every color video today. We would not have RUclips or TikTok if we were still using technicolor on everything. It's like comparing a 2024 manual transmission car to a model T. I bet you couldn't even get a model T to move.
It's even how our eye/brain system works! We don't see color. Light has no color. Our brains create a perception of color from the response of our retinal cones to certain wavelengths that are a very small part of the vast spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.
I had to give this video a Thumb-Down because it contains a lot of false statements, and because its title is sensationalist clickbait. No, human eyes are _not_ sensitive to "only 3 specific frequencies"; instead, the "red", "green", and "blue" cones are sensitive to fuzzy-edged, partially-overlapping _bands_ of frequencies, so we can see any frequency from the bottom end of the "red" band to the top end of the "blue" band. So, if we see light that's 3/4 red and 1/4 green, it looks orange. Or, if we see mono-chromatic (single-frequency) light that actually _is_ orange, we also see _that_ as being "orange" and can't tell the difference. Yes, rainbows do exist, and yes, all of the myriad colors of the rainbow actually do exist, and each will trigger a different mix of R, G, B cones in different proportions. No, color photography, cinematography, and videography are not "lies"; quite the contrary, they are ways of making images of reality which more-closely mirror actual reality than greyscale images do. In short, it's a mistake to accuse people of "lying" when you know they're not just to make a quick advertising buck. Stop that, it's ugly.
I can give you a very good example to explain how watching something on TV isn't the same as in real life. Did you know that horror movies and games are extremely popular with people suffering from PTSD? They feel cathartic because it helps them cope with their trauma. Horror makes you feel fear in a safe and controlled environment. It's also why dark humor is popular with them as well. By associating trauma with humor or entertainment, it makes it easier to dissociate the memory from the feelings. Talking about it also helps. I can talk about my own trauma while laughing, even if said trauma was attempted murder on my person combined with public humiliation. I have C-PTSD caused by chronic child abuse, so it's no wonder horror is my favorite genre.
Yeah I was expecting the "lie" to be that it was hand painted like the myth says. But it turns out color is fake because they had to film it in 3 different colors? That's what i already expected.
This is just a click bait video that tries to convince you everything is a lie, then spends 26 minutes only to tell you that the lie is technically true, but by looking at it with a "certain" view point it could maybe be proceaved as a tiny bit false.
It's not a lie...it's just how color FILM was processed...on FILM. It's simply how early color technology processes worked. In a similar vein, when digital raw footage is shot there isn't really color there-- it's just data. It's how it's presented to the user that makes it color. Is a black and white display lying to you even if the signal sent to it is a color signal? No-- it's just a limitation of the technologies involved in that case.
Although I found the video interesting, I thought the title was disingenuous. Technicolor was not a lie, but a technological leap forward in movie making.
I don't see how you came to the conclusion that the colour in The Wizard of Oz is a lie. The movie is in colour, regardless of the methods used to get that result, the end result is colour, it's not in black and white. It's like when people say screens can't show yellow, it's just a combination of red and green, yes but the end result is yellow, so screens can show yellow.
"Red Blue Green: Additive coloring Red Blue Yellow: Subtractive coloring" Um, no. Dead-wrong no. (Edit: I'm going to retract my statement just a little. Red-blue-yellow _is_ a kind of subtractive coloring and has been around for a long time in the art world. CMY is just the more-accurate counterpart to RGB, and red-blue-yellow could be seen as an approximation.)
Given the *other* glaring inaccuracies by this point, I gave up here. But we've created engagement, so RUclips thinks it's a good video. Remember to thumbs down the video if it contains crap.
Well. RGB is an additive color model, and RBY is a type of subtractive color model (aka color model for inks), just not as common or good as CMY, but probably more wellknown among laymen.
Yes, CMY has superseeded RYB as the correct subtractive primaries for more than half a century at this point. Its partially lingered on for way too long in traditional painting due to its history and because it works "well enough" for mixing.
@@PretendGooseMore than _half_ a century? 50 years ago is 1974. People understood the primary colors of printing _long_ before that. The most-documented first use of CMYK as we know it today was in 1906, which is well over a century ago. It’s only the art world that holds onto and promulgates the RYB nonsense. But printers (the people, not the machines) and color theorists understood it was wrong _ages_ ago.
This has to be the least technical and historically accurate depiction of color film tech, I HIGHLY recommend anyone looking for history of the 3 strip system look at some more tech focused channels instead of misleading history and a poor narrative. I've produced a small list of all the cringe-inducing moments (mostly with his creative use of ignoring time entirety) but I've already stated the best thing you should do, LOOK ELSEWHERE!
He says " 1967 was the first year more color movies were made than black and white" That is incorrect. I am 76 years old and I remember going to Saturday movie matinees just about every week during the 1950's and almost all of the movies were in color, especially Westerns. The only Western I remember being black and white was "High Noon".
Yep. That's where I stopped watching to comment. If someone is gonna make an informative video about film history, and have the video taken seriously, they must get the pronunciation correct on the names of groundbreaking filmmakers.
I read this comment before the part where he said “Cecil”, expecting to have to explain that both “sess-il” and “see-sil” are valid pronunciations. I… wasn’t expecting “suh-SIL”! 😂 Or as he might have worded it: “I readed this comment before the part where he sayed ‘Cecil’…”
New Bespoke Post subscribers get a free mystery gift with your first membership purchase -
go to bespokepost.com/nsgift and enter code NSGIFT at checkout.
Thanks to Bespoke Post for sponsoring!
First! I love ur videos
Dude you got some birds stuck in your hallway
Ahh my arch nemesis CMYK... Learning the color values was a nightmare and made no (insert expletive) sense to Me. Even though many of My classmates were eventually able to understand this I gave up. This was the early days of the internet where there was cross publishing between print and internet, so learning CMYK was a must.
I have kept out of publishing to a point where I only got as close as marketing in the late 00s. By then RGB was the standard and supplanted CMYK.
i loved the video, but especially your tinted delivery, that added to it, has well.
5:20
I don't really see where the lie is with this, it gives the energy of a redditor smugly claiming you're wrong about something based on a technicality that doesnt really affect the end result?
"Ah, but you see! The film was actually 3 different colours laid ontop one another to give the impression of actual colour!"
Yeah, wait until you find out it was also multiple pictures a second to give the impression of motion and not actually a moving picture...
YES thank you, this bothered me a lot too lmao. There is no "lie" here, this is not black and white, this is a color film, the method used to capture the colors doesn't change that. Weird af framing
I saw it more as clickbait, but yea, if it was encoded and decoded to show colour, then it's a coloured movie. He even mentions that these days our movies are encoded as 0s and 1s instead of film strips
@@Daniel_WR_HartIt's not even clickbait because he has the same thesis in the video itself, it's not just the title/thumbnail
Clickbait
I mean, *technically* even modern film is the same idea of different layers of colors combined, but the color sensitizing dye layers are all smooshed onto one roll of film rather than three.
This is a really weird way to describe it, it’s not a trick. It is color. When you print color film you print it in 3 stages in the same way. This is chemistry, not trickery.
Agree but he has to be reachable to the average person, some of us may have more knowledge on this topic but others are new.
WOW!
Dick by Name, Dick by nature.
you havnt been listening he is saying the final process is color, until then its trickery.
@@EmperorKonstantine01That’s not true, though. No film is projecting yellow light into your eyes. It’s still a mix of red and green that convinces your eyes it’s seeing yellow. If there’s a lie, it’s one your brain is telling itself.
@@richardcarritt5126 I agree with you, when I read the title I already knew what was meant (Technicolor is based on 3 black and white films). But the title is somewhat clickbait. But I know almost every youtuber use some kind of clickbait, and this is relatively mild cklickbait. I tolerate that ;-)
TLDR: Hipster learns how color is made and thinks it's a big scam.
