Performing Kinemacolor: Between Film Restoration and Presentation
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Arts in Preservation and Presentation of the Moving Image at the Universiteit van Amsterdam, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Media Studies
Supervisor: Dr. Giovanna Fossati Second Reader: Dr. Eef Masson Thesis of: Ruxandra Blaga
ID: 11723106 June 23, 2019 Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
0.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
0.2. Theoretical framework………………………………………………………………………….….…….10
0.3. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………….….…………16
0.4. Organisation………………………………………………………………………………….….……….17
Chapter 1. Characteristics of the historical Kinemacolor performances and re-enactments of the performance mechanism (1992-2008)………………………………………………………………….……18
1.1. Characteristics of the historical Kinemacolor performance…………………………………………..… 18
1.2. Re-enacting the Kinemacolor performance mechanism (1992-2008)…………………………..……….22
I. Re-enacting the performance mechanism Il Cinema Ritrovato festival (1992)………………….. 23
II. Re-enacting the performance mechanism by David Cleveland and Brian Pritchard (2008)……..27
III. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….....29
Chapter 2. Restoring the performative surface of Kinemacolor films (1997-2018)...... 29
2.1. Restoring the performative surface on the film material (1997/8)………………………………………30
2.2. Restoring the performative surface in the digital medium (2015-2018)……………………………….. 32
I. Stages 1-4 of the Kinemacolor Project (2015-2018)………………………………………………33
II. Stages 5-7 of the Kinemacolor Project (2015-2018)………………………………………….… 39
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………..49
Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………………………………………….53
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………....54
Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………………………….….55
Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………………………….….61
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………..…..68
2 Abstract:
While restoration has still remained a hybrid practice, a transition to digital presentation has occurred in recent years. Within this transition, the presentation of Kinemacolor films and possibly also other additive colour systems, is particularly relevant, due to the way in which the synthesis of the complete colour film depended on a custom projection mechanism.While Kinemacolor films were recorded in black and white, they appeared as colour films during their custom projection, by way of an additive colour process. In the past, Kinemacolor films were restored and presented to members of the archival community through projection mechanisms similar to the historical one. In recent years, digital presentations of Kinemacolor films have reached wider audiences. Between 2016-2018, a substantial number of Kinemacolor films have been restored by Bologna’s L’Immagine Ritrovata and presented digitally at Il Cinema Ritrovato festival in Bologna. In this thesis, I argue that by looking at the performative character of the Kinemacolor films, novel Kinemacolor performances can be carried out, by preserving different aspects of the historical performance through both analog and digital technologies. In this endeavour, presentation becomes an integral aspect to the restoration of the colour film.
3 0.1. Introduction
In a lyrical scenery of 1910, in the midst of Lake Garda, three men are depicted in a colorful musical act (Fig. 1). The image is a screenshot of a computer monitor as it was displaying the film Lake Garda (1910). On a closer look at the screenshot, the entire colour palette of the scenery varies between green-cyan and orange-red hues. On the right, a photograph of the nitrate print of the same film, taken at L’Immagine Ritrovata’ film restoration and conservation laboratory, shows the same scenery, only it is black and white (Fig.2). On a closer look of the film print, the subjects appear in distinct black and white densities between the two successive frames: the water seems brighter in the first frame, parts of the musicians’ clothing change densities, while the wooden guitar seems darker in the first frame. The first image is a result of an overlap between the two scanned nitrate frames, on which an orange-red and green-cyan digital filters were superimposed. The filters were separately applied one every two scanned frame, so that overlapped in transparency, they create a composite colour image. This digital intervention was created in 2017, by Bologna’s L’Immagine Ritrovata laboratory, to digitally simulate the colour of the nitrate prints, once produced through an early colour system known as Kinemacolor.
Fig. 1. Screenshot from the digitally restored Lake Garda (1910).
Fig.2. Photograph of the Lake Garda (1910) nitrate print
Kinemacolor was the first commercially successful ‘natural colour’ system, patented in 1906 by George Albert Smith, and exploited between 1908-1913 in most Western countries by Charles Urban through the company Natural Color Kinematograph Co. Natural colour systems were early colour film systems which aimed to reproduce the colour of subjects as close as possible to their appearance in nature. Early
4 natural colour systems synthesised colour through an additive process,1 by mixing primary-coloured lights (red, green, blue) during the film’s projection.2 In the Kinemacolor system, two of the primary colours were used, red and green. Additive processes were different from other popular artificially coloured films of the time, known as ‘applied colour’ processes, such as hand coloured, stencil, tinted and toned films. In these processes, colour was applied directly on the surface of the black and white film print by either colouring parts of the film frame,3 or by soaking the film in dye baths through two distinct procedures, known as tinting and toning.4 Unlike applied colour, in Kinemacolor, as in other additive colour processes, the complete colour image was not perceivable on the surface of the film print. In the Kinemacolor system, the subjects were recorded at 32 frames per second (fps), twice the speed used in early film, through a rotary disk comprised of red and green coloured filters. Panchromatic emulsion was used to record the colour information reflected from the subjects, a type of a black and white emulsion sensitised to all wavelengths of visible light.5 While colour was recorded on the panchromatic black-and-white film, it was not perceivable to the eye. This is why the recorded images appear on the film print in alternate black and white densities, as seen in two consecutive frames of the Lake Garda nitrate print (Fig.2). The black and white frames were alternately shot through the red and green filters, so that each frame presents a different black and white density, corresponding to one colour record. While colour was recorded in the emulsion, it was only perceivable during the films’ custom projection. The impression of colour of Kinemacolor films was produced during the film’s projection through a pair of red and green gelatine filters, similar to those used in the recording process. From 1910 the Natural Color Kinematograph Co., began selling specific Kinemacolor projectors (Fig.4). These projectors had a motor which controlled the speed of the film passing through the gate together with the rotating filters mounted between the film gate and the light source. Light would pass through the simultaneous rotation of the filters and the film, overlapping the colour filters with the colour records, to create the appearance on screen of one coloured image (Fig. 5). As G.A Smith notes:
1 While early natural colour systems were based on an additive colour process, from the 1920s on, natural colour systems based on subtractive processes were popularised.
2The earliest experiments with additive colour systems were carried out in 1898 William Friese-Greene who developed four colour methods and in 1899 by Frederick Marshall Lee and Edward Raymond Turner, known as the Lee and Turner system used a three colour - red, green, blue- recording and projection system. However, these systems were not commercially successful. The Lee and Turner system’s patents were bought by Charles Urban, who developed the three colour system into the two colour Kinemacolor process. Barbara Flueckiger, Timeline of Historical Film Colours, Accessed 10 June, 2019,https://zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/timeline-entry/1324/.
3 The earliest of applied colour techniques emerged around 1895 and consisted in hand colouring parts of the film frame by the use of small brushes, and later on by the use of stencils, also known as the pochoir technique, popularised through systems such as Pathécolor, patented in 1908 and used until 1928. Stencil-colouring made use of pre-cut shapes, carved manually or later on by a cutting machine, to tint areas of the frame onto another identical print.
4 Tinting and toning emerged around 1896 and comprised of colouring the full frame of the black and white films through two distinct monochrome procedures. In the tinting process the immersion of the film into the coloured bath coloured the translucent parts of the film strip, while with toning the silver parts of the image chemically reacted to colour the darker parts of the image. For a detailed description of tinting and toning see Barbara Flueckiger, Timeline of Historical Film Colours, accessed 10 June, https://zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/timeline-entry/1216/.
5 Panchromatic emulsion was obtained by sensitising to the red spectrum an orthochromatic emulsion, a type of emulsion sensitive to only blue and green, and the most common type of used for early cinematography. 5 If the speed of projection is approximately 30 pictures per second, the two colour records blend and present to the eye a satisfactory rendering of the subject in colours which appear to be natural. The novelty of my method lies in the use of 2 colours only, red and green, combined with the principle of persistence of vision.6
As Smith notes, the rapid mixture of the recorded image and colour light would be perceived by the spectators as one coloured moving image. The illusion of colour was believed to be produced through the principle of persistence of vision. This principle refers to how human sight would perceive the light information coming from an object even after the light reflected from it has ceased to enter the eye, the same principle used to explain cinematic movement. Although the principle of persistence of vision has now been replaced by other theories regarding perception of movement and that of colour, it was through the viewer’s perception that the colour image was produced. Thus, the complete colour image manifested as a perceptual phenomenon during the film’s custom performance on screen.
Fig. 4. Kinemacolor 35mm projector, 1910 Fig. 5. Illustration of Kinemacolor projection The Kodak Collection at the National Media http://medium.com/@chaz_vickers/colour-processes Museum, Bradford. -used-in-film-from-the-1900s-to-early-1940s-7046bb8
It is estimated that close to ten thousand Kinemacolor films were produced, yet only a few exist today.7 Since the closing of the Kinemacolor company in 1924, many of the films have now been lost, or destroyed. Today the Kinemacolor system is obsolete, with very few of the films preserved in archives around the world. A large part of surviving Kinemacolor travel films, spanning from 1911-1916, have been preserved at the British Film Institute Archives, including the 165 minute documentary feature film Britain
6 George Albert Smith, Provisional Specification. Improvements in & relating to Kinematograph Apparatus for the Production of Coloured Pictures.,1906. Brighton. UK Patent 26,671. Filed 22 November 1906.
7 Luke McKernan, ‘Surviving Kinemacolor,’ Charles Urban, Accessed April 21, 2019, http:// www.charlesurban.com/films_kinemacolor.html 6 Prepared (165), which presents an interesting mixture between scenes shot with a Kinemacolor camera and the rest of the reel filmed in black and white. Other Kinemacolor films are being preserved in the United States at the George Eastman House, in Rochester, New York, as well as the Library of Congress in Culpeper, Virginia.8 In 1992, a substantial Kinemacolor collection was discovered in Italy, at the Archivio Cinetecario della Liguria and donated to the Cineteca di Bologna. Shortly after the acquisition of the collection, the Cineteca di Bologna commissioned the restoration of one of the films in the collection, Inaugurazione del campanile di San Marco (1912). The restoration was undergone at L’Immagine Ritrovata, which was founded that same year as a specialised restoration and preservation laboratory. This consisted in the duplication of Inaugurazione del campanile di San Marco on modern black and white film stock and its presentation through a modified projector to which red and green gelatine colour filters were attached, and projected the film at 32 fps. The film was presented in a one time performance at Il Cinema Ritrovato, a festival held in Bologna, Italy, dedicated to the presentation of archival film, in a novel section was introduced that year, ‘Found and Restored’ (‘Ritrovati e Restaurati’). This restoration and presentation was followed by a different Kinemacolor restoration, where the synthesis of the film and colour lights was simulated on the surface of a novel film print. Such is the example of Rive del Nilo (1911), where the black and white nitrate print and selected colour lights were printed onto a novel colour print. However, these Kinemacolor restorations have not been preserved. As the first second part of this thesis will show, (Chapter 2.1), the memory of these two different restorations have been only kept alive by archivists involved in the restoration in the 1990s,9 one of whom the author has been in conversation with.
As Giovanna Fossati noted in From Grain to Pixel, film restoration today is a hybrid practice.10 As Fossati argued, similar to current film production, film restoration combines both digital and analog technologies.11 While this was originally expressed by Fossati in 2009, it has remained relevant for restoration practices today. Since the 1990s, L’Immagine Ritrovata has become one of the most renowned restoration and conservation laboratories world-wide, known for its state of the art restoration facilities. The laboratory is particularly renowned for its expertise in both photochemical and digital restoration of film. Between 2015-2018 L’Immagine Ritrovata carried out the Kinemacolor restoration project through a hybrid restoration approach, which will be discussed in Chapter 2 of this thesis. While the films have been scanned and the colours digitally restored, prior to their scanning the films have been photochemically restored. This has included a series of chemical treatments, which have enabled the unwinding of some of the most fragile
8 Detailed accounts of preserved Kinemacolor films have been researched by Luke McKernan, film scholar and curator at the British Library, which can be accessed on his website, https://lukemckernan.com/tag/kinemacolor/.
9 An account of the restoration performed in 1992 is documented in Raising the Colours (Restoring Kinemacolor) (2002) by Nicola Mazzanti, director of Cinémathèque Royale de Belgique, and one of the founding members of L’Immagine Ritrovata and Il Cinema Ritrovato festival. The author has been in conversation with Paolo Bernardini, one of the founding members of L’Immagine Ritrovata restoration laboratory and collaborator since 2006 with the Cinemateca Portuguesa. His accounts have been key to provide insight into the 1992 and 1997/8 restorations of Kinemacolor films undergone at L’Immagine Ritrovata.
10 Giovanna Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, The Archival Life of Film in Transition, 3rd ed. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018), 146.
11 Ibid. 7 and decayed nitrate prints. After scanning, the prints were restored digitally, following a 4K restoration workflow. Thus, the use of both photochemical and digital restoration methods is applicable today in the case of Kinemacolor restorations. Tangential to the transition from analog to digital restoration, a shift to the digital presentation of restored films has occurred in recent years. One needs to look no further than Il Cinema Ritrovato festival, where the totality of restored films presented in 2018 in Piazza Maggiore have been digital projections. Before 2016, most restorations of early colour films, including those which have been digitally restored, were recorded on 35mm for the scope of presentation. This is the case of the 2012 Kinemacolor restorations presented at Il Cinema Ritrovato, where despite their digital restoration, carried out by the BFI, they were presented on 35mm colour prints.12 Since 2016, restorations of early colour systems have been presented at Cinema Ritrovato exclusively as digital cinema packages,13 including Kinemacolor titles previously presented analogically. Thus, a transition to digital projection concerns the presentation of Kinemacolor films. While restoration practices are still essentially hybrid, as argued by Fossati, a number of archivists and scholars consider that digital projection of film-born films presents a more dramatic change. Scholars have argued that digital presentation conveys a different experience of the film image in comparison to analog projection. According to Alexander Horwath, former director of the Austrian Filmmuseum, digital projection marks a difference in the appearance of the image on screen. In analog projection, every film frame is preceded and followed by a with a brief period of black, resulted from how the frames are pulled to be projected. This implies that in a 24 fps projection, there are actually 48 images presented on the screen. With digital projection, the black periods are eliminated, and according to Horwath they mark a difference in how the film is perceived: ‘[…] it does make a big difference whether half of what your eyes see per second is black or not, as in digital.’14 From this perspective, the shift to digital presentation would present a substantial change in the way in which films are experienced. For the specific case of Kinemacolor presentation and differently from Horwath, Benoît Turquety identifies a continuity between technologies used in the historical presentation of Kinemacolor films and digital presentation. Referring to the 2012 digital restoration of Kinemacolor films performed by Brighton’s Screen Archives South East, Turquety noted how as additive systems, both digital cinema and the Kinemacolor system share a similar mode of presenting colour.15 As Turquety notes, while Kinemacolor
12Gian Luca Farinelli, Peter von Bagh and Paola Cristalli, eds., Il Cinema Ritrovato Catalogue XXVI Edition, (Bologna: Fondazione Cineteca di Bologna, 2012), 130-131.
13 Digital Cinema Packages (DCP) are a collection of digital files compressed and encrypted by standards set up by the Digital Cinema Initiatives. The Digital Cinema Initiatives is a group of the most influential American film studios, established in 2002, which have created and established digital cinema specifications. The DCPs are sent to cinemas on media carriers such as hard disk drives, networks or satellite.
14 Horwath cited by Giovanna Fossati in From Grain to Pixel, The Archival Life of Film in Transition, 2nd ed. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012), 129.
