captainsolo said:
Why am I not at all surprised??
Great work from everyone involved in getting this information out. Anything involved with copyright and archives can be a major pain to get through all the red tape.
Tech IB prints aren't like a regular print. They essentially have been finished photochemically so there's nothing that you can do with them after that besides screen the print or digitally scan it. They were made to last...and look brilliant. If scanned correctly, I don't think there's much to be done afterwards. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
As I understand it, Technicolor IB prints aren't like regular prints because they are NOT photochemical in nature. They are essentially made like lithographs, with multiple passes of dye supplying the various colors. That's why the colors don't fade like photochemical (e.g. - Kodak) prints, and why the blacks in Tech prints are known for being so inky black, and the colors so vibrant.
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor1.htm
The problem is that because of this process, the prints are very "dense" with ink, making duplicating difficult.
The best prints for duplication I guess then are regular old Kodak/Eastmancolor prints, but those will all have color fading by this time. But, as Robert Harris and others have said, most color fading of 70's era prints can be corrected.
Remember- there ARE prints of all 3 films in private collections. As Bill Hunt said, someday, someone WILL find a way to transfer them properly, color-correct them and release them to the public.
I know it's discouraging, believe me, I feel sick over this too, but we can't give up!
BTW-who's Mike Verta?