And then takes 26 minutes to say the same thing over and over again while using a crummy instagram filter on his own video.
RIIIIGHT?
Yeah, like I get the clickbaity title but he could have said in the video that "well, not really a scam, but still quite fascinating!"
Gotta play that RUclips game. Getting baited into an education is a blessing.
that's because everyone is multi tasking and not really paying attention to the video anyway, so eventually gets the basic idea lol
What if I told you the cake is a lie.... is only eggs and milk mixed and beaked together.
🤣
That was a good one - and at the same time also a good explanation. 👍
@@naturestone3148 and it didn't took 25 minutes to get to the point.
@@cosmicdebris42 bro it’s not that deep, it’s literally just a joke
@@cosmicdebris42 the grammar and spelling doesn’t need to be perfect for you to know what he means
But we’re not being tricked at all. The final film IS in color. Just because the way it was created required jumping through some hoops doesn’t mean we’re being tricked. It’s just a process.
Yeah..... don't understand his thinking in that it's "not colour" when it's clearly colour but just with more steps in the process.
It's a misnomer.
I think he was going for the idea that it's created out of 3 monochromatic images, but that isn't as catchy of a video title, lol.
Yeah, color photography is a process. It always has been. Also, no one thinks the Wizard of Oz is handcolored. I have never in my life heard that. It's common to hear it was the "first" Technicolor movie.
Yeah, it’s like saying we were tricked because they used actors pretending to be witches instead of doing real magic like… we don’t actually think everything that happens in movies is ‘real’???
Cyan, yellow, and magenta are the subtractive primary colors, not red, green, and blue.
"uhm akchually, the video you are watching right now is also a lie, since the cmos sensor in the camera uses a colour filter array to trick your eyes into seeing colour"
Another rational person! Thank you!
And its 30 still pictures a second!. So even the motion is a lie
Black and white is also a lie cause its recorded as a negative and we don't see that way.
also the lcd screen you're watching is in rgb subpixel format... YOU ARE BEING FOOLED
@@HandiasTobil At least nowadays all 2 million LCDs are adressed at the same time and it's not a CRT anymore, where in reality you only see ONE dot running with a really high speed over a phosphorized glass plate and what you really see as a "picture" is just the afterglow effect of it :D
That's the internet today. Calling everything you know into question and being wrong at the same time. Challenging everything that you learned, strutting around like you know something, and being wrong. All with ads.
Use a proper AdBlock. But other than that, this is all revisionist garbage. If you want actual information on Technicolor, then I suggesting reading books from those who have studied the history of film and worked on film for many years.
This is revisionist nonsense meant to drive up views and have a catchy title.
I am chocked it was not "disinformation" "Misinformation"
@@NimsQuarlo I can't help you with smartphones, but I do know you can avoid the TV problem entirely by connecting your laptop to the TV with an HDMI cable. That way you can have a big screen *and* any adblock you have installed.
People like you prob think Pluto is still a planet.
This is why my generation doesn't respect boomers.
I trust my professors over you
Nobody in school has ever said Wizard of Oz was hand painted. This guy is just making stuff up.
How to tell people you're Gen Z without telling people you're Gen Z.
I think the big irony is that sound is way more important than footage. If you watch a movie that has the best possible 4K material but has crappy audio, you'll be put off fast. But take low quality footage (if what you see is interesting) and blend it with top notch audio engineered sound... now that'll fly.
YEP. A lot of amateur video makers mess this up. Sound is 60% of a movie! Our eyes are more tolerant than our ears!
I agree but film quailty is also important. If you shot on 4K & mixed the audio really good it will be a good movie!
That's exactly the reason why I still enjoy watching movies on Laserdisc to this day. The picture quality is far from the best that's currently available, but the audio can be simply astonishing.
I completely disagree. Yes, audio is important, no bones about that, but in a visual medium it's silly to prioritize it. An entire generation lived in silent films for a reason, because they still communicated without sound or specific auditory cues. I've always found the reverse is true in film circles. Myself and others can handle bad audio because unless you're able to dial in on what constitutes superior audio, it won't kill the experience. Now if you can't see what you're viewing, then you shut it off. Can't say I know a single serious filmmaker who would exchange visuals over audio.
@DavidRYates-tk2tq Exactly. Many of my favorite films are silent films because they use every VISUAL element to create the best experience. It's like saying the music video is more important than the music, it just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Color film is actually individual RGB layers? Say it ain't so! Next you're gonna tell me that the motion picture itself is just a series of still images displayed sequentially at a high enough rate for persistence of vision to create the illusion of movement.
LEGO Island désignant
6:25 He did.
Actually, RGB-sensitive layers that are processed into CMY dyes.
@@oldtvnut Nobody watches the film from the CMY films/dyes though. They're just negatives.
Well, then this video is a lie, cause it is being shown on my screen that has a red green and blue led for each pixel.
They are actually Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow, for subtractive. Don't even come at us with the grade-school red, blue, yellow garbage. It's why your "purple" mixture looks like grey spit. You're using the wrong primaries for subtractive in the first place.
I was going to say this, but figured someone had beaten me to it.
Calling this "black & white" is kinda like calling a fully coloured-in colouring book "black & white". Just because the original material was black & white, doesn't mean the final result is black & white.
Exactly, calling Technicolor a "lie" is a big stretch, for clickbait purposes no doubt.
See it in color, it's color, simple.
In the past when color separation was done using film. The film was black and white film.
The original is real life, which is in color. So, instead of capturing that color, they filled it in with their best representation of it.
So, calling the final product "color" is at least a BIT of a stretch.
@@jeromemckenna7102Film that is exposed through a red filter is an accurate record of the amount of red light it’s exposed to. The colour isn’t being created later, it’s being captured on film.
I agree with you, when I read the title I already knew what was meant (Technicolor is based on 3 black and white films). But the title is somewhat clickbait. But I know almost every youtuber use some kind of clickbait, and this is relatively mild cklickbait. I tolerate that ;-)
If the OP is confused by the "trickery" of technicolor film, wait til he finds out how complex human vision itself is.
It's not complex, we see three colors, Red Green and blue, it's as simple as that.
Print is a bit more difficult but not much, but because overlaying colors on print works as a filter, colors are made up by red green and blue filters instead. So starting with white paper, yellow is your blue filter, Cyan is red filter and magenta is green filter. So instead of adding the colors you want you subtract the colors you don't want. Good prints also use black and that makes CMYK for print and RGB for monitors and any sensible image file format.
@@buffalox8492It _really_ is considerably more complex than that.
For starters, the three types of color-sensing cells (cones) are all sensitive to a wide array of light wavelengths (which correlate to color) but different wavelengths activate them to different intensities. Our 'red-sensing' cones (termed L, for 'long') do not only react to red light like the R sensor of an RGB digital camera (or the film behind the red filter in Technicolor) would, instead they react to all light but produce a much weaker response with small wavelength bluish light than with long wavelength reddish light (in fact, the sensitivity of our 'red' cones peaks at a wavelength we'll normally perceive as yellow). The M (middle) cones, which we associate with green, actually have almost the same responses to different wavelengths as 'red' L cones except that they are slightly less sensitive to the longer reddish tones. The S (short) cones do mostly react to blue light, though.
The signals produced by the activation of these cells is then processed by our brains to create what we perceive as color by contrasting the intensity of the L and M cones (basically producing a "red vs green" channel) as well as the activation of L+M vs S cones (the "yellow vs blue" contrast).
Red, green and blue are just the single-wavelength colors that produce the best contrast after going through all that process and whose combination produces the widest range of possible colors given those limitations but, in fact, every RGB screen is unable to account for all the possibilities because our eye vision is fundamentally more complex than a combination of three channels. Look up 'color spaces' for more info on that.