15 Benoît Turquety, “Why Additive? Problems of Colour and Epistemological Networks in Early (Film) Technology,” in The Colour Fantastic, Chromatic Worlds of Silent Cinema, ed.Giovanna Fossati et al., (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018), 114. 8 films might be perceived differently through digital display,16 both media can synthesise colour additively, bringing the mode of colour production between two different technologies closer.17 Another aspect which would provide a continuity of past and current additive systems stands in their variable character. As Turquety notes, images presented through additive colour systems are marked by a variable appearance, due to their dependency on the viewing device: ‘additive processes, (such as Kinemacolor or Chronochrome, but also digital technology, our contemporary screens and projectors being also based on that principle) are viewing device dependent.’18 Thus, the common characteristic of additive colour systems (both early and digital ones) stands in how colour images are synthesised at the moment of their display, varying in appearance depending on their display system. Regardless of the different opinions with regards to the reflection on digital projection in the film archival discourse, digital presentation has recently become the only platform of presentation of Kinemacolor films. Between 2016-2018, there has been a growing interest in the digital projection of Kinemacolor restorations in the section ‘In Search of Color in Film’ (Alla Ricerca del Colore’). This section was conceived in 2009, and has been dedicated to the presentation of restored obsolete colour processes. A total of twenty one Kinemacolor restorations have been presented alongside other early colour processes. If the early editions were dedicated to applied colour processes and only one Kinemacolor title featured, in 2017 the section was dedicated to the presentation of Kinemacolor films, denominated ‘In Search of Color: Kinemacolor & Technicolor’. In this section, a total of fourteen Kinemacolor films, restored at L’Immagine Ritrovata, were presented in a ninety minute program, the longest of any previous presentations dedicated to the Kinemacolor process. This was followed by the presentation of five other titles restored at the same laboratory in 2018. The increase of these restorations and presentations has been motivated by the festival’s director, Gian Luca Farinelli, as a direct result of ‘digital technology’. As Farinelli noted in the festival’s catalogue:
To complete the selection, a 90-minute programme of Kinemacolor films, without doubt the longest to be screened in a cinema theatre since the 1910s! A programme that would not have been possible without digital technology or the careful work undertaken by the experts at L’Immagine Ritrovata laboratory, who approached the work with a philological attention to the system’s original imperfections19.
16 In the 2012 restoration, digital colour filters were applied to simulate the colour of Kinemacolor films. In a first attempt, colour filters were alternatively applied on the scanned print. However, running the film at 32 fps, the resulting image conveyed a prominent ‘flicker’ effect, and, according to Turquety, ‘the colours would not blend.’ This has lead to the conclusion that the additive synthesis of colour through analog projection would have be perceived differently, from an additive synthesis of colour in the digital medium, mostly because with digital displays- computer screens- the images are backlit. This is why in a second attempt, the colour was synthesised within each frame, presenting the film at 16 fps instead of the original 32 fps. See Turquety, 114-116.
17 A similar experiment was carried out by L’Immagine Ritrovata for the 2017 digital restoration of Kinemacolor films. Similar to the 2012 restoration, the application of digital colour filters every other scanned film frame conveyed a prominent flicker of the image, which has lead the archivists to create a composite digital image running at 16 fps.
18 Turquety, 116.
19Gian Luca Farinelli, Alice Autelitano, Alessandro Cavazza, eds., Il Cinema Ritrovato Catalogue XXXI Edition, (Bologna: Fondazione Cineteca di Bologna, 2017), 354. 9 Farinelli’s remark encapsulates the questions proposed for this thesis. How have Kinemacolor films been accessed at their origin? How did past restoration and presentation approaches accommodate the historical Kinemacolor performance? How can current restorations and presentations accommodate the historical Kinemacolor performance in a digital medium? What is the relation between restoration and presentation of Kinemacolor films? While these questions are addressed particularly to Kinemacolor films, as they have been the most often restored and presented, they might also be relevant in the case of other additive systems. The presentation aspect of Kinemacolor films is important to address due the way in which the complete colour film was synthesised originally during the film’s exhibition. There is a discrepancy of insight regarding the relation between restoration and presentation of Kinemacolor films. While some scholars have reflected on the perceptual and archival implications of Kinemacolor restorations,20 the implications of past and current restorations on the performative aspects of Kinemacolor films have not been addressed. In this thesis I investigate the relationship between restoration and presentation of Kinemacolor films in past and current projects, and reflect on how these approaches, carried out through both digital and analog media, can preserve the performative characteristics of Kinemacolor films. As I show in this thesis, presentation becomes an integral aspect to the restoration of Kinemacolor films, in both analog and digital worlds. Although I focus specifically on the case of Kinemacolor films, these insights can be valuable for further research in other additive colour systems.
0.2. Theoretical framework
The main concepts that inform the definitions I use in this thesis are Giovanna Fossati's simulation as restoration practice, her film as performance film restoration framework, and Giuliana Bruno’s conception of surface as a place where the identity and materiality of an image manifests. Equally important for my definitions are Barbara Flueckiger’s reflections on the material identity of film as a performative instance in projection and Paolo Bernardini’s reflections on the presentation of Kinemacolor films.
To embark on a discussion of restoration and presentation of the Kinemacolor films, it is first necessary to establish what film restoration entails. According to the International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF) Code of Ethics, the restoration of a film entails an active intervention upon the archival film, to preserve an idea of its original nature:
20 Turquety has compared three strategies of reconstructing Kinemacolor films: the 1990s Kinemacolor restorations performed at L’Immagine Ritrovata, based on the writings of Nicola Mazzanti in Raising the Colours (Restoring Kinemacolor) (2003), a brief account of the 2008 Kinemacolor reconstruction of David Cleveland and Brian Pritchard, and the 2012 digital restoration performed by the British Film Institute. Turquety noted how ‘each restoration strategy of Kinemacolor films articulates an implicit epistemological comment on the relative status of colour synthesis and quantification, on the question of the necessity of technological continuity, on the importance or non-importance of the viewing process for the coherence of a given work, etc’ (110).While Turquety has commented on the epistemological implications of these reconstructions, the analysis of these restoration cases has not regarded the relation between restoration and presentation of Kinemacolor films, nor have these strategies been assessed from a perspective which regards film performance. See Turquety, Why Additive? 110. 10 When restoring materials, archives will endeavour only to complete what is incomplete and to remove the accretions of time, wear, and misinformation. They will not seek to change or distort the nature of the original materials or the intentions of their creators.21
As the Code of Ethics points out, restoration consists in a series of interventions upon the archival film, without changing the films’ ‘original nature’. Within this premise, restoration entails a process bound to reflect on one hand, on how can the ‘original nature’ of the film be defined, and on the other hand, the methods through which an idea of film’s ‘nature’ can be preserved. Thus, film restoration is conceived as a practice which can entail various approaches, which are subject to how the film artefact’s ‘nature’ is defined. While the possible definitions regarding the film artifact’s ‘nature’ and how it can be restored are multiple, I propose two definitions of Kinemacolor films’ identity, which can be recognised in four restoration approaches I discuss in this thesis. Accordingly, I begin this section by exploring the characteristics of Kinemacolor films, which I argue that can be seen as performative artifacts, (further discussed in Chapter 1.1), to then propose two distinct definitions regarding the ‘nature’ of the films as part of two performance situations: the film as part of a performance mechanism and the film as performative surface. In light of these definitions of film performance, the four case studies I discuss later on represent different approaches to restore these performance situations. Reflecting on how restoration practice is informed by how film identity is perceived, Fossati noted how the performative character of a film can be considered as an integral aspect of its identity as a film artifact. As Fossati notes:
The performative character of film becomes of relevance, for instance, when discussing avant-garde and experimental films. There, often the film dispositif goes beyond the traditional cinema dispositif, when, for example, multiple projectors, color filters and other forms of live improvisations are used during the film “performance.”22
As Fossati notes, the performative character of a film might be considered essential for films which are displayed through custom-made projection situations. In this view, the notion of performance entails a mode of film presentation which involves elements other than the ones used in traditional film projection. As Fossati notes, the conception of film performance would extend traditional understandings of the film dispositif. The term cinema dispositif refers to a situation where the viewer encounters the film. The term was coined by Jean Louis Baudry to indicate a traditional film viewing situation composed by the projector, the dark room and the human agency to which the projection is directed, the spectator23. Thus, if one considers cases where the film artifact was part of a dispositif beyond the traditional one, the film artifact’s performative character would become of relevance when discussing its restoration. This could regard especially, but not exclusively, films which were originally presented through non-traditional projections.
21 Fédération Internationale des Archives du Film, FIAF Code of Ethics, 3rd ed., (London, 2009), 6.
22 Fossati, From Grain, 2018, 160
23 Fossati, From Grain, 2012, 129. 11 While Fossati discusses the importance of the performative character of films in relation to the restoration of avant-garde and experimental films, the film as performance framework is relevant for conceptualising the identity of Kinemacolor films within their performative system. More than the traditional cinema dispositif, Kinemacolor films were synthesised as colour films during their presentation through a custom projection mechanism, where the film element was projected at a non-traditional projection speed, 32 fps, through a pair of gelatine colour filters chosen by the projectionist in each performance. In this situation, the identity of the complete colour films manifested during the film’s custom-made presentation or, performance. The fact that the complete Kinemacolor colour film was synthesised only during the film’s custom-made presentation positioned the Kinemacolor films as performative artifacts, whose identity as colour films is conceived in the moment of film performance. As I discuss in Chapter 1.1. the Kinemacolor projection mechanism varied with each performance, entailing that the appearance of the colour film image on screen changed between projections. As the colour of Kinemacolor films is lost in the film’s past performances, a restoration of the film’s colour might entail a process of simulation. According to Fossati, in the case of obsolete colour film processes, restoration is simulation:
As I discussed already elsewhere with regard to early color films (Fossati, 1996), restoration is simulation. Film restoration is based on the best possible simulation of the original film artifact (where original is something in between the material artifact, as it has survived, and the idea of what it originally looked like), carried out using different technologies.24
As Fossati notes, in the case of early colour films, where the colour referent is lost, restoration entails a process of simulation of the film’s historical colour. This process involves the interpretation of how the preserved material artifact might have looked like in the past, through technologies other than the historical ones. As Fossati mentioned, the simulation of a film’s colour can be carried out through both analog or digital methods.25 Similar to other obsolete colour processes, while the Kinemacolor material artifacts have been preserved in black and white, their colour is obsolete. In line with Fossati, to restore the colour of Kinemacolor films would involve a process of complete reconstruction of the historical colour or, simulation, through different technologies. The simulation concept is most suitable for the restoration of colour in the specific cases of restoration of Kinemacolor films discussed in this thesis. Thus, in this thesis I will talk about restoration of the colour film, keeping in mind that for Kinemacolor and other additive colour systems restoration entails a process of simulation. In the case of Kinemacolor films, and possibly also other additive colour processes, presentation becomes an integral aspect to the restoration of the colour film, due to the film’s performative character. Fossati noted how generally the restored film’s presentation is an important aspect to be considered. As Fossati notes, ‘[...] a necessary requirement for a restoration to be complete is also to be in a form that can be shown to an audience.’26 While presentation is relevant for conveying access to the restored films in general,
24 Fossati, From Grain, 2012, 142.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid., 71. 12 in the case of Kinemacolor films where the complete colour film was synthesised during its performance, presentation becomes an integral aspect to the restoration of the colour film. Distinct from applied colour processes, where colour would be restored according to an idea of how colour would have looked like on the surface of the material artifact, in the case of Kinemacolor films, as well as other additive colour systems, colour is restored according to an idea of how colour was synthesised during the film’s custom-made projection, or performance. Through this view, consideration to how the colour film was synthesised during its past performance, should be considered when attempting to restore the colour film. In this situation, presentation becomes an integral aspect to the restoration of the colour film. From a perspective which regards the historical projection mechanism as integral to the restoration of the colour film, much is lost when Kinemacolor films are presented through a projection mechanism other than the historical one. Comparing the 1992 projection through red and green filters at 32 fps of a duplicate Kinemacolor film, Inauguration of the Bell of San Marco (1912), with the photochemical restoration of Rive del Nilo (1911) where colour was restored on the film print, Paolo Bernardini argued that it was the former method which preserved the characteristics of the system:
I would say that perhaps only in the first case (The Bell of San Marco) can we speak of a "correct" preservation process [...] i.e. creation of an element of conservation / matrix for the production of new copies and of a positive copy with characteristics as faithful as possible to the original, letting the magical reproduction of colour take place (as was the case with the use of Kinemacolor) thanks to the use of a mechanic artifice (artificio mecanico). 27
As Bernardini’s comment indicates, the restoration of the colour film through a projection mechanism different to the one used in the historical performance would not preserve the Kinemacolor film’s original characteristics. Particularly, he refers to the ‘mechanic artifice’ through which the synthesis of the colour film was produced. The ‘mechanic artifice’ entails a projection situation, or mechanism, which goes beyond the traditional projection dispositif (comprised of the film element, projectionist, and a light source), requiring elements in addition to those used in a traditional projection, such as the gelatine colour filters. In a historical Kinemacolor projection, these projection elements enabling the synthesis of the colour film on screen. On the other hand, the ‘mechanic artifice’ can refer to the film’s identity within a specific projection act, carried out tangential to film’s performance on screen. This performance involves the interaction between the projectionist, the film material and the projector with its variable elements, which are selected and adjusted by the projectionist. In this situation, the film is (physical) element, in a performance mechanism or situation, formed by the human agency and the custom-made projector. While this performance might not be visible to the audience, it is one which is remarked by archivists and restorers, interested in film projection, as is the case of Bernardini. From this perspective, one could argue that a second performance act takes place tangential to the performance of the film on screen, which is comprised of the film element as a material artifact, and the custom made projector, as operated by the projectionist. I refer to this aspect of film performance as performance mechanism.
27 Email exchange with Paolo Bernardini, April 1, 2019, See Appendix A, section I. 13 Thus, I propose the use of the term performance mechanism to define the custom made-projection situation comprised of the projectionist, the film element and the custom-made projector. While these aspects can be considered as integral to the restoration of the film’s colour synthesis, they are also elements which are obsolete: Kinemacolor projectors and their component elements such as the gelatine colour filters and carbon arc lamps are no longer used in current film projection, while the nitrate film prints are either in advanced states of decay, too fragile, or simply considered as not safe to be projected. As it will be discussed in Chapter 1.2, even if these elements have been preserved they cannot be used for projection in their current condition. In this situation, the restorers introduce elements of contemporary manufacture (the projector with its gelatine colour filters and light source, the film element) which to imitate the function of the historical ones. In this case, the re-enactment of the Kinemacolor performance mechanism involves the restoration of the film element, and the adjustment of the projection mechanism. In this context, the colour film is restored during the re-enactment of the Kinemacolor performance mechanism. In light of this definition, the re-enactment of the performance mechanism can be recognised in two restoration approaches discussed in this thesis: the 1992 Kinemacolor restoration at Il Cinema Ritrovato festival in 1992, and the Kinemacolor restoration coordinated by Brian Pritchard and David Cleveland in 2008. As I argue in relation to these restoration cases, while they produce different Kinemacolor performances, they have both restored the colour film by preserving one aspect of the historical Kinemacolor performance, the Kinemacolor performance mechanism. As I indicate in Chapter 1.2., the re-enactment of the performance mechanism might be of particular relevance to the archival community, or viewers interested in the mechanisms of projection taking place behind the performance of the film on screen. While the performance mechanism can be considered as integral to the restoration of the colour film, from a perspective which positions the viewer’s interaction with the film image, the Kinemacolor colour film is experienced as a performance on the surface of the screen. In her analysis of film materiality, Barbara Flueckiger argues that by looking at film as a performative instance in projection, film identity is perceived independent from its carrier, where ‘the material experience of film is neither celluloid nor its electronic variants such as magnetic tapes or circuits, but rather the flow of light that reaches our eyes’.28 As Flueckiger notes, regardless of the carrier, when projected, the materiality of film is experienced as flow of light. From this perspective, the materiality of film during projection is different from that of the material artifact, the film element. Within this premise, the film as performance on screen is also distinct from the projection mechanism which produces it. During a film projection, the viewer’s attention is directed at the performance of the film on screen, and not the projection act carried out by the projectionist, where the film element us run through the projector. This conception would distinguish between the identity of Kinemacolor films during their performance on screen, and the Kinemacolor film’s performance as film elements, part of the projection mechanism, what I defined earlier as performance mechanism, a situation comprised of the film element (the black and white Kinemacolor film print) the custom made projector and the projectionist. Thus, the material identity of the film artifact within its performance on screen is different to that of the film element within the performance mechanism. While Fluckinger notes how the materiality of film during its projection is perceived differently from its carrier, the screen also becomes the novel carrier of film as a performance of light, or, what I define as
28 Barbara Flueckiger, “Material properties of historical film in the digital age,” Necsus, Tangibility, November 22, 2012, Accessed June 10, 2019, https://necsus-ejms.org/material-properties-of-historical-film-in-the-digital-age/ 14 performative surface. Giuliana Bruno’s conception of surface argues that the identity of an image is experienced as a material exchange with the viewer:
For Lucretius, the image is a thing. It is configured like a cloth, released as matter that flies out into the air. In this way, as the Epicurean philosopher and poet suggests to us, something important is shown: the material of an image manifests itself on the surface... It is as if it could be virtually peeled off, like a layer of substance, forming a ‘bark,’ or leaving sediment, a veneer, a ‘film’.29
As Bruno notes, the surface is a place where the materiality of an image is experienced by the viewer, and it is this materiality which forms the identity of the image. Reflecting on the cinema screen, Bruno argues that ‘the cinematic screen is a luminous, reflective surface that refracts not only light, but motion.’30 In this conception, the screen, once activated by light, constructs an environment of motion and materiality. While Bruno attributes performative aspects to the surface of the screen, within a conception that the screen is ‘transformed’ by the images projected upon it, I argue that during its presentation, film acquires a novel identity as a performative surface, the very surface of light perceived by the viewer. In this context, the screen is not transformed by the film but becomes the film’s novel carrier. As a novel carrier, the screen is the surface where the complete film image is synthesised, enacting a performance. With performance I intend not the narrative of the film, or the movement perceived as the film performance on screen, but the film as a synthesis of light. Thus, the synthesis of the film image as light is the performance of film as perceived by the viewers. In this way, the film artifact acquires a novel identity as an ephemeral, performative surface. This conception is particularly relevant in the case of Kinemacolor films, because it can grasp the ephemeral aspects of the film artifact’s identity during its performance on screen, as a synthesis between the film image and the colour lights. The intersection of the film image and colour on the screen enacts a performance, perceived by the viewer as the complete film image. This perspective conceives film identity as ephemeral, taking form during presentation, on the surface of the screen and in the presence of the viewer. The film as a performative surface is also separate from the identity of film element within its performance mechanism, where film is part of a separate performative act, which most often is concealed from the viewer. Thus, the screen becomes a novel carrier of the film performance, the location where colour light and the film synthesise, as performative surface, but also separates it from the performance enacted by the projection mechanism. The film as performative surface is relevant to understand how the film’s performative character can be preserved through the film’s digital presentation, which I discuss in Chapter 2.2. As I note in this chapter, after scanning, the film as a digital image is composed as a numeric representation, requiring a system to read the data and display it as an image readable to the human eye. In the digital medium, the viewer perceives the image directly from the light source, such as the computer monitor31 or the screen on which the
29 Giuliana Bruno, Surface: Matters of Aesthetics, Materiality, and Media, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2014), 2.
30 Ibid., 96.
31 Steven Bradley, “Color Systems-Part 1,’’ Vanseo Design, March 17, 2014, Accessed June 21, 2019, https:// vanseodesign.com/web-design/color-systems-1/. 15 digital image is projected, in the case of digital projection32, where the film image is synthesised on the surface of the screen. In this context, with digital display, the film image is presented to the viewer as a surface of light. From this perspective, similar to a historical Kinemacolor projection, where the complete film was synthesised during its performance on screen, in a digital medium, the film as performative surface is not perceivable by the viewer until it is performed on the digital screen. In this context, on which I elaborate more in Chapter 2.2, the digital medium in which the film was restored and presented, can convey a novel performative life to the film artifact, while preserving the characteristics of the Kinemacolor film as a performative surface. In conclusion, I envision the historical Kinemacolor system as a performance, where Kinemacolor films are performative artifacts. This entails a perspective where the film’s performative character is important to preserve during the film’s restoration. Through this view, any attempt at the restoration of the (Kinemacolor) colour films entails the production of novel performances, which can preserve aspects of the historical one. In this context, presentation becomes an integral aspect to the restoration of the colour film. As I discuss later on in this thesis, depending on what aspects of film performance are prioritised, the performance mechanism or the performative surface, novel Kinemacolor performances can be carried out in both analog and digital worlds.
0.3. Methodology
In the following chapters, I address the issues of the restoration and presentation of Kinemacolor films, from the perspective which envisions the Kinemacolor films as performative artifacts. My methodology includes theoretical investigation and study of technical and historical literature, records and documentation of restoration workflows of L’Immagine Ritrovata, my own analysis of fragments of the Kinemacolor nitrate print, Lake Garda (1910), (restored in 2017), to which I provide photographs, and conversations with restorers involved in the restoration cases I include in this thesis. My research has been guided by past and current staff members of L’Immagine Ritrovata, which I came into contact with during and after my six month internship at L’Immagine Ritrovata. To discuss the restorations and presentations of Kinemacolor films, I first inquire into the characteristics of the Kinemacolor system by consulting accounts of the period such as the patents, manuals and reviews. Within the discussion of these characteristics, I propose definitions of two situations of the Kinemacolor performance in which the film as performative artifact is found: the performative surface and the performance mechanism. I then reflect in the following chapters on how these situations can be recognised in four restoration and presentation case studies. In these discussions, I reflect on conversations held with restorers involved in the specific case studies, my own research findings and the definitions of film performance proposed in this thesis. Finally, I suggest that the restoration methods
32 A digital projector is a specialised computer display that projects an enlarged image on a given screen surface, rendering the image through an additive principle. Most common digital projectors are DLP (Digital Light Processing) and LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) systems, which translate the digital signals by combining in various proportions red, green and blue digital filters by filtering a white light source passing through them to create separate red, green and blue colours. Carl Jenkins, “DLP Vs LCD : The Ultimate Answer – Picking Hut, ’’26 February 2019, Accessed June 21, 2019, https://pickinghut.com/dlp-vs-lcd/.
16 analysed in the case of Kinemacolor films can be applied in the restoration and presentation of other additive colour processes.
0.4. Organisation
Chapter 1 In Chapter 1.1, I discuss the characteristics of Kinemacolor films and how they were accessed in the past. I propose the distinction of between two aspects of the Kinemacolor film performance which I define as: performance mechanism and performative surface. I discuss these definitions in the light of historical descriptions and instruction manuals for projecting and selecting equipment for Kinemacolor films, as revealed by written sources of the time such as photography journals, guides to ‘Kinematograph’ projections, and trade journals for the American film industry. In the light of this discussion, I conclude that Kinemacolor films can be envisioned as performative artifacts, where any attempt at their restoration entails the production of novel performances, which can preserve aspects of the historical one. In Chapter 1.2. I reflect on the second question proposed for this thesis: How did past restoration and presentation approaches accommodate the historical Kinemacolor performance? I propose two restoration approaches in which the colour film was restored during the re-enactment of the performance mechanism, through the example of two case studies. The first is L’Immagine Ritrovata’s Kinemacolor restoration in 1992, presented at Il Cinema Ritrovato festival the same year. The second case is the 2008 Kinemacolor restoration by David Cleveland and Brian Pritchard, presented in separate shows in 2008. While these two restorations created different Kinemacolor performances, their objective was similar, as they both aimed to restore the colour film during the re-enactment of the historical performance mechanism. This involved the presentation of a duplicate Kinemacolor print through a custom made projection mechanism, similar to the historical one. In this process, both restorations preserved the Kinemacolor performance mechanism.
Chapter 2 In Chapter 2.1, I provide a second answer to the question: How did past restoration and presentation approaches accommodate the historical Kinemacolor performance? I propose that different from the restorations which preserved the Kinemacolor performance mechanism, past photochemical restorations such as the restoration of Rive del Nilo (1911) carried out in 1997/8 at L’Immagine Ritrovata, and supervised by Paolo Bernardini, restored the colour film without re-enacting the performance mechanism, but by simulating the film’s performative surface on the surface of a novel film print, intended to be projected through a traditional projection mechanism. In this restoration, the performative surface was as the main aspect of the Kinemacolor performance to be preserved, but also provided several limitations. In Chapter 2.2, I reflect on the implications brought by the digital medium in the restoration and presentation of Kinemacolor films, as a response to the third question proposed for this thesis: How can current restorations and presentations accommodate the historical Kinemacolor performance in a digital medium? I argue that digital restoration and presentation of the Kinemacolor films can restore the colour film by restoring one of the aspects of the Kinemacolor performance, the film’s performative surface. In this process, which is described in six main stages, the restoration procedures were hybrid, involving both
17 photochemical interventions upon the film elements, the original nitrate prints, as well as digital restoration of the scanned films. Through this combined approach, I show how the film as material artifacts were restored, and how these photochemical interventions enabled the restoration of the film as performative surface. In this process, the colour film was synthesised during its digital presentation on screen in the editing room, as coordinated by the restorers. I then discuss the film’s presentation as a seventh stage which continues the film’s performative life.
Chapter 1. Characteristics of the historical Kinemacolor performance and re-enactments of the performance mechanism (1992-2008)
1.1. Characteristics of the historical Kinemacolor performance
In this section I address the first question proposed for this thesis: How have Kinemacolor films been accessed at their origin? A response to this question entails an investigation into the characteristics of the Kinemacolor films and their performance. This reflection will enable discussions regarding their restoration and presentation in the following sections. In this section, I argue that Kinemacolor films were accessed as part of a performance, positioning Kinemacolor films as performative artifacts of a variable character. While the Kinemacolor performances were variable and ephemeral, two recurring performance situations stand as integral to the historical performance as a whole. The first is the performance mechanism, comprised of the film element, the custom- made projection mechanism with its variable light source and gelatine filters, and the human agency involved in their coordination, the projectionist. In this performance situation, the film artifact is one element part of the performance mechanism. Tangential to this performance act, a second performance took place on the surface of the screen as perceived by the viewer, where film identity was an ephemeral, consisting in the synthesis between the film and the colour lights, which I define as performative surface. Due to the variability of the projection mechanism, whose component elements were changed between screenings, such as the properties of the gelatine colour filters and the projection light, the appearance of the synthesised film on screen, the performative surface, was not uniform across performances, but variable. While the performative surface varied in appearance, one recurrent characteristic of its appearance on screen was colour fringing, an aspect which, as I note in Chapter 2, should be preserved when embarking on a restoration of Kinemacolor films. Due to these aspects, I argue that the unique restoration and presentation of Kinemacolor films is contradictory with the artifact’s ephemeral, performative nature. In this context, the restoration of the Kinemacolor films would entail the production of novel performances, which can preserve characteristics of the historical one. Kinemacolor films were presented through a custom-made projection mechanism, whose elements varied between performances, as selected by the projectionist. There were a variety of hues of red and green projection filters available at the time, selected by the projectionist, and often adapted to the subject matter of the film. For example, in the 1911 July supplement of The British Journal of Photography Colin Bennett noted how the orange-red and blue-green filters used in Kinemacolor were divided into two categories based
18 on their brightness, for rendering sky and water effects, or grass and foliage, each having different effects on the appearance of colour these subjects on screen:
For brilliant rendering of sky and water effects the pioneers of Kinemacolor had resort to the "light" series filters, consisting i'i, respectively, orange—transmission to about D i E—and an over light edition of tricolour green, passing distinctly more greenish-blue than the regular or darker tint. With these "light" filters blues are rendered far brighter than before, as are also artificial greens, by virtue of their large blue-green content […] On the other hand, grass and foliage green are reproduced in the resulting two-colour image as a bronze brown.33
As Bennett notes, the choice of colour filters informed the colour appearance of the recorded subjects. With the lighter filters, blues could be rendered brighter, but the image would present green coloured subjects in brown tints. On the other hand, the lack of blue components of the image were one of the main limitations of the system. This was sometimes compensated with modifications in hue brought to the filters. Bennet proposed to correct the brown hues by replacing the blue-green filter with a light yellow-green filter and add an additional ‘blue-violet’ or ‘pure blue’ light:
The solution was found to lie in the employment of a small proportion of pure blue, or even blue- violet, light in the form of a restricted transmission band in the green filter wherein to make the necessary records of the blue subject [...] screens so dyed were a light yellow-greenish hue, much the colour of spring foliage itself. On spectroscopic examination they could be seen to pass an inconsiderable but yet sufficient amount of pure blue light.’34
The blue-violet light Bennet mentions was attached to the green filter to enable the projection of the blue components of the recorded image. The colour filters informed the appearance of the colour image on screen, requiring the projectionist to carefully select the ones which could render best the colours aimed to be presented. The projection mechanism was customised by the projectionist with each screening, responsible with adjusting its elements to produce a different appearance of the image on screen across projections. Thus, the projection mechanism consisted in a variable performance act carried out separate from the performance of the film on screen, as witnessed by the viewer. The last element selected for each performance which informed the appearance of the synthesised film on screen was the projection light. Depending on the colour temperature of the projection light, the warmth and intensity of the colours on screen could appear colder or warmer in hue. As projection handbooks of the time show, there were numerous types of carbon arc lamps used for projecting film. Their colour temperature varied from ‘soft-yellow light restful to the eyes’ found in carbon filament lamps to ‘very bright and pleasing pinky-white colour’ produced by metallic filament lamps such as the gas-filled or half-
33 Colin N. Bennett, ‘Filter Absorbtions for Two-Colour’, in The British Journal of Photography, 5, no.55,(July 1911), 45.
34 Ibid. 19 watt lamps.35 The green filter often had to be adjusted depending on the colour temperature of the projection lamp.36 The projection light properties would significantly influence the appearance of colour on screen. As Brian Pritchard observed during the testing of a Kinemacolor original projector, which I discuss in the following section, ‘if not adjusted properly, then the light might go brown or blue, as the carbons became further apart, or too close.’37 Thus, the arc lamp had to be supervised and adjusted by the operator as the carbons burned away. The variability of the projection lamp used across Kinemacolor projections, together with the adjustments required to make it function, are factors which are integral aspects of the Kinemacolor performance, but are also ephemeral ones, which impede a unique mode of (re)enacting the Kinemacolor projection situation. Due to the variability of the projection mechanism, a precise reconstruction of the performance mechanism is not possible. While Bennet indicates that the screens resulted were a green-yellow hue, as described above, there is no indication towards the precise combination of tints used to produce the green filter hue, the quality and intensity of blue light or to the application of this method on specific film titles. Reviews from The Moving Picture World criticised the vagueness in describing the Kinemacolor colour filters:
A two-color process, however, as worked out by Mr. Smith, is certainly open to ordinary photographic criticism and the purist may reasonably object to such vague terms as ‘red’ and ‘green’ filters. Reds and greens are very numerous; and the spectroscope, I may say, is a very useful instrument.38
As Bedding notes, the vagueness of colour specifications of Kinemacolor system positioned the Kinemacolor also as a system difficult to reproduce by other operators interested in the process. As described before, there were different types of colour filters used according to the subject matter, to which adjustments were often made. Thus, with each performance, the projection elements shifted, entailing a different performance act with each screening. In this context, the variable materials used in the projection produced distinct looks of the colour film on screen. From a perspective which regards film experience, the Kinemacolor films were synthesised as performances on screen, when presented to the viewer. As G.A Smith described in a preliminary Kinemacolor patent of 1906:
If the speed of projection is approximately 30 pictures per second, the two colour records blend and present to the eye a satisfactory rendering of the subject in colours which appear to be natural.39
35 Colin N. Bennett, A Guide to Kinematography Projection, 2nd ed. (London: Sir Isaac Pitman& Sons Ltd. 1923). 141.
36 Barbara Flueckiger, Kinemacolor. Timeline of Historical Film Colors, Accessed June 10, 2019, https:// zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/timeline-entry/1214/
37 David Cleveland, Brian Pritchard, Re-creating Kinemacolor on the Screen, 2008, http://www.brianpritchard.com/ Recreating%20Kinemacolor%20on%20the%20Screen.html (accessed June 6, 2019).