@@buffalox8492 I think you missed the VERY evident sarcasm there. lol
This guy will shit himself when he encounters a person with a 4th vision cone. Or as i call it: The HDR cone.
Don't tell him about the Mantis Shrimp
I'm 65, and been around the film industry off and on for over 50 years. I have NEVER heard ANY rumor that "The Wizard of Oz" had been hand-painted, until seeing this video.
That's because this fool is...well a fool. Calling him a liar would assume that he's smart enough to formulate a lie.
My great great grand daddy was the chief hand painter on the Wizard of Oz. The movie was actually filmed in 1879 and it took him 60 years to finish painting it. True story.
@@kmoecub I did actually hear this rumor growing up.
Some people actually did think this. It's a very rare belief to come across but it's real. Or was.
I'm in my 30s and I'd also never heard this until this video...but I've no doubt some people were fed this lie/misattribution, but I'm not sure how wide-spread it is.
"By 1954, a company called Eastmancolor..." Except Eastmancolor isn't a company it's a trade name for a film stock and process for color motion pictures. The company who made it is Kodak. The name is a reference to Kodak's founder, George Eastman. And the process was actually introduced in 1950.
this guy doesnt know anything
While true, it was also way cheaper to process because you only processed _one_ strip of film, not three to four like you do with the old Technicolor process.
Thank god you make this comment him saying it was it’s standalone company was killing me 😂
Dude, you realise your saying that to someone who thinks there is such a thing as a BAND AID, which is actually just the name of a company that sells plasters...
It's Hoovers and Vacuum Cleaners again.
Eastmancolor movie film from Kodak was introduced in 1950 but really wide use didn't occur until the likes of Panavision, Mitchell and ARRI developed cameras that could take full advantage of the one-strip process of color filmmaking properly in the middle to late 1950's.
A ship full of red paint crashed into a ship full of blue paint. Both crews have been marooned!
🤦♂️ 🤣
Better than the video.
@@VesnaVK Aw, thanks!
Throwing a White stone into the Red Sea, ... which only gets wet.
What's red and smells like white paint?
Honestly, we were tricked into watching this video.
exactly.
Forget like and subscribe that would be an illusion. 💩
thanks for the warning. i am reading this after 2 minutes of watching and skipping the commercial at the beginning. so i ll let the thumb down and hit the road 😎🙌
No, I just opened it to dislike it. Didn't watch.
Install the restore youtube dislike so you can see before the video starts if it's been "ratioed"
Imagine making a 26-minute video to tell people you don't understand how colour works.
And then someone actually paid to sponsor it...
@@misterhat5823 Just because they knew dummies like us would watch it. Lol.
Imagine making a 26-minute video to tell that a 2D color movie is indistinguable from reality
Just wait until he learns how digital cameras, and digital displays (and even CRT displays) work [mind blown]
And yet he is unable to sync audio to visuals in his own video. That's irony for you.
It's no longer a black and white photo after it's been dyed into cyan/magenta/yellow though. It's like saying all of your clothes in the video are white despite being dyed brown and black, because of course they aren't.
Yes, it is very interesting that each of the images were recorded in black & white to capture the brightest spots after being passed through a filter, that the process allowed dying the frames to combine to create a the color we see. That is absolutely fascinating and definitely worth making this video for. But after the frames are dyed, they're not black and white like you keep saying.
The Technicolor imbibition process was much more complicated than that. The negatives were not dyed. Black and white prints were made from which negative matrices were produced. These carried the dyes which were transferred, one after the other, in perfect register, under pressure to clear film stock. The final prints do not use a photochemical process to capture the image, only the optical soundtrack. Because the dyes were very stable the colors do not fade like later photochemical processes such as Eastman Color.
good point
@@UKHeritageRailways That doesn't change the point he's making.
A proper way to say it would probably be to say that they are still "greyscale" after they've been dyed
He might mean "monochrome" but it's hard to say.
This video should be taken as example of how information flows in the digital age. Someone with very basic knowledge about a topic makes a clickbait video more or less viral and many people take it as Moses' boards. It's scary how misinformed people are becoming.
Very scary. I can remember when conspiracy theories were fun and silly. Now they are being pushed as gospel, and worse, a large segment of society believes them, even sometimes to the point of violence. We are in strange times right now. Critical thinking and research skills need to be taught in school now more than ever.
All I can say is thank heavens for these comments sections where these posters can be called out.
That's the same way all digital photographs work how is it 'fake color' - completely ridiculous.
yup
The biggest lie in the music industry: when your headphones are "playing sound", they're actually just creating oscillations in the air and making your eardrums vibrate
That's also the way the tri-chromatic human eye/brain system works, too. Color only exists in the brain's perception created from the bio-chemical response of the human retinal cones to various combinations of wavelengths of "visible light", which is more properly defined as that very narrow portion of the vast electromagnetic spectrum to which human retinal cones are sensitive.
Well, what our eyes see are a light source's reflections on whatever object happens to be there so depending on the warmth and the intensity of the light source, colors change: no light, no image. On a picture, one thousands of a seconds of it is captured and it will never change, no matter the light source... Does that make sense? Hummmmm... not really, but I tried!
It's not exactly how digital photography works. There's no dyeing process with Cyan Yellow and Magenta. The colour editors on "Barbie" movie had to go through a complex process to imitate the look of Technicolor. ♥💙💚
Those CYM secondary colours were also an important part of Cibachrome processing, which has sadly not survived. I have a few photos I took in the 70s which I had Cibachrome printed. 💛
I've never heard the rumor that the wizard of oz was hand-painted and that concept sounds ridiculous to me. how could anyone actually believe that???
Yeah, I'm not sure where that came from? I'd be interested to hear a source
I could see that being the case with some of the backgrounds used on the set, and not with the film itself. I like how Squid explained how the technology actually works and how it makes black-and-white film look like colour to us.
I've never heard that either
To be fair, there are color films from the early days of film that they did hand paint every frame. The colors are funky in them because sometimes different people would work on the frames, or they ran out of a paint color and had to remix it... so it makes sense to me that people would believe that
Might have come from the same ones who claimed that audiences ran from the theater scared when viewing "A train arrives at the station" lol
There was never a time when anybody believed that The Wizard of Oz was hand painted frame by frame. Hand painting of film was never convincing and couldn't possibly be done with such perfection. You also took too long to get to the point and when you finally got to the point....it was wrong. The Wizard of Oz WAS in colour and we weren't tricked!
Your dead right you have no idea how bad I want to leave a comment saying skip to the time stamp of the explanation maybe this guy just need to get all the hot air out of his wind bag self
i always like joking about that one meme where it says "your brain tricks you into thinking this image is moving" and the image actually rotates because it's still technically correct. there's no actual... movement happening, lights on a screen are just constantly brightening and darkening to represent an image
Technically correct is the _best_ kind of correct 👍
Reminds me of that post with intentionally poor grammar about two colors being the same when they're completely different, and it abruptly ends with a proof check suggestion to finger yourself
Subtractive color is Magenta, Cyan and Yellow. Not red, blue, and yellow. That is why it is used in printer inks.
I'm so tired of people thinking it's red blue and yellow. Education really failed us there. There are still art-teachers that think and teach this even though we've known better for a hundred years...
@@bronzekoala9141 me too. And it's such a simple, innocuous, and objective correction that it should be an "oh, that's neat, good to know!" moment. Yet I see so many people try to argue that RBY are, in fact, primary colors. It really highlights a deep psychological resistance many people have against updating their beliefs!
I love that there are people who are as passionate about this point as I am!
Yep, I noticed that too, and got annoyed about it.