38 Thomas Bedding, ‘Moving Pictures in Natural Colors’, in Moving Picture World, 4, no. 2 (1909): 30-31.
39 Smith, Provisional. 20 As Smith suggests, the complete Kinemacolor film was synthesised during exhibition, from a sensory contact with the viewer. The synchronous rapid movement of colours and film image would convey a sensation of ‘natural’ colour to the viewer. During projection, colour would ‘blend’ before the eyes of the viewer, to ‘present’ an illusion of colour images. This description of the nature of Kinemacolor films position the film artifact as one which enacts a performance on screen, having the images blend to produce an ephemeral appearance of a colour film. Kinemacolor films were experienced by the viewer as colour films during their performance on screen, what I defined as performative surfaces. As mentioned in the previous section, the conception of the surface as a place of contact with the viewer is relevant for conceptualising the performative character of Kinemacolor films, as light synthesised on the surface of the screen. Reflecting on Smith’s description above, the ‘subject in colours’ presented to the viewer is rendered as a performance of light, identified by the viewer as the complete, synthesised Kinemacolor film. Unlike other performances, the Kinemacolor performance synthesises the colour film records with colour light, to produce a unique surface, the complete ‘film’ as perceived by the viewer. This performance is constructed as a surface of light, supported by the screen as its carrier. In this context, the Kinemacolor (colour) film manifests as a performative surface, an ephemeral artifact whose identity is conceived when it is experienced by the viewer.40 While the film as performative surface presented to the viewer was ephemeral, one recurring characteristics across performances was the appearance of colour fringing. Considered as a limitation of the Kinemacolor recording system, colour fringing was a perceived misalignment of the synthesised film, due to the differences in position of the recorded subjects when synthesised on the screen with the red and green colour light. Urban acknowledged this issue in a 1912 patent:
If the object photographed be rapidly moving, the color intensity or value of such subject is recorded on the successive negatives in different positions, or out of register, so much so that the respective images do not sufficiently overlap to produce color harmony, so giving rise to what is known as color “fringing”.41
As Urban notes, colour fringing was a recurrent aspect of the Kinemacolor performances, revealed when the film and colour light synthesised on screen. To diminish colour fringing, Urban’s 1912 patent introduced a focal length correcting device42. However, it is difficult to retrace the performance of this focal correcting device within specific projections, and, as historical sources indicate, colour fringing occurred to the
40 While the complete colour film was synthesised on the surface of the screen, the way in which this image was perceived was through a perceptual process. To this aspect one could argue that the complete Kinemacolor film was experienced in the mind of the viewer. However, this notion would entail an analysis of a different aspects of film experience, the perceptual implications of film, which are beyond the scope of this thesis.
41 Charles Urban, Complete Specification. Improvements in Kinematograph Apparatus for the Production of Coloured Pictures. 1912. London. UK Patent 3034. Filed 27 April 1912.
42 ‘The employment of two reflecting mirrors, one of which is transparent and arranged to receive the whole light pencil, and to pass an image thereof to a non-transparent reflector for the purpose of obtaining a duplicate image of one object, substantially as described and illustrated. In combination with the apparatus as claimed in Claim 1, the employment of a focal length correcting device, referred to as an interceptor herein, disposed in the part of the reflected beam, substantially as described and illustrated’. February 6 1912. 21 majority of Kinemacolor projections,43 becoming a recurring aspect of their ‘look’. Thus, while colour fringing might be viewed as a limitation of the Kinemacolor system, it is also an aspect integral to the film’s appearance as a performance on screen, what I define as performative surface, recurring throughout Kinemacolor performances. As I discuss in Chapter 2, colour fringing is one aspect which should be considered when embarking on a restoration of the Kinemacolor films’ performance on screen. In conclusion, from a perspective which regards film experience, the film artifact’s identity is one which is ephemeral, as a performative surface on screen, while from the perspective which regards the film’s performance as part of the projection mechanism, the film’s identity is that of the material artifact, the black and white film print, a component part of a what I define as performance mechanism. This performance entailed running the film material through the custom projection mechanism, a performance which varied across screenings. This projection situation can be considered a performance act in itself conducted by the projectionist. Due to the variability of the performance mechanism, the appearance of the film on screen was not uniform across performances. The colour hue of the image on screen was changed depending on the type of filters used for projection, while the colour temperature of the projected image varied depending on the intensity and warmth of the projection light. While the performance of Kinemacolor films on screen was ephemeral, colour fringing was one aspect recurring throughout Kinemacolor performances, revealing the moment of synthesis between the film and colour on screen. Due to these characteristics, Kinemacolor films can be viewed as performative artifacts of a variable character, where any attempt at their preservation would entail the production of novel performances, which can simulate aspects of the historical one.
1.2. Re-enacting the Kinemacolor performance mechanism (1992-2008)
In section 1.2, I address the question: How did past restoration and presentation approaches accommodate the historical Kinemacolor performance? To reflect on this question, I discuss how Kinemacolor films were restored as colour films during the re-enactment of the performance mechanism in two cases: the restoration of L'Inaugurazione del campanile di San Marco (1912) carried out by L’Immagine Ritrovata in 1992, and the restoration of Entrainement Des Boyz Scouts (1912), Les Lacs Italiens - Lac Garde 1910, along with some of the test films made by G. Albert Smith, carried out by David Cleveland and Brian Pritchard in 2008. As I discuss below, in these cases the colour of the films was restored through the presentation of duplicate print through a projection mechanism similar to that used in historical Kinemacolor performances, which I defined as performance mechanism. In this context, the film’s presentation became an integral aspect of the restoration process. While these two restorations have created different Kinemacolor performances, they have both preserved the Kinemacolor performance mechanism, an integral aspect of the historical Kinemacolor performance.
43 See Barbara Flueckiger , ‘Kinemacolor,’ in Timeline of Historical Film Colors, Accessed June 10, 2019, https:// zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/timeline-entry/1214/ 22 I. Re-enacting the performance mechanism at Il Cinema Ritrovato festival (1992)
In 1992, L’Immagine Ritrovata underwent the restoration of L'Inaugurazione del campanile di San Marco (1912), one of the Kinemacolor titles recently donated to Cineteca di Bologna. The restoration was led by Nicola Mazzanti, while one of the main responsible for the duplication of the nitrate film was Paolo Bernardini. In this approach, the restoration of the colour film entailed the projection of a duplicate print through a projection mechanism which imitated the function of the one used in historical Kinemacolor performances. As I discuss below, the restoration of the film’s colour entailed the re-enactment of the Kinemacolor performance mechanism.
The restoration commenced with the duplication of the nitrate print L'Inaugurazione del campanile di San Marco (1912) preserved at the Cineteca di Bologna. As expressed by Bernardini, together with the print intended to be projected, a negative was created for preservation purposes. The duplication was performed with a Debrie Matipo, a contact printer which employs the additive colour-mixture by use of a line screen control matte in combination with prismatic lenses and three filter elements.44 According to Leo Enticknap, during the 1990s the Debrie Matipo was a sought after machine in film restoration laboratories, and ideal for printing shrunken film due to two functions: the ability to remove the registration pins to avoid perforation damage, as well as the design of the gate which can flatten the film’s lateral deformation45. Due to the fragility of the nitrate prints, the contact printer would have been necessary to prevent further damage to the film material. Thus, through duplication, a novel black and white print was used for presentation purposes, reproducing the original nitrate film print. During the 1990s and early 2000s the general consensus among film archives was that duplication of nitrate material was the best option for both their restoration and preservation46. As Mark Paul Meyer and Paul Read noted in their seminal film restoration book, ‘when we speak in this book about restoration we mean the whole spectrum of film duplication’47. Despite opinions that there was ‘no better film for black- and-white photography than nitrate,’48 the high flammability and chemical instability of nitrate film were still two factors which have influenced the transfer of nitrate material to modern film stock.49 The transfer to polyester film stock was believed to ensure safety and long term preservation to the original nitrate films. This method of preservation was popularised through mottos like ‘Nitrate won’t Wait!’. The duplication of original nitrate prints as both a restoration and preservation method has been also a practice performed by L’Immagine Ritrovata in 1992.
44 Leo Enticknap, Film Restoration: The Culture and Science of Audiovisual Heritage, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 100.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Meyer and Read, Restoration, 1.
48 Anthony Slide, Nitrate Won't Wait, A History of Film Preservation in the United States, 2nd ed., (Jefferson:McFarland & Company Inc, 2000), 1.
49Ibid. 23 Within the context of 1990 archival practices, Bernardini notes how this title underwent a ‘correct’ restoration and preservation process:
I would say that perhaps only in the first case (The Bell of San Marco) can we speak of a "correct" preservation process (albeit with the immense technological limits that we had at the time and the inexperience of a laboratory at the beginning), i.e. creation of an element of conservation / matrix for the production of new copies and of a positive copy with characteristics as faithful as possible to the original, letting the magical reproduction of colour take place (as was the case with the use of Kinemacolor) thanks to the use of an artifice mechanic.50
As Bernardini notes, the restoration aimed to create a preservation element, the film negative, and a print to be used in the projection. Although duplication was the method used for the large part of films during the 1990s-2000s, archivists were aware of the impossibility of duplicating a film without a loss in image quality.51 Together with the loss in image quality, the chemical properties of the film print are also changed, as the emulsion in polyester films is different from the nitrate prints and more transparent than the nitrate film. This impacts also the look of the film print, as the colour of the nitrate film is more yellow than the polyester one. While one might argue that it is difficult to perceive this difference during projection, it may become problematic when one considers these duplications as preservation materials. As I discuss in Chapter 2, in current digital restoration practices this step of duplication of the nitrate material is no longer performed. On the other hand, it seems that what was considered integral was to restore the colour film while preserving the performance mechanism, specific to Kinemacolor performances, the ‘artifice mechanic,’ which for Bernardini entailed the very ‘magic’ of the Kinemacolor performance. After the duplication process, the second step consisted in the restoration of the Kinemacolor film’s colour, through the projection of the duplicated print at 32 fps through adjusted modern projector, to which red and green gelatine colour filters were attached. As Bernardini recalls:
I remember that a portable 35mm projector had been placed in the Lumière room (which at the time was in via Pietralata), positioned on the right side looking at the screen at the height of the central rows. On the projector (which projected at double speed) a striking bipal external shutter was mounted which made a rotation every 2 advances of the mortar cross. On the shutter two filters had been pasted (I think simply a green and a red) so that they were in sync with the respective image to be projected. Both these choices and the modification of the projector were not made by us but by the person in charge of the cabin of the Lumière who at the time I think was called Manico Mattioli.52
From Bernardini’s recall, the 1992 projection preserved many aspects of the historical Kinemacolor performance mechanism. These include the black and white film print, the projection speed, the use of
50 Personal email exchange with Paolo Bernardini, translated by the author, see Appendix I A.
51 An acknowledgment of this can be found in Meyer and Read, Restoration, 1.
52 Ibid. 24 coloured filters and the coordination of these elements by the projectionist. In this process, the projectionist adjusted a modern projector to project the film at 32 fps, through a pair of gelatine colour filters selected by him. The way in which these elements were used during the performance recall the historical performance act. Within this performance, the role of the projectionist recalls that of the Kinemacolor operator, who would choose the colour filters for each projection. As I note in the following chapter, the role of the projectionist has been replaced with that of the restorer in charge for the digital restoration of the film. Thus, the Kinemacolor restoration of 1992 entailed the presentation of the (duplicated) Kinemacolor film materials through a mechanism which preserved the historical disposition of Kinemacolor performances, what I defined as performance mechanism. This re-enactment of the Kinemacolor performance mechanism included the choice of colour filters selected by the projectionist and adjustments of the projection speed. The descriptions of the catalogue accompanying the 1992 Kinemacolor performance revealed the custom-made projection act, framing it as representative for the historical Kinemacolor performance. The projection took place at the Cinema Ritrovato festival in a summer evening of 1992, opening the programme “Ritrovati e Restaurati” (“Found and Restored” ).53 Subscribing to the theme of the programme, the film was described in the catalogue as ‘a rare’ short film, as well as a recent discovery, as the year of production and director were still unidentified at the time.54 The projection act was one of the central points of attraction. As the catalogue of the festival notes: ‘The film will be projected by a specially modified projector, to reproduce the original conditions of screening’.55 The projection was contextualised through the festival’s catalogue, which described the setting of a historical Kinemacolor projection, through excerpts dedicated to the recording and projection process described by Mario Calzini in his then recent book Storia tecnica del film e del disco (Bologna, Cappelli Spettacolo, 1991). Thus, the narrative framing of the event informed the audience on the characteristics of a historical Kinemacolor performance, framing the 1992 presentation as a unique event, aimed to re-enact the historical Kinemacolor projection mechanism. This aspect will be also discussed in Chapter 2 in relation to the contextualisation of the digital presentation of Kinemacolor films. While the performance mechanism consisted as the main attraction, the performance of the film on screen was unsuccessful. The high speed of projection destroyed the projector56 and the colours of the film print were inverted on screen. As Bernardini recalls the performance:
It was a half disaster, both because with the non-central projector with respect to the screen the image was a bit skewed, but also because the synchronism was lost about halfway through (probably because of gaps or something else, the alternation of the frames of one type or the other in the copy had not been respected) so the colours were inverted (red water, pink sky and final Italian flag in
53Il Cinema Ritrovato, “Ritrovati e Restaurati,” XXI Mostra Internazionale del Cinema Libero, Festival Brochure, (Bologna, 1992).
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid.
56 Mazzanti described the ruined projector in Nicola Mazzanti, ‘Raising the Colours (Restoring Kinemacolor)’, in This Film is Dangerous, A Celebration of Nitrate Film, ed. Roger Smither, (FIAF, 2002). 25 reverse). For me, however, the magic of seeing colour images from a black and white film was already a sensational thing57.
As Bernardini expressed, from a perspective which regards the performance of the synthesised colour film on screen, what I define as the film’s performative surface, the restoration was unsuccessful. The synchronisation of the prints was only one of the main challenges specific to the historical Kinemacolor projection mechanism. On the other hand, this ‘risk’ was also inherent to the performative character of the Kinemacolor system. As noted in the previous section, each projection was different from the other, and the skill of the projectionist, together with the properties of the projector were paramount to enable the synthesis of the colour film on screen. While the performance of the film on screen provided limitations, it seemed to not have completely disrupted the viewer’s experience. As Bernardini recalls, the re-enactment of the performance mechanism, together with the ephemerality of the film’s synthesis as colour image on screen, were aspects which conveyed the ‘magic’ of the performance.
In conclusion, the 1992 Kinemacolor performance carried out by L’Immagine Ritrovata consisted in the restoration of the colour film during the re-enactment of the Kinemacolor performance mechanism. This positioned presentation as an integral aspect of the restoration process. The restoration process commenced with the duplication of the nitrate print to create a presentation element, which at the time served to create also as a preservation element. This aspect had both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, the duplication process implied modifications to the original material artifact, such as the loss in quality compared to the nitrate material and change in colour appearance. On the other hand, it enabled the preservation of the Kinemacolor performance mechanism, where the film element, projector, gelatine colour filters and the human agency involved in their selection are elements characteristic to the Kinemacolor historical performances. The importance of the performance mechanism was revealed not only by the presence of the projector in the room, but also by the attention drawn to the projection act through the narrative framing the presentation. In this context, during the restoration of the film’s colour, the Kinemacolor performance mechanism was preserved.
57 Ibid. 26 II. Re-enacting the performance mechanism by David Cleveland and Brian Pritchard (2008)
In 2008 David Cleveland and Brian Pritchard58 aimed to ‘re-create on the screen’59 the historical projection of Kinemacolor films, by avoiding ‘modern ways of dealing with colour’60, such as photochemical and digital restoration. The restored films were Entrainement Des Boyz Scouts (1912), Les Lacs Italiens - Lac Garde (1910), along with some of the test films made by G. Albert Smith61. The duplicate prints of the original nitrate prints were projected at 32 fps through a repaired original Kinemacolor projector, originally set up at the Argyll Theatre at Birkenhead. Similar to the 1992 restoration, the 2008 approach restored the colour film through the presentation of a duplicate print through a projection mechanism which imitated the function of the one used in historical Kinemacolor performances. This implied the restoration of the colour film through the re-enactment of the historical performance mechanism. From the initial stages of the restoration, the Kinemacolor projector was considered as the main artifact to be restored. According to Pritchard, one of the first challenges of the restoration was to adjust the original Kinemacolor projector.62 Accordingly, the first step in the restoration consisted in the modification of the Birkenhead projector to project films at 32 fps, because the projector had been converted to project films at 16 fps around 1916, after its initial use as a Kinemacolor film projector.63 Due to the status of the projector as a museum artifact, any modifications brought to the original projector had to be reversible, without the possibility of modifications to the original damaged parts. To enable its functionality, the restoration process involved the replacement of some of the obsolete mechanical parts. Retrieving the projector’s original function involved the replacement of the obsolete mechanical elements with elements of contemporary manufacture, which could imitate the function of those preserved on other Kinemacolor projectors, such as the one preserved at the Media Museum in Bradford.64 The archivists chose to replace damaged parts of the projector, such as the shutter shaft and adjustments of the projection lamp holder.65 Thus, in this stage, the preserved projector was adjusted with the addition of elements of contemporary manufacture to resemble the ones of a historical Kinemacolor projector. The appearance of colour light on screen was approximated with modern light sources. Different from historical projections, the projection light was not carbon arc. While at the first Kinemacolor screening
58 David Cleveland is a film-maker and archivist, founder of the East Anglian Film Archive, while Brian Pritchard is a Motion Picture Consultant and former Technical Director at Hendersons Film Laboratories, Humphries Film Laboratories Ltd, Filmatic Laboratories Ltd, and researcher and technical advisor at Kodak Ltd.
59David Cleveland and Brian Pritchard, Re-creating Kinemacolor on the Screen, 2008, Accessed June 6, 2019, http:// www.brianpritchard.com/Recreating%20Kinemacolor%20on%20the%20Screen.html
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid. 27 they used a 250 Watt tungsten halogen reflector lamp, they changed this to 750 watt tungsten reflector. This change also meant that a fan had to be incorporated into the lamp holder.66 While the materials used were modern, the process of adjustment of the projection light recalls the one undergone for historical Kinemacolor performances, where the projection lamps were changed between projections, requiring continuous adaptation. The gelatine colour filters were manufactured to resemble the ones used in historical Kinemacolor projections, preserved on another Kinemacolor machine, at the Media Museum in Bradford. To document the colours, the density of the colours was measured and the new gelatine filters were chosen to match these colour densities, consulting the instructions from Henry Joy’s “Book of Instruction for Operators of Kinemacolor Apparatus” (1910). These mentioned how the colour light reflected from the green filter had to appear a ‘pale yellow’ on screen.67 To accomplish this, the thickness of the green filter was adjusted to simulate light on the screen with no film in the gate.68 Thus, the restorers took the role of the projectionists, recalling the operations performed during a historical projection, where the filters were often adjusted according to the properties of the projection light. This aspect is different from the 1992 Kinemacolor restoration, where the restorers were only involved in the duplication of the nitrate material, while the adjustment of the filters was performed by the projectionist. After the reconstruction of the projection mechanism, the synthesis of the colour film was restored during presentation. This aspect is similar to the restoration performed in 1992, when the colour film was restored during the film’s presentation. The films were presented in separate shows in 2008 at the University of East Anglia’s Film and Television Archiving Course and at the British Film Institute's J. Paul Getty Conservation Centre, followed by another Kinemacolor projection on 15 February 2009, at the National Media Museum. The Kinemacolor projector was placed in the audience, making clear to the viewers that they were about to witness the re-enactment of the historical performance mechanism. This aspect is similar to the way in which the 1992 projection, where the projector was positioned within the audience. The heavy projector produced a significant sound during the projection, which drew attention once more to the audience of the performance mechanism projecting the film image on screen. As Luke McKernan recalls, the BFI screening of Les Lacs Italiens - Lac Garde (1910) was ‘a magical experience’69 despite the ‘ear-splitting sound of the projector as the film rattled through at 32 frames per second’70 and the ‘headache inducing flicker.’71 Thus, the 2008 Kinemacolor restoration entailed the presentation of (duplicate) Kinemacolor film prints through a projection mechanism similar to that used in Kinemacolor historical performances. The restoration process involved the replacement of some of the obsolete mechanical parts of an original
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 Luke McKernan cited by Bryony Dixon, ‘Kinemacolor: dazzling colour film frames from more than 100 years ago,’ October 2017, Accessed May 12, 2019, https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/ernest-lingren-lecture- kinemacolor.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid. 28 Kinemacolor projector, without the possibility of their alteration. The restorers have uncovered the versatile aspects of the projection mechanism, such as the variability of the colour filters used, and the way in which these should be adjusted according to the properties of the projection light. Through this process, the restorers have taken up the role of the projectionists, involved in the selection and adjustments of the colour filters, the projector, and supervising the running of the film material through the projection mechanism. This performance re-enacted the Kinemacolor performance mechanism. By using an original Kinemacolor projector, the presentation re-enacted ephemeral elements of the historical projection act, such as the sound of the projector. Thus, in this restoration of Kinemacolor films, the Kinemacolor performance mechanism was preserved.
III. Conclusion Both the 1992 and 2008 Kinemacolor projects restored the colour of Kinemacolor films through the re- enactment of the Kinemacolor performance mechanism. In both cases, the synthesis of the colour film was enabled during a projection act which preserved the characteristics of a historical Kinemacolor performance mechanism. In this situation, the film element, the (duplicate) film print, was one of the component elements of the projection mechanism. This entailed that there was less emphasis in the implications of the nitrate print’s duplication, such as the loss in image detail, but more importantly it was to restore the colour film during presentation, by having a film element which can be presented through a performance mechanism similar to the historical one. In this context, presentation was integral to the restoration process. An important aspect in both restorations stood in the contextualisation of the custom-made projection act as a performance. This was revealed to the spectators by positioning the projector in the audience, which, in the case of the 2008 performance produced also a striking sound, which seized the audience’s attention towards the projection act. While the performance mechanism was the main aspect of the Kinemacolor performance to be preserved, less emphasis was made on the performance of the image on screen, the performative surface, which in the 1992 case proved unsatisfactory. Instead, it was presentation of the film materials as part of a performance mechanism that provided a ‘magical’ experience, as McKernan notes, recalling similar reactions to those of Bernardini when remembering the 1992 projection. In this context, both restorations positioned the Kinemacolor performance mechanism as the main aspect of the historical Kinemacolor performance to be preserved.
Chapter 2. Restoring the performative surface of Kinemacolor films (1997-2018)
Chapter 2 reflects on a second possibility of enacting novel performances Kinemacolor films, by restoring and presenting the film’s performative surface, without re-enacting the performance mechanism. In the first section (2.1), I reflect on the same question proposed for the section before: How did past restoration and presentation approaches accommodate the historical Kinemacolor performance? While the first section is dedicated to a photochemical restoration of a Kinemacolor film, conducted by L’Immagine Ritrovata in 1997/8, the second section of this chapter (2.2) reflects on a recent case, L’Immagine Ritrovata’s Kinemacolor restoration project carried out between 2015-2018 and the digital presentation of these films. In 29 this second section, I reflect on the third question proposed for this thesis: How can current restorations and presentations accommodate the historical Kinemacolor performance in a digital medium? As I describe below, in both the photochemical and digital approaches, the film as performative surface, was the main aspect of the Kinemacolor performance to be restored. While similar in their aims, the restoration approaches obtained very different results. As I discuss below, while the photochemical restoration provided limitations in preserving the characteristics of the Kinemacolor films, the digital restorations provided several advantages.
2.1. Restoring the performative surface on the film material (1997/8)
A few years after the projection at Il Cinema Ritrovato in 1992 of L'Inaugurazione del campanile di San Marco (1912), L’Immagine Ritrovata performed the restoration of another Kinemacolor title, Rive del Nilo (1911)72. From the nitrate print two duplicate negatives were extracted, containing frames taken behind the red and green filter. This meant that each alternate frame of the nitrate print was copied to a different duplicate negative. These negatives were printed onto one colour print, overlapping the alternate frames, resulting in half the length of the original nitrate print. During the printing stage, red-orange and green-cyan lights were flashed,73 creating a composite colour print, half the length of the original nitrate print. Thus, while the previous restoration has focused on simulating the synthesis of the colour film through the re- enactment of the performance mechanism, the 1997/8 restoration aimed to restore the colour film by simulating its performative surface on the surface of the film print. The restoration consisted in the simulation of the Kinemacolor film’s colour synthesis, as it would appear during its performance on screen, on the surface of a colour film print. Research into historical documents was required to estimate the colour properties of filters used in the Kinemacolor system, and how could they be simulated through photochemical colour grading. The colour lights were adjusted to resemble the colour hues of the gelatine colour filters used in historical Kinemacolor projections, where ‘various degrees of orange/red or blue/cyan/green filtering could be used, according to the subject’74. This is similar to previous restorations, where the colour hues have been adjusted by restorers, in line with the characteristics of the historical system, where the colour filters changed across projections. However, one aspect which differed from previous restorations was that colour was inscribed on the surface of the film print, changed its properties from an additive colour system to a subtractive colour system.75 The change from additive to subtractive system provided a limitation in preserving the performative character of the Kinemacolor film, as it simulated a colour image which would be otherwise synthesised during the film’s performance on screen. While in additive colour systems the colour film is synthesised as a
72 Although Mazzanti indicates in ‘Raising the Colours (Restoring Kinemacolor)’(2002) that a number of Kinemacolor titles were restored, records of these restorations have not been kept. It is unclear how many of the titles were for forwarded for photochemical restoration on colour film stock. However, Paolo Bernardini, who was at the time responsible with the Kinemacolor restoration, confirmed the photochemical restoration of The Rive del Nilo (1911) a Kinemacolor film directed by Charles Urban.
73 See the description of the restoration by Paolo Bernardini, Appendix I, A, 54.
74 Nicola Mazzanti, ‘Raising the Colours (Restoring Kinemacolor)’, in This Film is Dangerous, A Celebration of Nitrate Film, ed. Roger Smither, (FIAF, 2002).
75Ibid. 30 surface of light where colour and the film mix on the screen, subtractive colour systems reconstruct the spectrum of colour on the film material by the use multi-layered colour dyes present in the film emulsion. Different from additive colour systems, in subtractive systems, the colour is already synthesised in the film emulsion, providing that the performance enacted on screen between the film image and the colour light, is no longer preserved. From this perspective, the performance enacted by the film and coloured lights on screen, the performative surface is lost within a subtractive colour process. Another limitation of this approach was what Mazzanti called as ‘printer parallax’, which resulted in a misalignment of the synthesised colour film, outside of the characteristic colour fringing inherent to Kinemacolor performances on screen. As Mazzanti recalls:
We also encountered another problem that we had not expected – printer parallax. We found that the films were printed in a completely unsteady way, so the image moves around all over the screen, and there is no accurate superimposition in the prints themselves.76
As Mazzanti notes, during the printing stage the colour records were not accurately aligned, resulting in a distortion of the synthesis of the colour film during projection. This misalignment would create a different type of ‘colour fringing’ that the one inherent to the historical Kinemacolor performances. Thus, through the photochemical restoration of colour, the characteristics of the film as performative surface, such as the original misalignments known as ‘colour fringing,’ were lost. From a perspective which sees the performance mechanism as an integral aspect of the Kinemacolor performance, the simulation of colour on the surface of the print is very different. Referring to the ‘artifice mechanic’ preserved in the 1992 restoration, but not in the 1997/8 one, Bernardini notes :
In the case of the Rive del Nilo we have nothing of all this, at the level of negative duplicate 2 separate matrices have been made (one for even frames and one for odd frames) to then recombine them together in a single positive colour film. The final object does not preserve any of the characteristics of the original (different emulsion, halved length) but its use is much easier77.
As Bernardini notes, this restoration was very different from the previous done in 1992, and to him, the characteristics of the ‘original’ were lost. Through ‘original,’ Bernardini refers to the performance mechanism, involving the act of projection of the black and white film element through a custom projection mechanism, an integral aspect of the historical Kinemacolor performance, and, as discussed in the previous chapter, one of the aspects prioritised by previous restorations. On the other hand, the restoration of the colour film on a carrier which could be presented through traditional projection was considered as more advantageous to enable access to the film. This compromise would enable for example, the presentation of the film in a programme featuring other traditional projections. This aspect has significantly changed with the outcome of digital presentation, which will be discussed in the following section.
76Ibid.
77 Email exchange with Paolo Bernardini, see Appendix A, section I. 31 In conclusion, different from the Kinemacolor restorations of 1992 and 2008, in which the performance mechanism was preserved, in the 1997/8 restoration the film’s performative surface was restored on the surface of a novel colour print. However, this restoration provided several limitations. Other than the loss in image quality inherent to the duplication process, the inscription of colour on the material artifact seems to contradict the characteristics of Kinemacolor performances, where the synthesis of colour film was produced on the surface of the screen. In terms of the film’s appearance during projection, characteristics such as colour fringing, specific to the Kinemacolor film’s performance on screen, and overall appearance of the colours are impossible to retrace precisely, as the restored print has not been preserved. However, from accounts of Mazzanti, aspects such as ‘printer parallax’ limited the possibility of aligning the colour records, affecting the overall appearance of the synthesised colour film on screen. On the other hand, this type of restoration of Kinemacolor films could enable access to the Kinemacolor films within traditional projection situations.
2.2. Restoring the performative surface in the digital medium (2015-2018)
In this section, I reflect on the possibilities of enacting novel performances of Kinemacolor films in the digital medium, through a hybrid restoration approach of photochemical and digital restoration, as a response to the third question proposed for this thesis: How can current restorations and presentations accommodate the historical Kinemacolor performance in a digital medium? In 2015 a collection of Kinemacolor films, preserved at the Cineteca di Bologna, were selected for a 4K restoration project carried out between 2015-2018. L’Immagine Ritrovata is currently one of the leaders in hybrid restoration workflows, providing facilities for both photochemical and state of the art digital restoration. Through the example of L’Immagine Ritrovata’s 2015-2018 Kinemacolor restoration approach, I discuss how aspects integral to both the material artifact’s current condition, the decay of the nitrate prints, as well as the characteristics of the film as performative surface can be preserved. I discuss the restoration project by dividing it into six main stages, some of them entailing further restoration steps, and phases, split between the departments of the laboratory. An illustration of the film’s life line, within the restoration workflow, and its presentation, is provided below (Fig.7). The stages are: 1) inspection, 2) chemical treatment, 3) manual repair, 4) scanning, 5) digital restoration and colour correction 6) film mastering (Fig. 7). I divide the discussion of these stages into two main parts. The first part concerns the photochemical restoration and the film’s scanning, correspondent to stages 1-4 of the restoration, while the second part is dedicated to stages 5-6 of the restoration project, which entailed the reconstruction of the film’s performative surface. I then discuss the digital presentations of the films, which can be considered as completing the restoration outside the premises of the laboratory, by conveying the film a novel performative life.
32 Fig. 7. Illustration made by author of the main steps in the Kinemacolor restoration workflow (2015-2018)
I. Stages 1-4 of the Kinemacolor Project (2015-2018)
The first stage of restoration commenced with the inspection of the nitrate reels (Fig. 7), and elaboration of a diagnosis and plan of photochemical restoration. These aspects were documented in a file named the List of Elements (Lista Elementi), recording the condition of the film print at the moment of inspection and its progress throughout the restoration workflow. This list was drawn up as a Google Drive spreadsheet, which included notes only from the Repair, Chemical and Scanning departments, but was accessible to all the other departments in the laboratory. This facilitated the documentation of the restoration workflow and monitoring of its progress. In this list, the main sections record: the film title, size of the reel, its material properties, the indications and progress of the chemical treatment, and the date and status of its scan through the ARRI scanner (AS). These notes serve to develop a strategy and supervise the restoration of the nitrate prints, including their mechanical repair, chemical treatment, and scanning. As seen in a fragment of this list (Fig.8), the repair notes include an assessment of the properties of the film elements, such as title and length, and its condition at the time of inspection (Situazione Iniziale). Next to the repair notes, another notes section documents the progress of their chemical treatment. Thus, the inclusion of these notes within a single document ensures communication between the departments involved in the photochemical restoration of the film, providing efficient monitoring between the mechanical and chemical restoration interventions and the film prints’ scanning, which will be described later on in this chapter.
33 Following the initial inspection of the film reels and diagnosis, the second stage commenced with the chemical treatment, whose progress was updated in the List of Elements. Decay of the emulsion caused the nitrate prints to stick together, making the unwinding of the reels difficult, and in some cases impossible. As Maura Pischedda, the responsible for the chemical treatment of Kinemacolor nitrate prints noted:
The initial situation of the Kinemacolor [films] was very varied, from both a chemical and physical point of view. From all the materials arrived, some reels were windable, others were only partially unwindable, while others still completely stuck, with an advanced state of decay (these were considered fully unusable).78
As Pischedda notes, the nitrate materials presented various types of decay, spread differently throughout individual film reels, as well as between different film titles, which meant that some reels were difficult to unwind without the risk of causing damage to the film material. Accordingly, the reels were classified into three main categories as: 1) unwound (Svolgibile) which meant that the reels could be unwinded without causing damage; 2) partially unwound (Non Interamente Svolgibile) for reels which could be partially unwinded; 3) stuck/glued (Non Svolgibile) applicable to reels which could not be unwinded at all79. According to these conditions, three types of treatments were developed: Desiccation treatment, Rehydration treatment and Softening treatment. The Desiccation treatment consisted in the application of silica gel on the reels, and was used for reels in which the nitrate material was partially or completely glued within the reel, and not unwindable. The Rehydration treatment was used for films which could be unwinded, but presented either dryness, brittleness, warp or high shrinkage. The Rehydration treatment used a combination of water and glycerol to restore the plastic properties of the film base. This type of treatment was used for reels which did not present advanced decay, to prevent the possibility of reactivation of decay due to the softening of the film base resulted from the procedure. A similar intervention was the Softening treatment, in which camphor was used. This provided an alternative to the water and glycerine solution (Rehydration treatment), to restore the plastic properties of the film without presenting the risk of reactivating eventual decay. According to Pischedda, the Softening treatment was used for various types of damaged reels including those classified as unwindable but were dry or brittle, presenting a more or less advanced states of decay.80 Thus, the chemical treatment of the reels enabled the restoration of the plastic properties of the decayed nitrate material, without risking to damage the film emulsion. Thus, this stage consisted in the restoration and preservation of the film’s material properties. The chemical treatment allowed the unwinding of most of the film reels, enabling the films’ further mechanical repair and digitisation. The progress of the chemical treatment was documented in the List of Elements. Each type of treatment contained three subsections detailing the progress of the procedures. These included notes on the parts of the reel on which chemical intervention was carried out, along with the start
78 Document handed to the author by Maura Pischedda. This report was originally emailed by Maura Pischedda to Elena Tammacaro, informing on the condition and chemical treatment of the Kinemacolor films. For a view of the entire report, please see Appendix A, section V.