@@bronzekoala9141 It's still used in painting. Plus it works well enough for painting, so there's no reason to change it. We were taught that it applied specifically to paints and painting, not that it was the general subtractive colours.
For it to change in painting the manufacturers would have to start making cyan and magenta as common colours. I know they don't because any time we buy paints it is always red, blue and yellow that are readily available everywhere.
By this logic our eyes are black and white
The Biggest Lie in Human Biology
"You were probably told growing up that The Wizard of Oz was hand-painted, frame by frame"
No. We were almost certainly not. Maybe you were also told the moon was made of cheese?
As the video is presented, that's what he's trying to worm into your brain. I stopped the video when it reached the sponsoring because I was genuinely confused about the coloring being a lie.
"Ho but the wizard of oz was a lie ! And they did it for 50 years !"
"Wait, what ? What do you mean a lie ? They didn't use coloring technique ? Was it top-notch rotoscoping techniques and hand coloring ? But then why use rotoscoping if for a normal movie you hand paint the frames anyway ? And it doesn't make sense because... And... "
*checks the comments in confusion*
"I mean it's a lie, they did not paint the frames like you didn't believe 3 secondes before I told you it's a lie and instead use coloring techniques."
No the moon is a guy, who got his eye smashed in in the 1902 rocket accident. Haven't you seen the documentary?
Cheese Gromit !
@@ZheinPasRoux If you watch past the sponsor it doesn't help. I think he's talking about how technicolor works. I'm not 100% sure of much of what he's trying to prove since the facts vary from "worded wrong" to "missing the point" to "just wrong".
A friend of mine called this a "RUclips Blender" video (I'm not sure if he got the term from somewhere else).
He takes facts from other places and blends them into a new video, but he doesn't quite get all the places he pulled info from. There's also a lack of clarity on what the point is.
In this case, I believe he's primarily copying a Vox video from six years ago, "How Technicolor Changed Movies." It's not wrong to use other sources (credited), but you should get it right.
Interestingly, the Vox video talks about a "lie" in The Wizard of Oz, but it's nearly the opposite of this video.
I went through several other of the creator's videos and the same feeling runs throughout. It might be he's running a "being slightly off for engagement" scheme, in which case we're playing into him.
It is actually a rumor that was floating around at one point. But that.. was.. a long time...ago
Still today, color photos and videos are just 3 black-and-white photos taken by the same camera. The photoreceptors in your digital camera can only detect one color of light; the advancement is that the filters aren't big spinning cellophane sheets or expensive prisms, but very tiny filters that cover individual photoreceptors. It's a mechanical recreation of the human retina with its short, medium, and long cones.
Digital camera sensors take just 1 black-and-white photo, not 3. The coloured filter in front of that sensor distributes which pixels have red, green or blue in front in a fixed pattern called a Bayer filter. From this single image, 3 images can then be extrapolated even though 50-75% of the data is not real and guessed from the surrounding pixels that do have real data automatically. I think the author here missed a trick in mentioning that at the end. It's every bit as impressive as Technicolor
"listen to the COLOR of your dreams"; John Lennon in Tomorrow never knows...
THANK YOU. I’m glad I’m not alone here!
The Huawei Handy has actually RYYB nstead of RGB, cause that collects much more light or such
@@MrStratofish Only some cameras are made this way. More expensive digital cameras, like those used for movies, are 3CCD cameras, so they have three sensors, one for each channel of RGB. But these still use a prism to split the light into 3 separate beams to hit each sensor, rather than a filter.
The only trick that has been realized here is how you tricked us into watching this video!
get over yourself, the video was interesting. Yes, color is just a trickery of our own brains to represent the physical world we live in. It takes the light that bounces off of things and reflect back to our eyes retina to represent things in a way that give a better way to differentiate things. Different colors are simply EM light waves with different wave lengths. When you combine R B and G, you end up with light of a different wave length, whose result is one of the countless colors of the chromatic spectrum (visible light). Colors are math, it's almost like Arithmetic, you add and subtract.
has no clue of what he is talking about yet feels entitled to lecture you about it, the marvels of youtube.
Or worse, has a clue, but doesn't go through the needed research to know exactly WHY some things are the way they are. Just as a lot of the responses show a similar level of ignorant knowledge. And to be hones, I don't the he doesn't know the details, but decided not to go over all of them due to time constraints. Also, it drives people to actually look into it and learn more, saving him the trouble of having to do four times as much recording when he can get his viewers to do it as well.
In short, give a layman's introduction, and get people who want to know more or refute what he said to do their own homework on the thing.
A tactic I am more than familiar with, both on the receiving end, and on the giving end.
Someone is forgetting Hanlon's Razor...
Sounds like the only lie is saying the image is black and white. Part of it is, but part of it isn't, and than the parts are layered to create color. It's not an illusion at all, it's a technique to create the same wavelength your eyes see in the everyday world.
good description
Technically when they dye all three films it's still "greyscale" before they're combined but I get your point
I had a roommate about 50 years ago whose father worked on developing technicolor. He got a technical Oscar for it.
Because Technicolor required *THREE* cameras, that's why few films were shot in that process. It wasn't until the arrival of the single-strip Eastmancolor movie film from Kodak that color films started to take over the movie industry, one that was pretty much complete by the late 1960's.
Then I am sure he would have taken this "Smart Aleck" to the Woodshed.
Are you sure he got the Oscar and we weren't tricked into thinking he got it?
@@Sacto1654 It didn't take three cameras. It took one camera that could handle three filmstrips. Cinerama took three cameras.
"You've probably been told growing up that the Wizard of Oz was hand-painted, frame by frame." No, just you dog. No one thought that growing up.
Especially when it says in huge letters "COLOR BY TECHNICOLOR" in the movie. 🙄
I have the sneaking suspicion he was also not told this.
Yeah, color by Technicolor told us that there was a really, really short artist painting each frame in real time, just as the moon was made of cream cheese and profanity would curve our spines, infect our minds and keep the country from winning the war.
Save that not a syllable of the above was true. Technicolor was and remains a CYMK process color film process and is no more fake than modern color computer monitors or color laser/ink printing.
But, there is a fake here - the videographer, who I have now blocked on youtube. I don't have time to waste on bullshitters and the advertisers should count themselves fortunate that I bailed from the video before blacklisting them in order of appearance.
This is an excellent video... for 8 yr olds...that's about it. Annoying, condescending, and not accurate.
When I was growing up, when Dorothy stepped into the land of OZ, the screen stayed black and white on our B&W TV.
There was a VERY popular sitcom made by the BBC called Are You Being Served. For years the pilot episode was only shown in black and white, because the colour tape from the early 70's was wiped ( the pilot was also recorded on B/W telecine from a colour tv ). Decades later it was noticed that the RGB dots could be made out on the film. With bespoke software, the pixels were recreated ( NOT just colourizeing the filmed pixels ).The pilot is now in colour, and identical to the original video tape.
I've read something similar once, how some older color BBC productions were put onto B/W film for distribution and remained the only existing backups of those productions.
Tho the story I heard went a bit different:
Because the color information on a normal TV signal is actually causing certain interference patterns in the signal most TVs made after the invention of color TV (even those that were only B/W) had an extra filter installed to filter out the interference from the color signal on the luminance information. The telecine systems used by the BBC at the time however did not have those filters, and so some clever people found out you can extract the color information from those interference patterns instead...
@@Chickenbreadlp WOW! Thanks so much for that. That there is even ONE method is astonishing. But potentially TWO? All of the early Dr Who episodes only exist because they too were also on telecine. Unfortunately they were B/W anyway. Dammit.
I believe they did it with some of the wiped Jon Pertwee Doctor Who episodes where only black and white copies reminded, one that comes to mind is Invasion of the Dinosaurs episode 1 I think it was
@@herschell64I believe The Mind of Evil got this treatment as well.
@@Chickenbreadlp Both you and @geordiebrit1461 have got part of the story. When making a B&W film recording of a colour show, it was meant to be standard practice at the BBC to insert a chroma filter to completely remove the chroma signal to prevent the dot patterning. However, this was not always done, so *some* (but by no means all) of their B&W film recordings of colour shows have the chroma dots and can be processed via the Colour Recovery system.
'ok tell me what was the lie!!'
1 minute later... introduction
2 minutes later... introduction
3 minutes later... advertisement
5 minutes later... end of advertisement start of another intro
7 minutes later... getting closer but started with BS ('light is light. you are only going to get the outline' WTF?!)
Nobody ever thought The Wizard of Oz was hand-painted. The premise of this video is absurd.
Exactly
I did indeed used to think that. That was told to me growing up.
@@fixer2508 me too lol
No, that's definitely a rumor that was going around. I remember encountering that claim in the early 1990's.
i never thought it was painted
8:45 Small mistake about subtractive coloring : the primary colors are actually magenta, cyan and yellow, hence the C(yan)M(agenta)Y(Yellow)K(ey, black) system used for printing.
I was just thinking the same thing. It frustrated me when I learned that the primary colors weren't red, yellow, and blue like we had been taught in elementary school because then I had to re-learn it when I was taking physics years later as CMYK.
@@pineapplequeen13 Light, dyes/inks, and paints all mix differently. The range of colors that can be achieved by mixing white, black, red, green, and blue paints will often be better than could be achieved using white, black, red, green, and blue, or using white, black, cyan, magenta, and yellow. It's funny how many people think the red/green/blue color theory is "wrong", without recognizing that it's more accurate than the other theories when mixing most kinds of *paint*.
i'd argue this is a pretty big oversight tbh
Kinda crazy he didn’t even bother researching isn’t it
@@flatfingertuning727 See, THAT makes sense! I wish that was how they had taught it! Thank you, lol
Technicolor is no more a lie than any other color film process. They ALL rely on dyes, sometimes layer specific, or chemically attached to the light reactive agent to create color. There are no light-reactive agents that directly result in an appropriate "color". All film is essentially black and white, with dye doing the job of providing the appropriate colors. Technicolor's multi-strip process only made the true technology behind the result more obvious.
Funfact about Clerks that really shows how movie-making has changed: It cost almost as much to have the credits made as it did to shoot the whole film. Back in the day, making credits for a film was not a DIY process. You had to hire a company to print all that text out on reels of film so it would move at the right speed.
I mean, yeah, meeting Elvis in person would be honestly rather horrifying since he'd have to be a zombie.
a shitting zombie
Yeah, it would have been better to choose a *living* celebrity to make this point. Or just say "your favorite celebrity crush."
@@tommarnt morte las vegas!
heart-staked hotel? more vampire, that one... my bad.
cant help falling in graves...
youre a zombie in disguise...
@@paradiselost9946 lmao
@@tommarnt what ive had stuck in my head since... "a little corporeal corruption..."
I don't really see the distinction between being tricked into seeing colour and actually seeing colour. Seeing colour in real life is basically being tricked into seeing colour.
Schopenhauer spent much of his life studying colour perception. Colour is a subjective phenomenon. I have no way of knowing how you see the colour "blue" - we can only agree that it's called "blue".
There is no trick. The black and white values representing each color on the separation strips are translated into actual shades of color dyes on the projection prints.
The distinction is that colors in "real life" have wavelengths that actually correspond to their colors. Like say sunlight that bounced off a yellow flower petal will have a wavelength of around 580 nm, whereas the same yellow displayed by an RGB screen will be a mix of different intensity green (550 nm) and red (650 nm) wavelengths that our brains will interpret at yellow, but it's not yellow.
@@maxiuca But 580 nm is not actually "yellow". Our eye-brain systems perceive it as yellow. The vision systems of other species may not perceive it as anything at all, and their vision systems sometimes perceive wavelengths that we can't. What is the "color" of 300nm UV light that many birds, bees, and even mammals such as reindeer and mice can perceive?
@@michaelclark9762 I'm not sure what you mean and what you're getting at. 580 nm is the yellow color as perceived by humans and defined by science. Whereas the same yellow will be displayed by a monitor by simultaneously "shining" the red and green components. 300 nm is not perceived by humans therefore has no name and is called, as you've already mentioned, UV light, which is a short for Ultra-Violet (so it actually has a name...). You can also define a color as a coordinate in the XYZ space (like CIE 1931) if don't like calling certain wavelengths using their traditional names.
Shockingly Technicolor is still around today and it looks like they are a decently successful VFX studio now. Crazy to see a company doing the same thing 100 years later.
Yep, their offices were near the studio I interned at back in college! It seemed like a cool place
"My blood type is Krylon, Technicolor type A." - High Voltage by Linkin Park
Surviving as much as any VFX company can in 2024. They also do Animation and Advertising, They own 3 companies that work in each. MPC - VFX, Mikros - Animation, The Mill - ADs. Technicolor has had many owners over the decades though, Its based out of Paris now.
@maritimemetaldoc6812 yeah hopefully they don't collapse to mismanagement like a lot of companies that have been "traded" around over the years.
@@Slight-View I hope not too or ill be out of the job. lol I work for Technicolor.
You're talking absolute nonsense here. Technicolor is real color using a three strip process with black and white negatives. Not only is the color real, but Technicolor is more stable and lasts longer than one strip color film. It does not fade, has no side absorption, and looks the same today as it did when new. Color negatives like the kind used in Star Wars or The Godfather faded badly and were almost lost due to the use of CRVs or Color Internegatives before 1983. None of the movies shot on those formats have their original color anymore, and the versions seen today are electronically enhanced to make them look acceptable, that is why the Death Star interior is no longer khaki gray, and why there are purple highlights in Michael Corleone's hair. The original Technicolor films are not only real, but the color is fully intact and will continue to be for centuries to come. That is also why Disney continued to use it when he ran the company well into the 1960s. He did not want his films to fade away like so many others from the 1950s and 60s did. In the early 50s the Eastman Technicolor process used one strip color and required no special cameras. The colors were separated in the lab onto black and white negative. Singing in the Rain is a good example of it, the one strip film faded in only months, but the Eastman Technicolor negatives look just like they did back in the 1950s.
Quite ironic that you quote the guy as having 'talked nonsense' when most of your verbal shit smells the same.
@@darren6202 You really ought to pull the bug out. What is this to you? Your attempt to bully with coarse language doesn't cut it.
@RS3DArchive, I can’t believe after that wonderful response to this rather silly video the only comment you’ve gotten was from that fool
One negative (no pun intended) with technicolor as an archival method over a long period is film shrinkage. The three negatives would very slightly shrink at different rates causing misalignment.
In the 90s some “restored” theatrical films from the technicolor negatives had strange chromic “fringe” effects. Almost like 3D anaglyph films but not as extreme.
Computer scanning and auto alignment solved this problem thankfully.
Natalie M. Kalmus was the executive head of the Technicolor art department and credited (on-screen) as the director or "color consultant" of all Technicolor films produced from 1934 to 1949. Her husband, from 1902 to 1921, was Herbert Kalmus co-founder and president of the Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation.
Technicolor most amazing feature nowadays is that even via a digital media you recognize it immediately. The "lie" is a lie in spectral sense, but color is not really a thing that exists, light has a wavelength, and you see a spectral distribution of those things when you look at some thing. But our sensors are simple, faulty, like a spectograph with only three bands that are very large and asymmetrical, this allows different stimuli produce the exact same sensation because color is a cognitive process not a physical one.
Yes, the basic principle of trichromatic color reproduction, not requiring a sensational title and presentation.