79 The translation into English was provided by Maura Pischedda, in her conversation with Tammacaro, see Appendix A, section V.
80 Ibid. 34 and end date of the treatment, to monitor its progress. As seen below in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, in the February 2016 inspection, the positive nitrate print of L’Inaugurazione del campanile di San Marco (1912) was classified as unwindable, forwarded to a Rehydration treatment, (Trattamento Reidratante), and scanned through the ARRISCAN (markes AS). L'Inaugurazione del campanile di San Marco (1912) is a Kinemacolor title whose restoration history can be traced back to 1992, as the first Kinemacolor restored title by L’Immagine Ritrovata, described in Chapter 1. While this print seemed to have been preserved to be still unwindable, the nitrate prints of other titles such as Rive del Nilo (1911), a title which was previously photochemically restored in 1997/8, discussed in Chapter 2.1, was not unwindable at the beginning of the inspection. As seen in Fig. 10, the reel was initially found in ‘critical condition’ (condizione grave). However, after a chemical treatment of Rehydration and Softening, the first part of the reel, 180 m in length, was successfully unwinded, and restored in 2018. Thus, the chemical treatment of the nitrate materials was a necessary restoration step, which preserved as much as possible of the damaged material artifacts, enabling access to the film prints.
Fig. 8. Fragment of List of Elements documenting the repair and chemical treatment notes of the Kinemacolor title Inaugurazione del Campanile di San Marco (1912)
The documentation of the nitrate material’s initial condition and restoration progress were essential to the collaboration between the chemical and repair departments, but also to the justification of the decisions made during the restoration. As seen in the section of the List of Elements dedicated to the Rive del Nilo, (Fig. 10) the reel was not unwindable due to the brittleness of the nitrate carrier. As seen in the notes of the final column, other details of the materials’ condition at the moment of inspection are included, such as ‘patches of scotch’ which have yellowed the film material. While the Desiccation and Softening treatments were efficient for the first half of the reel, the last 120 m, (Parte B), could not be restored (non lavorabile, i.e. not workable). Thus, the condition report of the nitrate material’s initial condition and progress of the photochemical restoration, remain testimony to nitrate prints’ fragility, in urgent requirement of restoration, while also providing for some cases where the reels couldn’t be unwinded anymore, one of the last reports of their condition.
35 Fig. 9. Continuation of Fragment of the Kinemacolor List of Elements
Fig. 10 Condition report of Rive del Nilo (1911)
When the reels were ready to be unwinded and classified as mechanically stable, they entered the third stage, the manual repair. This stage serves to convey the film a sturdiness which can protect the film material from damage during scanning. The manual repair aims at intervening as little as possible on the film material, using methods which ensure reversibility, such as replacing missing perforations with transparent pre-perforated tape, or unexposed film, which can be removed without damaging the nitrate base. The figures below present different parts of the nitrate film Lake Garda (1910). As seen below, the print presented different types of physical damage. Some parts of the frames were teared, as in Fig. 11, 12, 14. The restoration minimised the intervention upon the film material, reconstructing manually parts of the perforations. As seen in Fig. 11, because the perforations were missing for more than four frames, a piece of unexposed film was introduced to reconstruct the perforations so that the film would not break during its pass through the film scanner. In Fig. 14, a different technique was used to reconstruct the perforations, by applying a transparent pre-perforated tape, which imitates the size and shape of the perforations. Its contours can be seen when looking closely on the left side of the frame. This pre-perforated tape was applied in cases where the perforations are missing for more than two frames. In other parts of the print, such as Fig. 12 and 13, where only few of the perforations were missing, no intervention upon the material was performed. Thus, the interventions upon the film print preserved as much as possible the original missing perforations and
36 signs of wear and tear, reconstructing only parts of perforations considered essential to prevent the risk of damaging the film during its pass through the scanner.
Fig. 11. Fig. 12. Fig. 13.
Fig. 14. Following the manual repair of the prints, the fourth stage of the restoration commenced with the scanning of the nitrate materials. The brittleness of the materials necessitated a combined approach of manual and automatic scanning. Due to the fragility of the prints, some films have been scanned sprocketless, which allowed the passing of the film without risking that one of the pins of the scanner would catch a perforation, and break the film print. As recalled by Mariangela Suppa, responsible for the scanning of the nitrate prints, due to the brittleness of the films the scan process was stopped and the reels were scanned frame by frame:
In general the reels are very fragile, which is why they have sometimes been scanned with sprocketless motors, which have rubberized spools without pins (unlike normal motors that have metal spools with pins). In some cases we even had to scan the frames by moving the film and saving the frames manually. Sometimes it was necessary to stop the scan and put the reels back into treatment, and then finish the scan when the film was less fragile. On the scanned image we reported problems such as decay, breakage, instability, blur and / or splits due to the physical condition of the film.81
81 Email conversation between Mariangela Suppa and the author. Please see Appendix A, section II. 37 As noted by Suppa, the fragility of the film materials required in some cases manual scanning, while in other situations the reels were sent back to undergo chemical treatment, to restore their physical properties without risking to cause damage to the film print. In the case of the title Lake Garda (1910), discussed above, the film was scanned in 2017, half with sprockets and the other half sprocketless, to facilitate a smooth running of the film through the scanner. Due to a rupture of the film print during the scanning process, some of the frames were scanned manually, frame by frame.82 Thus, the scanning process entailed close supervision, due to the fragile nature of the film materials, as well as a continuous collaboration with the Repair and Chemical departments. In this context, the process of digitisation was not completely detached from the photochemical one, but rather had a hybrid nature, combining photochemical, manual repair and digital processing, to ensure the preservation of as much as possible from the original nitrate materials. While the fragility of the prints required a close monitoring, the film material was scanned at a resolution83 which preserved the image quality as close as possible to the original. The nitrate prints were scanned between 2016-2018, at 4K resolution84 through an ARRISCAN, through both Dry and Wet-Gate options.85 According to recent studies, the ARRISCAN is considered as one of the most sophisticated scanners used currently for the scanning of archival film86. The scan outputted the film in a DPX sequence. DPX (Digital Picture Exchange) is a bitmap file format, 87 used to store single frames or entire motion picture films. It is a standardised format by the SMPTE (Society of Motion Pictures and Television), commonly used in digital workflows by archives and compatible for the creation of Digital Cinema Packages.88 The DPX stores the image as a ‘logarithmic’ image,89 which means that the gamma of the
82A diagram including the scanning condition of Lake Garda (1910) has been provided to the author by Mariangela Suppa. Please see Appendix A, section II.
83 Resolution refers to the capacity of describing detail in a reproduction medium, quantifiable by defining the smallest elements distinguishable in an image. In digital imagery, these are referred to as pixels. The amount of detail in an image is higher when the number of pixels is higher in a frame, which results in a better ability to describe detail, or, resolution. (Fossati, “From Grain’’, 2012, 289).
84 4K is considered a high resolution format, (Fossati, “From Grain,’’2012, 285).
85 While a Dry scan involves the passing of the film through the scanner without additional liquid, Wet Gate scanning involves the immersion of the film element into a liquid during the scanning process to reduce scratches. Meyer and Read “Restoration,’’ 341.
86 Barbara Flueckiger, et al., Investigation of Film Material-Scanner Interaction, 18 February 2018, https:// barbaraflueckiger.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ flueckigeretal_investigationfilmmaterialscannerinteraction_2018_v_1-1c.pdf.
87 In computer technology Bitmaps refer to a ‘map of bits’ used to store and display digital images. A bit stands for Binary digIT. For digital imagery, bits are binary values used to define each pixel present in an image. The amount of bits present in each pixel entails the bit depth of an image. The greater the bit depth the greater the number of tones, of either a grayscale of colour image.
88Arne Nowak, Digital Cinema Technologies from the Archive’s Perspective, rev. ed. (FIAF Technical Commission, 2012), 10.
89 In a logarithmic image, the ratio between the maximum and minimum measurable light intensities (dynamic range) present in a digital image (represented in pixels) can be compressed by replacing each pixel value with its logarithm. This can mean values for a low intensity pixel are enhanced. See Robert Fisher, et al., Hypermedia Image Processing Reference, Accessed May 21, 2019, https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/copyrght.htm 38 scanned film is preserved, enabling a greater flexibility in further editing of the image.90 Thus, the scanning procedure was performed to preserve an image quality as close as possible to the original nitrate print, while facilitating a format from which a presentation file can be created, in the form of a DCP (or HD format, an option discussed later on) as well as providing a format which was preserved throughout the digital restoration process, enabling flexibility between the digital restoration steps.
Fig. 14. Record for the film The Harvest, indicating the path from scanner to file forwarded to digital restoration The scanned films were documented before entering the fifth stage of the workflow, digital restoration. The table above was created by the digital restoration department, after the import of the files from the scanner (Fig.14). This document could correspond to the ‘inspection’ stage, in a photochemical workflow, because similar to the List of Elements, this file documents the source of the scanned film and its properties. The figure above (Fig.14) documents the digital workflow of the Kinemacolor film The Harvest, (La Raccolta) a film presented at the 2017 Il Cinema Ritrovato. In the first column of the table, the ‘reel’ of the scanned film is written, (R01), which stands for a fragment of the scanned film, represented as a DPX sequence. Next to the reel, the metadata of the film’s source, or ‘path’ is written : X: \storage02\AS\KINEMACOLOR\RACCOLTA\POS\RACCOLTA_KIN_POS_4400x3168_R01_D. In this nomination, the first half of the path documents the file received from the scanner: ‘X: \storage02\AS\KINEMACOLOR\RACCOLTA\POS\’. This nomination referred to: the storage (eg.storage02), ARRI scanner (AS), film title (RACCOLTA- italian for Harvest), and type of print positive or negative (POS) are documented. If in the first half of metadata path the details of the storage source and scan were included, in the second half, ‘RACCOLTA_KIN_POS_4400x3168_R01_D,’ the file contains metadata indicating the DPX sequence, or, ‘reel’ the digital film (R01) and a letter indicating the type of scanning, either through a Wet-gate (W), or without, in which case it is called a Dry scan, (D), as is the case above. Thus, the metadata incorporated to each digital film sequence (DPX sequence) documents the path of restoration, the sequence’s main properties, such as name, type of print and size but also the workflow between the scanning and digital restoration department.
II. Stages 5-7 of the Kinemacolor Project (2015-2018)
After scanning, the digital film image was composed of a numeric representation, recognisable by human vision only during its synthesis on the digital screen. As noted in the above part, the film as data, in the form of a DPX format, was documented throughout the restoration workflow. While the image as file was
90 Michelle S.Carlos, “A Comparison of Scanning Technologies for Archival Motion Picture Film,”(Masters diss. Staatlichen Akademie der Bildenden Künste, Stuttgart, 2013), 11. 39 described numerically, the film as an image recognisable to the human eye only during its performance on the digital screen. In the digital medium, the image is perceived directly from the light source whether this is a computer monitor or a screen on which the digital image is projected. As I describe below, the digital medium in which the film was restored preserved the film as performative surface, an integral aspect of the historical Kinemacolor performances. Similar to the Kinemacolor historical performances, as well as the 1992 and 2008 restorations, the digital colour film was synthesised during the film and the colour light’s performance on the screen. The restoration steps carried out in the restoration stages, steps and phases I describe below enabled a novel performative life to the Kinemacolor films, preserving the characteristics of the Kinemacolor films as performative surfaces. In this context, a last stage (7) continued the film’s performative life outside of the laboratory’s premises, when the film file was presented in front of an audience.
After the import and documentation of the scanned films by the digital restoration department, the fifth stage of restoration commenced, entailing four steps of reconstruction, alternating between the Digital Restoration and Colour Correction department. A report of the workflow steps was documented by Silvia Vandelli, one of the operators in the digital restoration department.91As Vandelli reported, the digital restoration followed four main steps, performed alternatively between the Digital Restoration and Colour Correction department: 1) stabilisation of the film and division of the scanned frames into two separate tracks correspondent to the red and green record; 2) the synthesis of the colour film in two main phases: i)the application of digital colour filter on each track, ii) the synthesis of the two colour tracks in transparency into colour image, on which a LUT92 was applied without being rendered on the film; 3) print align, entailing the alignment in register of the orange-red and green-cyan superimposed film images 4) a last pass of colour grading and rendering of a LUT on the colour film.93 The workflow stages were documented in the IDL file (Indicazione Lavorazione), which stands for the indications of workflow. As seen in a comparison between 2017-2018 Kinemacolor restorations documented in the IDL files (Fig. 15, Fig. 16) , a consistent alternation between image stabilisation and alignment alternated between the Digital Restoration, and Colour Correction department (COLOR).
91 The email conversation with Silvia Vandelli is documented in Appendix A, section IV. Clarification of terms: Color = Colour Correction Department, DR= Digital Restoration Department PH= Phoenix Restoration software (Digital Vision). For a view of the Italian original conversation, please see Appendix B, section IV.
92 LUT (Lookup Table), is a matrix applied to the original image which changes its display, enabling the preview of the image. LUTs are used in colour grading to create and save different colour grades, which can be used or applied to other projects.
93 Ibid. 40 Fig. 15. IDL file indicating Kinemacolor Workflow, 2017.
Fig. 16. IDL file indicating Kinemacolor Workflow, 2018.
The first step of the digital restoration stage entailed the stabilisation of the film’s original sequence- length and the division of the film into two tracks correspondent to the red and green colour records. As seen in the document below, Fig. 17, for the Kinemacolor film A Day at Henley (1911) (Giornata Henley), presented at the 2018 edition of Il Cinema Ritrovato, in continuation of the details of the DPX sequence in the first row, the start and end date of this procedure was written, (29/05/18), along with the note of the procedure in the note section, in this case, stabilisation (Stab)94. This procedure enabled a consistent stabilisation of the film’s original DPX sequence. After stabilisation, the DPX sequence was split into two tracks, each correspondent to the red and to the green record. The DPX sequences were then renamed by operators, through a software called ‘Flexible renamer,’ and exported in SAN (Storage Area Network).95 Each separate frame has its own numerical nomination as a DPX file, enabling the operators to maintain the distinction between the red and green records during file transfer and restoration. As seen in Fig. 18, presenting a still from the documentary on the workflow of the Kinemacolor restoration performed in 2017, the frames were divided into ‘even’ and ‘odd’ frames (pari e dispari). The numerical denomination of the files enabled the renaming each frame, for the creation of a novel sequence. In this way, two separate tracks were created, each correspondent to the red and green records. This step prepared the second restoration step in the Colour Correction department.
94 For lack of space the document has been divided on two rows.
95See Appendix A, section IV. 41
Fig. 17. Document indicating the 2018 Digital Restoration workflow of the Kinemacolor film A Day at Henley (1911)
Fig. 18. Still showing even (pari) and odd (dispari) frames from ‘Backstage Kinemacolor’ in I Colori Ritrovati: Kinemacolor e Altre Magie, Cineteca di Bologna, 2017.
42 Fig.19. Consecutive screenshots representing how digital colour filters were synthesised on screen with the red and green record. Scene describing the colour grading performed on Kinemacolor films, from ‘Backstage Kinemacolor’ in I Colori Ritrovati: Kinemacolor e Altre Magie, Cineteca di Bologna, 2017.