No, neither our eyes nor our cameras are like spectrographs with three narrow bands. They have wide sensitivity curves that overlap significantly. That's how the brain creates a perception of color from the way our three types of retinal cones are stimulated at different response rates to the same wavelengths of light.
@@michaelclark9762 I said:
" *but very large* " meaning exactly that they are wideband ;
" *and assymetrical this allows different stimuli produce the exact same sensation* " meaning exactly that they overlap, or that would not be possible.
13:30 "how did he not get heatstroke" well uh... that's the thing... he did.
(at least from what I heard, could be wrong)
think that was the joke
@@HappyPlaysWasTaken his tone didn't sound like a joke, hard to tell
was just boutta say this also mlp fan?
I remember hearing that too. Plus, the silver paint used on Buddy Epsen made him ill.
The old theatre and movie productions were done as inexpensive as possible because the film was so expensive.
@@wowierosieposieapparently bronies really like learning about the film industry
"You've probably been told the Wizard of Oz has been hand painted frame by frame." No one did, ever. Not at school, not in documentaries.
Technicolour is as much real colour as press printed images are. Which also works with three colour layers and a black and white.
There is no lie in the way colour is produced, as long as your eyes perceive it as colour. That's the way the world and physics work.
The only reason to call it a lie is clickbait.
In fact, well before any photographic process, color layering techniques such as chromolithography, nishiki-e, chromoxylography, etc. already existed. So when photography came along, folks knew WHAT to do to get color. The problem was HOW... that took a bit longer.
RUclips kept on recommending this video. I finally gave in and watched it. I want my 23 minutes back (I skipped the ad).
I kind of had the same experience. I browsed the comments beforehand, but still decided to watch it, albeit on 2x speed, out of curiosity. I can't say I learned anything particularly surprising, it's just kinda how our eyes work.
same, also was pretty annoyed when he incorrectly stated that subtractive color is formed by red, blue and yellow (its cyan, magenta, and yellow, not sure were he got the red and blue from)
same on watching it but I actually enjoyed it, I knew most of the technical facts but learned a few tidbits of other things.
I want my 4 minutes back - that's all i could stand
@@fairportfan2 I watched it until the very end, hoping for that surprising fun fact that would make having to sit through it worthwhile. Sadly it never came. So you didn't miss anything.
I have never heard that the Wizard of Oz was hand painted. I am 62 years old. I think only very, VERY ignorant people would think such a thing. It disturbs me that young adults are so ignorant of things from just a few decades ago. Sad.
Coming up next: "We still don't have color! All we have are red, green and blue pixels being packed tightly and lit up! It happened with the earliest color tubes! It happened with the Trinitrons and Indextrons! It happened with the LCDs, the Plasmas, the LEDs and the OLEDs! Heck, it still happens today with Nano LEDs and Quantum Dots. And don't get me started on the NTSC Color Burst!"
I watched the whole video and I still don't understand why it's a lie. Is the whole movie a lie? After all, those people aren't really there in front of you, it's a trick, an illusion, just as much as the colour. The colour could be a lie if it were being added at a later time through a manual colouring process. But just because the process of capturing colour is intricate, that doesn't make it a lie.
The movie maker is an idiot and you wasted your time... The movie is in color, filmed in color and, it just used a elaborate way to get the colors.
It's one of two options:
1) Dude knows he is lying, so he can generate engagement.
2) Dude is so oblivious to what he is talking about, that he thinks what he is saying is true.
I know know which is worse frankly. I'm going to lean on 1), manipulating engagement like this is bad, and we all fall for it.
That is not "it's just black and white" and "you're being tricked". That's a complete misunderstanding of both color vision and photography.
If technicolor is a 'trick', then so is every type of video ever produced since they essentially use the same methods. AND that includes human vision since we see in basically the same way and it's reassembled in our brain.
Next we're getting taught that books are tricks because it's just pigments on a flattened and dried sheet of wood fiber and glue
@@GBOACBooks are also a legal form of drugs because somehow they've tricked us into looking at random splodges of ink on that wood fiber, and suddenly we're hearing people talk in our heads and feeling like we're flying or being a wizard. _"This one weird trick writers use to make you hallucinate!"_
_"That's a complete misunderstanding of both color vision and photography."_
This happens far too often... so many people _completely_ misinterpret a situation but don't want to take the time to question themselves... and therefore they release a three hour video about how someone who watched the same horror movie I watched-but DIDN'T arrive at the same conclusion I did-is actually a secret fascist and is therefore not welcome in society. Oh, and all their friends are secret fascists as well.
Jokes aside, this mentality drives me nuts, especially when someone turns it into a video like this. It spreads misinformation about things via a compelling narrative... and the consequence of such misunderstanding is having fake facts permeating through our society, such as "we only use 10% of our brains!" or "lemmings perform mass suicide", only to have people act upon that false facts. Just because those facts aren't wrong doesn't change the reality of people acting upon them.
@@Squidbush8563 . . . after being passed through the optic chiasma to the opposite side of the brain.
Shadows having no coloration is NOT how light works
Nobody ever told me the Wizard of Oz was hand painted. The posters ALL clearly proclaim it's in Technicolor. You must live in a weird, sheltered world.
Because this person tells lies on something that countless film historians and Hollywood people have already pointed out years ago. This video was honestly made for the click bait.
@@KratostheThird Yeah, This guy reminds me of the guy who made the video claiming Ancient Greeks couldn't see the color blue...
Apparently that used to be something a myth. Probably because it was easier for people to understand.
Technicolor credit or not, some people did believe that it was hand painted. Probably a distorted version of the fact that in one shot, some of the scenery was painted monochromatic.
I always love going back and looking at the various methods of filmmaking and how things were achieved. It’s incredibly fascinating.
It's not a lie, more of a way to decompose light and reassemble it. The very same process is still used with standard color film these days except the three separate color layers are stacked on a single film roll instead of 3.
But it is a lie. Everyone sees color in these films The issue is how it was possible to photograph color and recreate it on film. The end result was color. Anyone who does not see it would have to be color blind.
Right. The separate colors are combined into a single full- color print that goes into the projector. I don't believe there was ever a projector that projected 3 or 4 prints simultaneously.
I do not know what is worse, the clickbait title, the wrong claims or that 'bored California teen girl' speech pattern.
it's called vocal fry and it's the sad inheritance of many young people these days.
He even got the primary colors for subtractive mixing wrong even though he DID mention cyan, magenta and yellow later...
I have never heard anyone say that the Wizard of Oz was hand painted. We always knew it was a process. I have no idea where that would have come from.
Yeah same, maybe at the time when it first came out. But in the mid 80s when i first saw it as a kid i seem to remember thinking it was layers of colors that were used.
There were pictures floating around in magazines and on tv like on the back of his wall that were the same picture just different colors. I imagined that's how they did it. And they did.
I think the narrator treated the "hand painted" thing as an old wives tale. And that Technicolor gave an almost hand painted appearance. BTW, why did nobody answer the question as to why today's big digital advances - including even AI - still cannot give the same or better look as Technicolor? Look at even the recently colorful Wonka - 1939's Technicolor Gone With The Wind still kicks its butt and all other butts, technically speaking.
@@MrEdWeirdoShow I don't even think it was an old wives tales to begin with. It would be like if said _"the story we were all told that remote controls were powered by plutonium... was actually a lie!"_ Like, no, literally _no one_ ever claimed that.
colorization...."Ted Turner will NEVER touch MY films with his terrible PENS" ; fill in the blank....
I think this is just a case of perpetuating a myth that practically nobody believed for the sole purpose of debunking it
It was really interesting to see the process of how this stuff works but constantly saying stuff like "we're being tricked to see something that's not there" is just not true and it get's quite annoying hearing it over and over again.
The end result of those movies and photos and stuff does have color, that's not a trick.
He might as well say food isn't real, we're being tricked to think that we're actually eating food but in reality we're eating ingredients that have been mixed together, woah my mind is blown!
I am a huge, lifelong Beatles fan, and you taught me something new about my 4 favorite boys' best film today - thank you!!
I miss the days when the production of content like this was so expensive and complicated that it was mostly limited to people who didn't want to risk making something without making damn sure they knew what they were talking about. I get so tired of endless channels of twentysomethings trying to sound smart or fill time with longform video essays full of weak research, catchy takes and words they don't know how to use.
Or when there was no monetary incentive to make content like this so only truly knowledgeable hobbyists and the like would put effort into making such content. Whenever you find a website from the 2000s or heck, even the 90s, you just know that it's going to contain some _actual_ information for once.
Yep. This is not an epic reveal of how you've been misled all these years.
Somebody learned a little about color photography and thinks they're a ground=breaking expert. .
.
Typical RUclipsr discovers he can make a video and thinks he's something special.
Sorry.
Junior discovers color photography and totally ignores the fact that color is a complete fabrication of the brain. Color doesn't even exist in the physical world outside the body.
He uses terminology incorrectly.
.
He needs to concentrate on something he does understand.
.
bad take even though this guy is a dumbass, we shouldnt want creativity to be, if it was expensive we'd have more entitled white 20 year olds whos parents could afford to make them feel smart and less true creativity
You are right and I hope you do the same reasoning when you post useless pictures about the food you eat.
Back when you had to buy films, you would not do pictures of the food you eat.
That's the bad thing about technology.
When something new comes out, people think it's the end of something older.
Baudelaire said that photography was the end of painting: he was wrong.
When electronic music came, people thought "it's the end of live music": they were wrong.
@@mister_eee76 i think the freedom of creativity is great, if people want to take pictures of good thats amazing, im glad they dont have to worry about the film it wastes, the ability to take pictures anywhere without worry about wasting anything has only increased the number of beautiful pictures taken, and the accessibility of cameras and video software has only increased the number of great videos, would jon bois even be allowed to exist in the 80s? sure we have to deal with some bad videos like this one, but we get a lot more great creative pieces
3:14 I was half expecting to hear the cash registers roll from Pink Floyd’s “Money” tbh I’ve probably watched Wizard of Oz more times with Dark Side than not...
How didn't the Cowardly Lion get heat stroke? I'm pretty sure he did, actually.
yeah he did. "To cope with the heat, Lahr had to take frequent breaks, and the costume department had to regularly dry out the costume because it would become soaked with sweat. These conditions were part of the many challenges faced during the production of "The Wizard of Oz.""
One day we’ll be watching a Nationsquid video on a hologram.
lol if that day comes it’ll mean we can watch anime girl in 3d xd
On the Apple VR Pro :D
@@james-transitfan-pz3gulol there is no such thing as the Apple VR Pro. It’s called the Apple Vision Pro. Also you can already watch RUclips on it. And it’s not hologram
@@james-transitfan-pz3gu I think you mean the Apple Vision Pro.
@@sesamestreetfriendsbarneyb3098 and? it the VR headset i mean
Certain films use black and white to great effect. For example, 'Eraserhead' is even more surreal and creepy because at the time of black and white, those special effects wouldn't have been possible. It's the same with 'Eyes Without a Face' and even the aging make up in 'Raging Bull'.
Fun Fact: It took until 1972 Color TV sets to out sell B/W sets although NTSC color sets were available since 1954! What's real weird is that it took until the mid 1980s for TV sound to be in )))Stereo((( Analog TV used AM for the video and FM for sound. FM Stereo radio has been around since 1961. (The 88-108 FM radio band fit within the space between the analog TV channels 6&7!) Why did it take over 20 years for TV to adopt this tech?
Most likely because the speakers built into TVs themselves weren't far enough apart for viewers to tell the difference between sounds coming from one side or the other. It was all just in front of them.
Cost. It's all about cost.
In Metal Gear Solid 1, one of the boss fights requires the player to pay attention to which direction the sound of a helicopter is flying. If you play the game on a TV with a mono speaker the side characters break the fourth wall and basically roast you for being poor. What makes it even funnier is that the plot of Metal Gear Solid 1 is set in 2005 (the game came out in 1998) so the characters were roasting the player for still using a mono speaker TV in 2005.
National TV-broadcast sound at one point was carried by phone lines, monophonic and with a frequency response that dropped above 5 Khz.
@@GANONdork123 Fair argument, BUT there were portable stereos (later dubbed "boom boxes") available since the early-mid 1970s and they were not as wide as a 19" let alone aa 21" or 25" TV so their speakers wern't all that far away from each other (4"-5" seperation) .
This video demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how color photography works. With dedicated color film, there are three layers of silver halide each sensitive to either red, green, or blue light, with each layer dyed. With digital photography, each lights sensitive pixel has either a red, green, or blue mask over it so that it’s only sensitive to one of those colors, and then the image is reconstructed applying the colors appropriately. In other words, by this definition ALL color photography has always been a hoax.
While there were efforts to find materials that would natively render different colors of light differently early on, no such material has ever been found
A huge advantage of Technicolor in hindsight it that having the original masters filmed as monochrome through filters is far more robust against ageing and fading than having three layers sandwiched in a single strip of film that get converted to dyes during processing.
Monochrome films tend to hold out so long as they physically remain intact, color films can fade quite quickly (and this is hard to correct, given the problems of dyes fading unevenly, plus the inevitable mismatches and compromises between dye primaries, scanner primaries, display primaries and human cone cell responses).
So, Technicolor films can more easily be restored to pristine condition provided the original monochrome masters are available. With modern technology (wide gamut HDR, digital scratch and dust removal carefully applied) they can be restored to significantly higher quality than what originally would have been seen when they were new.
That was an excellent explanation of the three strip process.
This is somewhat misleading as others have noted.
BTW the subtractive primaries are of course Yellow, magenta and cyan. Misnaming them as red, blue and yellow suggests the author of this script didn't really understand the underlying principles which accord with the physiology of the eye.
And completely missing the very clear relationship between Red-Green-Blue and CMYK. But most elementary schools still teach Red-Yellow-Blue as primary and skip science modules on light, wavelengths, perception, and color, so can you blame him for missing his own point?
Has anyone ever been told the wizard of oz was "hand painted?" Literally never heard anyone say that been watching this movie since i was a wee child.
Why let the truth get in the way of a "good" story?
I had heard that it was hand-painted. Not the whole movie. Only in the transition from black-and-white to color and vice versa and also the horse of a different color. They could rotoscope film to create masks so that effects can only be applied to certain pieces each individual frame. A special effects technique in use for decades.
i have never once, in my 50 years, heard anyone claim Wizard of Oz was painted frame by frame. No one ever thought anything because it is common knowledge that it was Technicolor. Most people know about RGB, it was the television standard for decades. It is obviously color, not sure why you claim the path that gets us there invalidates it. Light doesn't have color in the literal sense either, it doesn't mean we don't see color.
what a waste of 25 minutes. "did u know colour film was made...by selectively filming 3 primary colour channels and then dying them???" like yes that's literally how all practical colour representation works thanks dude
Thank you! This was such clickbaity waste of time!
Wait until he discovers screen printing!
I think he was just trying to show what a hassle it was back then compared to now. Can you imagine having to do that process for every color video today. We would not have RUclips or TikTok if we were still using technicolor on everything.
It's like comparing a 2024 manual transmission car to a model T. I bet you couldn't even get a model T to move.
@@a9ball1 Maybe i couldn't, maybe I could. However, if someone told me "they lied to you; the Model T wasn't a car," I'd still call them an idiot.