The second restoration step consisted in a first phase of colour grading. The black and white film tracks (correspondent to the red and to the green record) were each synthesised with digital colour filters during each film track’s projection on screen. As seen in Fig. 19, on each black and white track a digital colour filter was applied: a red-orange filter to the red record, and a green-cyan to the green record. As seen in Fig.19, the appearance of these filters was adjusted during the film file’s projection on the screen, in the editing room. This step is similar to how in the 2008 restoration, the gelatine colour filters were adjusted during a preliminary projection phase (with no film in the gate) to see how the colours would appear as colour light projected on screen. According to Giandomenico Zeppa, responsible for the colour grading of the films, the colours of the digital filters were chosen after consulting historical sources, in which several possible colour filters were described: ‘In Kinemacolor more than 40 filters were used (at the discretion of the operator) and on the choice of the colour of the filter we did this research film by film.’96 As Zeppa describes, the historical sources indicated many possible hues of red and green gelatine filters, a detail which recall the historical filters described by Bennett, discussed previously in Chapter 1. Similar to how the colour filters would be adjusted according to the scene depicted during historical projections, in the digital restoration the filters were adapted to each film subject. Another common aspect with the historical use of colour filters in the past was how the digital filters were adjusted to render a ‘natural’ look to the recorded subjects. As Tammacaro noted in the interview offered for the DVD release of the Kinemacolor restorations, the colours were adjusted in reference to how objects would have been perceived in nature, such as the skin tone of the subjects97. The adjustment of the colour filters in reference to natural phenomena is also recalled in historical descriptions mentioned in Chapter 1, where the projection filters were adjusted to render greens as close as possible to foliage. Thus, as in the historical projections, and similar to the 1992 and 2008 restorations discussed previously, in the digital restoration, the appearance of the colour film varied between film subjects, and was conditioned by the choice of colour filters chosen by a human agency, in this case the film restorer.
96 Personal conversation with Giandomenico Zeppa, see Appendix VI.
97Elena Tammacaro, ‘Backstage Kinemacolor,’ I colori ritrovati. Kinemacolor e altre magie. Cineteca di Bologna, 2017. 43 Fig. 20. Screenshot describing how the colour image synthesised on screen in the Colour Correction department. The scene is part of the documentary on the Kinemacolor restoration, ‘Backstage Kinemacolor’ in I Colori Ritrovati: Kinemacolor e Altre Magie, Cineteca di Bologna, 2017.
After the application of the colour filters, a second phase of colour grading commenced, in which the two separate colour tracks were synthesised into one colour image sequence during their display on screen (Fig. 20):
To make the filters (but also the two matrices of the even and odd frames sequence) transparent, we used the blend mode channel combine (on Nucoda). On some software programs you will find screen or lighten. However it is a normal procedure used in graphics and video to superimpose images or images and text etc …
As Zeppa notes, the two colour film tracks were synthesised into one colour image through their overlay in transparency. This procedure was performed through the blend mode on Nucoda, a digital image editing option used to define how two digital layers can be mixed into one layer. The synthesis between the colour film tracks involved an editing step which controlled the required transparency of each layer to synthesise the colour film during its projection on screen. Similar to the 1997/8 photochemical simulation of colour, the prints have been superimposed to create a halved image, on which the colour filters were applied. However, different from the photochemical restoration of 1997/8, in the digital medium the colours of the film were synthesised during their performance on screen, during their digital projection. As additive colour systems, both digital monitors and digital projections mix colours by combining in various proportions of coloured light of the red, green and blue colour spectrum. In this context, the film is restored as a surface of light which performs on the screen, in front of the restorer. As seen in Fig. 20, while the restorer coordinates the film files by looking at the digital monitor on the right side colour grading suite, the synthesis of the colour film is performed by looking at the projected image on screen. In this context, a preliminary synthesis of the colour film was conducted during the moment of the film’s projection on screen, in the presence of the restorer.
44 The synthesised colour film entered a second restoration step, which focused on preserving the inherent misalignments of the colour records during their performance on screen. As documented in the workflow of A Day at Henley (1911), (Fig. 17), the ‘combined print’ imported from the Colour Correction department, entitled N1_GIORNATA_HENLEY_4400X3168_RICOMBINATO entered a phase of Print align. This consisted in the alignment of the separate colour records synthesised in the Colour Correction department. The alignment was performed in two phases, in two software programs, Phoenix Restoration (PH) and Diamant Restoration software (Diamant). This procedure was explained by Silvia Vandelli, one of the operators in charge with the alignment of the Kinemacolor films restored in 2018. As Vandelli recalls:
After returning from the color, the film entered digital restoration (DR) , first on PH where the print align was used (but this works only on translation (alignment), therefore aligning axis x and y). The second alignment step was done on Diamant, where a Color Registration filter was used, and that works not only on alignment, but also on deformations. As values, the green was given as a reference matrix. Correction mode: DWarp. It also corrected deformations. Correction level: based on the scene between value 5 and 20. Not more than that because that creates digital artifacts.98
As Vandelli notes, the alignment of the prints aimed to convey continuity in the position the colour frames within the film sequence. The first alignment procedure provided the vertical and horizontal stabilisation of the film images. The second alignment procedure enabled the alignment and de-warping of the frames, to convey continuity between the synthesised colour frames. The alignment of the colour prints according to the colour channels enabled the de-warping of the prints to maintain them within the same composition space throughout the film’s performance on screen. As Vandelli notes, the parameters set for the correction of deformations aimed to preserve the characteristics of the film to avoid ‘digital artifacts’. This procedure entailed an act of balance, which de-warped the film prints to convey continuity between the film frames while preserving the misalignments inherent to the prints, perceived when the colour records intersect with colour filters during the film’s performance on screen. As noted in Chapter 1, the misalignment of the colour records on the surface of the screen was an integral aspect of Kinemacolor artifacts as performative surfaces . In line with the historical performance, the characteristics of the film as performative surface were preserved during the alignment phase, where colour fringing is most visible in scenes of fast movement. One example of this is a scene from the digitally restored film Lake Garda (Fig.21): while the colour records are aligned in parts of the frame which are still, such as the standing woman with the umbrella, the stone wall and even the ship which moves slowly within the frame, the character running towards the left is presented in two overlapped red-orange and cyan-green colours. Each coloured layer indicates the colour record captured on the original nitrate print. Thus, the colour fringing characteristic to the Kinemacolor films as performative surfaces, have been preserved during the editing process, and are visible in moments of rapid movement of the recorded subjects. Another aspect which has been preserved during the digital restoration was the film materials’ condition at the moment of the restoration, including tears and decay. As seen in a frame of The Pageant Procession (1912) restored digitally in 2017 (Fig.21), the decay of the nitrate print has been preserved in the
98 See Appendix A, section IV. 45 digitally reconstructed image. During the performance of the film on screen, the decay of the print is visible throughout the entire opening sequence of the film.
Fig. 21. Still form the digitally restored Kinemacolor film, Lake Garda (1910) It is in these ‘flawed’ fragments that both the characteristics of the system, such as its additive colour synthesis, as well as the restoration interventions, are most visible. As seen in a still from Lake Garda (Fig. 23) the synthesised colour image seems to peel off the screen indicating both the physical condition of the preserved film material, and the editing process. This image reveals the different tears of the film material in the middle of the frames. Due to the fact that each alternate colour record was synthesised with a colour filter, the difference between the two tears of the frames is enhanced. In this manner, the digitally restored film preserves the appearance of both the film material’s condition at the time of its restoration, while revealing the editing interventions (the overlap between the film frames and colour filters), which are most visible in parts where the film material is damaged. Thus, these damaged frames reveal both the fragile condition of the material artifact, and the restoration interventions. The synthesised colour film entered the final restoration step in the Colour Correction department, where a LUT was applied to simulate the contrast of a film’s performative surface as it would appear in a historical Kinemacolor performance. In the Nucoda program, the LUT option can be used in two ways: either as view only option, where the LUT is not rendered onto the final output image, and can be modified on and off during the project, or it can be rendered onto the output image. This phase entailed the application of the LUT as a view only option after which the LUT was rendered onto to the film file. The type of LUT used was the ‘Film Emulation’ LUT. As Zeppa notes: ‘The LUT we used is a FILM PRINT EMULATION LUT, to simulate the type of contrast (non-linear) characteristic of the filmic support.’99 As indicated in its denomination, the film print emulation LUT is used to render an appearance for the digital image’s performance on screen to simulate, or even emulate the look of another medium, specifically analog film stock. As seen in Fig.22 and Fig. 23, the digitally restored films have a pale yellow tint overall, which imitates the contrast and look of a nitrate print, which has a pale yellow appearance, as described in the earlier sections. Thus, the application and render of the LUT consisted in the final step of a simulation
99 Conversation with Zeppa, see Appendix, VI. 46 process, inherent to film restoration, which sought to imitate the contrast and appearance of film as performative surface during a historical Kinemacolor performance.
Fig. 22. Consecutive stills from The Pageant Procession (Our King and Queen through India), (1912), 2017.
Fig. 23. Still representing two overlapped teared frames the digitally restored Kinemacolor film Lake Garda (1910) The films entered the sixth restoration stage in the Mastering department. In this stage, the films were converted to three different file formats, to enable their presentation through three digital platforms: a 4K file for Digital projection, a Master HD (High Definition) for Television broadcast and a HD file for DVD. These three different formats have enabled novel performances of Kinemacolor films through different types of digital display platforms. This aspect enables the performance of the films in a form which is accessible to current audiences. The shift to digital presentation entails a wider access to films as novel performances in comparison to Kinemacolor restorations discussed in the previous sections, carried out in 1992 and 2008, where the film performance could only be enacted through a specific projection mechanism,
47 handled by a skilled operator. On the other hand, through the shift to digital presentation, the performance mechanism, integral to the historical Kinemacolor performances is lost, leaving the ‘magic’ moment of colour production to be performed through mechanisms different to the ones comprised in the historical performance mechanism. Finally, during the digital presentation of Kinemacolor films, the film’s performative life was restored as a performative surface outside the premises of the laboratory, as during its digital presentation, the film file was synthesised as a surface of light during its performance on screen, in the presence of the viewers. The Kinemacolor films were presented at the festival Il Cinema Ritrovato between 2016-2018, and also available as a DVD release, I colori ritrovati. Kinemacolor e altre magie (2017). Similar to the historical performance, in digital presentation the colour film is synthesised during its presentation on the surface of the screen, whether this means the projection of the film or its presentation on a computer monitor or television. As discussed previously, in its digital format, the film is a series of data, documented by restorers throughout the restoration process, but is perceivable by human sight as a film image only during the film’s performance on the digital screen. In this context, the film’s identity is constructed as a performance of light, having the screen as its carrier. Thus, from a perspective which regards film experience, similar to the historical Kinemacolor performances on screen, during digital presentation the film’s identity is constructed on the surface of the screen as a performative surface, but also one which is ephemeral, synthesised anew with each presentation. In this context, the film artifact acquires a novel performative life during its digital presentation in front of an audience. The narrative framing of the performances contextualised the film’s restoration and presentation. In the festival catalogues for the 2016-2018 Il Cinema Ritrovato festival, both the historical performance of the Kinemacolor system and the process of the film’s restoration were provided in the festival’s catalogue. Through these texts, audiences were informed on the original Kinemacolor performance mechanism, but also the restoration process. These aspects conveyed the audience an awareness of how the historical recording and performance mechanism would work, despite the fact that it was not part of the screening. For example, in the 2017 catalogue, together with the descriptions of the historical Kinemacolor system and its current restoration, an illustration of a Kinemacolor camera was provided.100 The contextualisation of the Kinemacolor restorations was also provided in the DVD release, where a booklet and interviews with the restorers, together with a presentation of Kinemacolor projectors were presented.
In conclusion, in section 2.2 I reflected on the third question proposed for this thesis: How can current restorations and presentations accommodate the historical Kinemacolor performance in a digital medium? I discussed how the restoration of Kinemacolor films, carried out by L’Immagine Ritrovata between 2015-2018, has restored in the digital medium one of the aspects of the historical Kinemacolor performance, the film as performative surface. L’Immagine Ritrovata’s hybrid restoration approach enabled access to the preserved nitrate prints, whose fragile condition could not have been accessed by audiences today through means other than digital presentation. The chemical treatment of the nitrate prints was an important aspect of the restoration process, which prevented the progression of decay, and enabled the films’ digitisation despite their fragile condition. The film print’s digitisation through a state-of-the-art scanner, at a 4K resolution,
100 See Farinelli, “Il Cinema Ritrovato,’’ 2017, 355. 48 enabled the preservation of as much as possible from the nitrate material’s image details, enabling the further stages of digital restoration. Due to the restoration in a digital medium, the films as files were synthesised as colour images during their performance on screen, as surfaces of light, in line with the characteristic of Kinemacolor films of the past to synthesise as colour images on the surface of the screen, and in the presence of a human agency, in the presence of the restorer. Through the simulation of colour during the digital restoration phase, characteristics of Kinemacolor films as performative surfaces, including the inherent colour fringing specific to Kinemacolor historical performances, and the material artifact’s traces of decay and wear were preserved. From this perspective, the performative surface of Kinemacolor films was preserved through their digital restoration. Tangentially, digital presentation continued of the restored film’s performative life, and increased accessibility to Kinemacolor performances. Unlike the projection enacted in 1992, which was a one time performance, or the Kinemacolor performances conducted by Cleveland and Pritchard in 2008 for the archival community, digital presentation enabled several projections across three consecutive editions of Il Cinema Ritrovato festival between 2016-2018, together with other forms of access, such as DVD and television. While some might argue that with the latter media diverge from a traditional cinema situation, to which other aspects such as the loss in image detail might be considered, the digital presentations enabled a novel performative life to the Kinemacolor films, while providing a variability of the Kinemacolor performance, which is one of the aspects characteristic of the historical Kinemacolor performances. The contextualisation of the digital Kinemacolor performances provided the viewers with an insight into how the historical Kinemacolor performances were carried out. In this context, the catalogue texts enabled audiences to explore the relationship between the present Kinemacolor performance and the historical exhibition conditions, but also inform audiences on why some of the characteristics of the film’s appearance on screen, such as colour fringing, are integral aspects to the film’s appearance, while other preservation of the decay of the image, can inform on the film materials’ current physical condition. Finally, digital presentation seems to fulfil a necessity to the identity of Kinemacolor films as performative artifacts, to be presented as synthesised colour images in front of an audience, through the production of novel performances.
Conclusions By the end of this thesis, I have answered the fourth question proposed for this thesis: What is the relation between restoration and presentation in the case of Kinemacolor films? As discussed earlier on, in the case of Kinemacolor films, presentation becomes an integral aspect to the restoration of the colour film. Starting from the premise that film restoration consists in a series of interventions upon archival film, bound to reflect on the film atifact’s nature and how can its characteristics be preserved during the restoration process, I proposed that Kinemacolor films, and possibly other additive colour systems, can be considered as performative artifacts. Each restoration of the Kinemacolor films entailed the production of novel performance, carried out through either analogue or digital media, which preserved characteristics of the historical Kinemacolor performance by either re-enacting what I defined as the performance mechanism of the Kinemacolor system, or through the restoration of what I defined as the film’s performative surface.