It's even how our eye/brain system works! We don't see color. Light has no color. Our brains create a perception of color from the response of our retinal cones to certain wavelengths that are a very small part of the vast spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.
I had to give this video a Thumb-Down because it contains a lot of false statements, and because its title is sensationalist clickbait.
No, human eyes are _not_ sensitive to "only 3 specific frequencies"; instead, the "red", "green", and "blue" cones are sensitive to fuzzy-edged, partially-overlapping _bands_ of frequencies, so we can see any frequency from the bottom end of the "red" band to the top end of the "blue" band. So, if we see light that's 3/4 red and 1/4 green, it looks orange. Or, if we see mono-chromatic (single-frequency) light that actually _is_ orange, we also see _that_ as being "orange" and can't tell the difference.
Yes, rainbows do exist, and yes, all of the myriad colors of the rainbow actually do exist, and each will trigger a different mix of R, G, B cones in different proportions.
No, color photography, cinematography, and videography are not "lies"; quite the contrary, they are ways of making images of reality which more-closely mirror actual reality than greyscale images do.
In short, it's a mistake to accuse people of "lying" when you know they're not just to make a quick advertising buck. Stop that, it's ugly.
What a delightful lesson, how much effort was put in it, I thank you so much for it!
colours used for subtractive processes are not blue red and yellow. they are cyan, magenta and yellow. Just like printer ink.
😞First they told me that the Sun was green. Now they’re telling The Wizard of Oz movie wasn’t filmed in color.
I can give you a very good example to explain how watching something on TV isn't the same as in real life. Did you know that horror movies and games are extremely popular with people suffering from PTSD? They feel cathartic because it helps them cope with their trauma. Horror makes you feel fear in a safe and controlled environment. It's also why dark humor is popular with them as well. By associating trauma with humor or entertainment, it makes it easier to dissociate the memory from the feelings. Talking about it also helps. I can talk about my own trauma while laughing, even if said trauma was attempted murder on my person combined with public humiliation. I have C-PTSD caused by chronic child abuse, so it's no wonder horror is my favorite genre.
Bro spoke for nine minutes and said nothing 💀
Yeah I was expecting the "lie" to be that it was hand painted like the myth says. But it turns out color is fake because they had to film it in 3 different colors? That's what i already expected.
This is just a click bait video that tries to convince you everything is a lie, then spends 26 minutes only to tell you that the lie is technically true, but by looking at it with a "certain" view point it could maybe be proceaved as a tiny bit false.
he said he didn't know anything
bingo
@@GrantGraff Well said!
My printer is tricking me into seeing colors. It has three color ink cartridges.
I wish they would sell honest printers.
It's not a lie...it's just how color FILM was processed...on FILM. It's simply how early color technology processes worked. In a similar vein, when digital raw footage is shot there isn't really color there-- it's just data. It's how it's presented to the user that makes it color. Is a black and white display lying to you even if the signal sent to it is a color signal? No-- it's just a limitation of the technologies involved in that case.
funny how i watched back to the future today and seeing a clip of it makes me happy.
I haven't seen it in years and seeing clips of it still makes me happy.
Although I found the video interesting, I thought the title was disingenuous. Technicolor was not a lie, but a technological leap forward in movie making.
That's what this generation does. It twists things and then offers flimsy justifications for creating the unnecessary controversy or drama.
@@RayPointerChannel Especially when clicks = $.
I don't see how you came to the conclusion that the colour in The Wizard of Oz is a lie.
The movie is in colour, regardless of the methods used to get that result, the end result is colour, it's not in black and white.
It's like when people say screens can't show yellow, it's just a combination of red and green, yes but the end result is yellow, so screens can show yellow.
"Red Blue Green: Additive coloring
Red Blue Yellow: Subtractive coloring"
Um, no. Dead-wrong no.
(Edit: I'm going to retract my statement just a little. Red-blue-yellow _is_ a kind of subtractive coloring and has been around for a long time in the art world. CMY is just the more-accurate counterpart to RGB, and red-blue-yellow could be seen as an approximation.)
Given the *other* glaring inaccuracies by this point, I gave up here.
But we've created engagement, so RUclips thinks it's a good video. Remember to thumbs down the video if it contains crap.
Well. RGB is an additive color model, and RBY is a type of subtractive color model (aka color model for inks), just not as common or good as CMY, but probably more wellknown among laymen.
Yes, CMY has superseeded RYB as the correct subtractive primaries for more than half a century at this point. Its partially lingered on for way too long in traditional painting due to its history and because it works "well enough" for mixing.
@@PretendGooseMore than _half_ a century? 50 years ago is 1974. People understood the primary colors of printing _long_ before that. The most-documented first use of CMYK as we know it today was in 1906, which is well over a century ago.
It’s only the art world that holds onto and promulgates the RYB nonsense. But printers (the people, not the machines) and color theorists understood it was wrong _ages_ ago.
@@PretendGoose Also because blue and red are usually commonly available whereas cyan and magenta are not.
This dude has some serious theater major vibes
He wishes
I thought serial killer :)
next thing, they will say that John Wayne wasn´t really shooting anybody, but was only acting.
I was born in the 60's. I have never heard that the wizard of oz was hand painted. and I was sending color FAX's in the 80's.
I’m pretty sure this was a case of perpetuating a myth practically nobody believed in for the sole purpose of debunking it
im not sure why more people arent shitting on this video, its got a smug aura about it
To reduce engagement; if you comment on videos you don't like, you'll get more of them recommended.
because the smug aura isn't the worst thing about it, awful though it is
@@txikitofandango you reckon? i dunno man, the whole "well ackshually this isnt REAL color because the technique is etc, etc" is annoying enough
Then dude said “costed”. Oh man.
@@grimpicklex AND "cyan" and "Cecil" all mispronounced.
If this seems crazy, it'd blow your mind how computer screens and printers with color ink work. 🤣
8:50 WRONG.
Subtracting colors are Cyan, Magenta and Yellow.
This has to be the least technical and historically accurate depiction of color film tech, I HIGHLY recommend anyone looking for history of the 3 strip system look at some more tech focused channels instead of misleading history and a poor narrative. I've produced a small list of all the cringe-inducing moments (mostly with his creative use of ignoring time entirety) but I've already stated the best thing you should do, LOOK ELSEWHERE!
I recommend Captain Disillusion.
I always thought that K for black in CMYK was a fallback to using the last letter of "black" instead of the first, to avoid confusion with B in RGB.
Not a lie or trick, it's physics.
This video is the definition of a "nothing burger"
He says " 1967 was the first year more color movies were made than black and white"
That is incorrect. I am 76 years old and I remember going to Saturday movie matinees just about every week during the 1950's and almost all of the movies were in color, especially Westerns. The only Western I remember being black and white was "High Noon".
3:02 I actually thought someone knocked on my door and then thought my AirPods broke 😂
Is he a native English speaker? "Costed"? "Spinned"?
I had to laugh at his pronunciation of "Cecil." LOL.
Yep. That's where I stopped watching to comment. If someone is gonna make an informative video about film history, and have the video taken seriously, they must get the pronunciation correct on the names of groundbreaking filmmakers.
@@ThriftyAV Yeah, it's kind of like all those people who make Harry Potter videos and pronounce Rowling to rhyme with howling, drives me crazy.
I read this comment before the part where he said “Cecil”, expecting to have to explain that both “sess-il” and “see-sil” are valid pronunciations. I… wasn’t expecting “suh-SIL”! 😂
Or as he might have worded it: “I readed this comment before the part where he sayed ‘Cecil’…”
Also, recreated pronounced like recreation.
further, not farther.
Who thought that the Wizard of Oz was hand painted? Maybe that was just you who thought that.