49 The conception that Kinemacolor films are performative artifacts was informed by Fossati’s film as performance framework, which argues that film’s performative character can be relevant in cases where films are presented through custom-made presentation situations. While Fossati focused on the case of restoration of avant-garde and experimental films, I proposed this framework to be applicable in the case of Kinemacolor films, positioning their performative character as central to the restoration of the colour films. Keeping in mind the performative character of Kinemacolor colour films, I argued that the restoration of colour involves a process of simulation. The concept of simulation as a restoration practice in the case of Kinemacolor films is inspired by Fossati’s conception of simulation, which argues that in the case of obsolete colour systems, restoration is simulation. Thus, to restore Kinemacolor films’s colour, a process of simulation of what the colour of these films might have looked like in the past during their performance, is inherent to their restoration. Positioning the Kinemacolor films as performative artifacts, I proposed the definition of performance mechanism, as one aspect integral to the Kinemacolor performance as a whole. This definition was informed by Paolo Bernardini’s argument that in order to restore Kinemacolor films, the film elements should be presented through a projection mechanism similar to the historical one. This perspective regards film’s identity as the black and white film print, a component part of what I defined as performance mechanism. In this context, the performance mechanism indicates one aspect of the Kinemacolor performance, which can be re-enacted, to restore the colour film. From a perspective which regards film experience, I defined the film artifact’s identity as a performative surface. The definition of film as performative surface was informed by two authors, Barbara Flueckiger and Giuliana Bruno. While Flueckiger noted how the materiality of film during projection is one which is distinct from its carrier, and is experienced by the viewer as a flow of light, I argued that the screen becomes the novel carrier of film as a performance of light, what I defined as performative surface. The definition of surface was inspired by Giuliana Bruno’s conception of surface as a place where the material identity of an image is conceived. While Bruno argued that during film projection, the screen is transformed by the images projected on its surface, I argued that film acquires a novel identity during its presentation, and is surface of light, what I defined as a performative surface, whose performance is consists in a synthesis of light on screen. The definition of the performative surface of Kinemacolor films grasped the identity of Kinemacolor films as ephemeral performances on screen. By looking at the characteristics of Kinemacolor films within their historical performance, I demonstrated in the first chapter that Kinemacolor films are performative artifacts of a variable character, where any attempt at their preservation would entail the production of novel performances, which can simulate aspects of the historical one. In this context, from a perspective which regards film experience, the film artifact’s identity is one which is ephemeral as a performative surface on screen, while from the perspective which regards the film’s performance as part of the projection mechanism, the film’s identity is that of the material artifact, the black and white film print, a component part of the performance mechanism. Accordingly, I proposed two restoration approaches in which the definition performance mechanism can be recognised: the 1992 restoration of the Kinemacolor film, L’Inaugurazione del campanile di San Marco (1912), and the 2008 restoration of several Kinemacolor films carried out by David Cleveland and Brian Pritchard. In both cases, I demonstrated how the projection mechanism was reconstructed to imitate the function of a historical one, while duplicates of the original nitrate prints were presented through the
50 custom-made projector at the original speed of Kinemacolor projections, around 32fps. This approach did not consider paramount the possible loss in quality of the film image as a result of its photochemical duplication, or the legibility of the colour film’s synthesis on screen, which included the inversion of the film’s colours during the 1992 projection, or the pronounced flicker of the image, recalled in relation to the 2008 Kinemacolor performance discussed above. Instead, the mechanism through which the colour film was synthesised, the performance mechanism, involving the black and white film element, the custom-made projector and the projectionist which coordinated the projection was the main aspect of the Kinemacolor performance to be preserved. Another aspect which was not prioritised was the repeatability of these performances and accessibility. The construction of these performances were aimed as unique events, which although provide the viewers with an experience of a historical Kinemacolor projection as close as possible to the historical performance, it is not practically sustainable, neither from an economic perspective or in terms of audience reach. I then demonstrated how the film as performative surface was restored in two different approaches. The first approach was the restoration of Rive del Nilo (1911), in a photochemical workflow carried out by L’Immagine Ritrovata in 1997/8, which had limitations in preserving the performative aspects of the Kinemacolor films. This case simulated the performative surface of the colour film on the surface of the material artifact, departing from the characteristics of the film as performative surface on screen, providing several limitations, which I discussed above. On the other hand, having the colour prints was a more practical solution to convey access, at a time when analogue projection was still widely used. The second approach in which the performative surface of Kinemacolor films was restored is exemplified by the restoration of a collection of Kinemacolor restored at L’Immagine Ritrovata (2015-2018) and their presentation at Il Cinema Ritrovato festival between 2016-2018. I divided this case study into six main stages of restoration carried out at L’Immagine Ritrovata’s laboratory, and proposed that a seventh stage of restoration of the film’s performative surface can be recognised during the film’s digital presentation in front of an audience. This hybrid approach of photochemical and digital restoration, provided several advantages in terms of access and preservation of the original film materials, which I discussed in relation to stages 1-4. In stages 5-6, I argued that once the film was digitised, the restoration of the film’s performative surface was carried out. I demonstrated how within the digital medium, the scanned film, readable as an image only through its performance on the digital screen, was restored as a colour film during its presentation as a performative surface on the digital screen, in the presence of the restorer. In this context, presentation of the film became an integral aspect of the restoration of the colour film. I suggested that its presentation in front of an audience can be considered as a further stage in the its restoration, because the film file’s performative life is revealed only when performing on screen as an image of light, a performative surface, perceivable to human vision. This includes both digital displays, such as monitors or television, as well as digital projection. The case studies analysed above are also reflections of the changing practices of restoration and preservation in the last decade, which have marked the restoration, preservation and presentation of Kinemacolor films. As discussed previously, if in the case of the earlier restorations of 1992 and 1997/8, the duplication of the nitrate material served for both preservation and presentation purposes, in the case of the 2015-18 restoration project there was no duplication involved in the restoration process, neither for the scope of preservation or presentation of the films. Instead, the photochemical restoration focused on the
51 preservation of the material properties of the original nitrate materials, to which access was provided digitally. In this case, the nitrate materials remain the only material artifact preserved, while the digitally scanned films constitute as the film material to be presented. This might present challenges in terms of preservation of the film artifacts. Due to the fragility of the nitrate prints, they might soon remain the only film artifacts available. On the other hand, the raw film scans can also ‘preserve’ the Kinemacolor films as digital elements, enabling future access to the Kinemacolor films, including their use in which can be used in further restoration projects. These are aspects which present challenges in terms of preservation of Kinemacolor films.
What follows are further considerations on the advantages and disadvantages of the various restoration approaches that have been adopted in the case studies discussed. The difference between the restorations of the film as performative surface and re-enactments of the Kinemacolor performance mechanism might indicate how restoration procedures are informed by what type of audience the restored film’s performance is directed towards. In the cases where the performance mechanism was considered the main attraction of the performance, such as in the 1992 and 2008 Kinemacolor performances, the audience was formed by members of the archival community, or film enthusiasts attending the early editions of Il Cinema Ritrovato. The dedication of the performance to a specialised audience is reflected by the programme notes in the case of the 1992 projection, which framed the projection mechanism as an important performance act. As Bernardini recalled, despite the unsuccessful synthesis of the film image on screen, the ‘mechanical artifice’ was considered the central attraction. The performance act enacted by the projectionist including the selection of filters, the customisation of the projector as well as having the spontaneous and ephemeral moment of ‘magic’ of projecting a black and white film to synthesise a colour image on screen, were aspects which are interesting to viewers who either have experience or an interest in these aspects. Thus, the 1992 and 2008 restorations and presentations might have been of more interest to a specialised audience on one hand, but also could educate non-specialist audiences to appreciate film projection as an integral aspect of the cinema experience. However, analog restorations and presentations are becoming more and more difficult to carry out, due to higher costs, decreasing expertise and lack of analog projection equipment. On the other hand, digital presentations of Kinemacolor films, where the film’s performative surface is restored might entail an educational and commercial value, reaching audiences from both the archival community but also attracting non-specialised audiences. Similar to the previous case of the 1992 projection, in the digital projections carried out between 2016-2018 the narrative framing of the performance becomes an important insight into the characteristics of the historical Kinemacolor performance, as well as its current restoration and presentation. Through the program notes included in all three editions of digital presentation of Kinemacolor films (2016, 2017, 2018), audiences were informed on the original Kinemacolor performance mechanism, but also the restoration process. This aspect provided an informed viewing of the films. As mentioned in the last chapter, one could argue that the narrative context even completed the simulation process, inherent to film restoration, as by reading the program’s text, those not initiated in the system’s characteristics, would be able to envision how the historical system functioned, while simultaneously looking at the performative qualities of the Kinemacolor films presented to them in digital form, noticing particularities and understanding why certain characteristics of the film as performative surface appear, such as colour fringing, or the fact that the colour palette in the Kinemacolor system
52 presented less the blue components in the image. Tangential to the Kinemacolor films’ digital projections, their presentation on DVD or television can enlarge audience reach and interest towards obsolete additive colour systems.
Suggestions for Further Research
While this thesis has focused on the case of Kinemacolor films’ restoration and presentation, similar debates could be explored in other cases of additive colour systems such as Chronochrome films. The Chronochrome colour process, a rival to the Kinemacolor system, was invented by Leon Gaumont and exploited between 1912-1920. Similar to Kinemacolor performances, the projection of Chronochrome films required a custom projection mechanism, where the black and white film was presented through three coloured filters red, green and blue. The projection mechanism of Chronochrome films synthesised the three different colour records with the colour light coming from the filters attached to the projector. Recalling the performative aspects of Kinemacolor films when synthesised on screen, Chronochrome films often presented colour fringing, or stereo-parallax effect, resulted from how the three lenses projected the image from different angles101. Similar to Kinemacolor films, Chronochrome films were constructed as performances, on one hand synthesised on the surface of the screen, but also being part of a custom projection situation. Thus, the restoration of Chronochrome films might entail the restoration of the nitrate materials and their presentation as two aspects of a simulation process. Some restored films from the Gaumont archives have been presented at Il Cinema Ritrovato festival in 2009 and 2012 as analogue projections, and one title has been presented digitally in 2015. Similar to the Kinemacolor films, some of Chronochrome titles presented at the festival, such as the title presented in 2015, Deauville Trouville (1912), were also included in the DVD release I Colori Ritrovati: Kinemacolor e altre magie. While there are currently few Chronochrome films presentations, the performance of other Chronochrome films could be enacted through a combined approach of restoration and presentation of the nitrate materials. Similar to the case of Kinemacolor, the performative characteristics of Chronochrome films could be preserved through both digital and analogue methods, conveying the film artifacts a novel performative life. Through a combined approach of restoration of the material artifacts and their digital presentation, similar to that performed by L’Immagine Ritrovata (2015-2018), the material artifacts could be restored through a hybrid approach, by restoring the nitrate prints, their scanning and the synthesis of the scanned images with digital colour filters, while preserving characteristics of their performance on screen, such as the stereo- parallax effect. In this context, the films could be presented as performative surfaces. This form of presentation would provide a wider and more varied access to these films. On the other hand, from a perspective which prioritises the performance mechanism, a simulation of Chronochrome films’ projection through the characteristic three colour lenses would provide different performance acts from the digital ones, which could inform audiences on the particular characteristics of early additive colour systems’ projection mechanism. This could provide a re-enactment of the demanding projection act of Chronochrome
101 Barbara Flueckiger, “Chronochrome,” Timeline of Historical Film Colors, https://zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/filter/? _sf_s=chronochrome, (accessed June 10, 2019). 53 performances, where the projectionist had to keep in register not two but three colour records. In both cases, restoration and presentation would become two aspects of the simulation process, to be explored in further additive colour films restoration and presentation projects.
Bibliography
Bedding Thomas, “Moving Pictures in Natural Colors,” in Moving Picture World, 4, no. 2 (1909).
Bennett N. Colin, “Filter Absorbtions for Two-Colour,” in The British Journal of Photography, 5, no.55, (July 1911).
Bennett N. Colin, A Guide to Kinematography Projection, 2nd ed. (London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd. 1923).
Bradley Steven, “Color Systems-Part 1,’’ Vanseo Design, March 17, 2014, Accessed June 21, 2019, https:// vanseodesign.com/web-design/color-systems-1/.
Bruno Giuliana, Surface: Matters of Aesthetics, Materiality, and Media, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2014).
Carlos S. Michelle, “A Comparison of Scanning Technologies for Archival Motion Picture Film,” (Masters diss. Staatlichen Akademie der Bildenden Künste, Stuttgart, 2013).
Cleveland David and Brian Pritchard, Re-creating Kinemacolor on the Screen, 2008, http:// www.brianpritchard.com/Recreating%20Kinemacolor%20on%20the%20Screen.html (accessed June 6, 2019).
Dixon Bryony, “Kinemacolor: dazzling colour film frames from more than 100 years ago,” October 2017, Accessed May 12, 2019, https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/ernest-lingren-lecture- kinemacolor.
Enticknap Leo, Film Restoration: The Culture and Science of Audiovisual Heritage, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).
Farinelli Luca Gian, Autelitano Alice, Cavazza Alessandro, eds., Il Cinema Ritrovato Catalogue XXX Edition, (Bologna: Fondazione Cineteca di Bologna, 2016).
Farinelli Luca Gian, Autelitano Alice , Cavazza Alessandro, eds., Il Cinema Ritrovato Catalogue XXXI Edition, (Bologna: Fondazione Cineteca di Bologna, 2017).
Farinelli Luca Gian, Bagh Peter von and Cristalli Paola, eds., Il Cinema Ritrovato Catalogue XXVI Edition, (Bologna: Fondazione Cineteca di Bologna, 2012).
Farinelli Luca Gian, et. al. eds., Il Cinema Ritrovato Catalogue XXXI Edition, (Bologna: Fondazione Cineteca di Bologna, 2018).
Fédération Internationale des Archives du Film, FIAF Code of Ethics, 3rd ed., (London, 2009).
Fisher Robert et al., “Hypermedia Image Processing Reference,” Accessed May 29, 2019, https:// homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/copyrght.htm
Flueckiger Barbara, “Material properties of historical film in the digital age,” Necsus, Tangibility, (November 22, 2012), Accessed June 10, 2019, https://necsus-ejms.org/material-properties-of-historical- film-in-the-digital-age/
54 Flueckiger Barbara, “Hand Coloring,” Timeline of Historical Film Colors, Accessed June 10, 2019, https:// zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/timeline-entry/1212/
Flueckiger Barbara et al., Investigation of Film Material-Scanner Interaction, 18 February 2018, https:// barbaraflueckiger.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ flueckigeretal_investigationfilmmaterialscannerinteraction_2018_v_1-1c.pdf.
Flueckiger Barbara, “Kinemacolor,” Timeline of Historical Film Colors, Accessed June 10, 2019, https:// zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/timeline-entry/1214/
Flueckiger Barbara, “Tinting,” Timeline of Historical Film Colors, Accessed June 10, 2019, https:// zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/timeline-entry/1216/
Flueckiger Barbara, “Toning,” Timeline of Historical Film Colors, Accessed June 10, 2019, https:// zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/timeline-entry/1215/ (accessed 10 June 2019).
Fossati Giovanna, From Grain to Pixel, The Archival Life of Film in Transition, 2nd ed. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012).
Fossati Giovanna, From Grain to Pixel, The Archival Life of Film in Transition, 3rd ed. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018).
Il Cinema Ritrovato, “Ritrovati e Restaurati,” XXI Mostra Internazionale del Cinema Libero, Festival Brochure, (Bologna, 1992).
Jenkins Carl, “DLP Vs LCD : The Ultimate Answer – Picking Hut,’’ 26 February 2019, accessed 21 June 2019, https://pickinghut.com/dlp-vs-lcd/. Mazzanti Nicola, “Raising the Colours (Restoring Kinemacolor),” This Film is Dangerous, A Celebration of Nitrate Film, edited by Roger Smither, (FIAF, 2002).
McKernan Luke, “Surviving Kinemacolor,” Charles Urban, Accessed April 21, 2019, http:// www.charlesurban.com/films_kinemacolor.html.
Meyer Mark Paul and Paul Read, Restoration of Motion Picture Film, (Oxford:Butterworth Heinemann, 2000), 1.
Nowak Arne, Digital Cinema Technologies from the Archive’s Perspective, rev. ed. (FIAF Technical Commission, 2012).
Slide Anthony, Nitrate Won't Wait, A History of Film Preservation in the United States, 2nd ed., (Jefferson:McFarland & Company Inc, 2000).
Smith Albert George, Provisional Specification. Improvements in & relating to Kinematograph Apparatus for the Production of Coloured Pictures.,1906. Brighton. UK Patent 26,671. Filed 22 November 1906.
Turquety Benoît “Why Additive? Problems of Colour and Epistemological Networks in Early (Film) Technology,” in The Colour Fantastic, Chromatic Worlds of Silent Cinema, ed.Giovanna Fossati et al., (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018), 109-123.
Urban Charles, Complete Specification. Improvements in Kinematograph Apparatus for the Production of Coloured Pictures. 1912. London. UK Patent 3034. Filed 27 April 1912.
Appendix A.
Conversations and documents translated by author.
I. Email exchange with Paolo Bernardini, 1 April 2019.
[Translated from Italian original]: 55 “I state that, as I said to Céline, I only worked on "Venice and the bell tower of S. Marco" and "Rive del Nilo" so I cannot help you on the other title (and for what I remember it was not done no photochemical restoration).
•Venezia e il Campanile di San Marco
Ruxandra Blaga: Firstly, I would like to ask you if you remember when you started working for Venice and the Campanile di San Marco? Paolo Bernardini: In the first months of 1992
R.B: Was Venice and the Campanile of San Marco have been worked in photochemical, even in colour, or only the projection of the film was in black and white and projected with a two-coloured shutter? P.B: Only B / W, both duplication and print copy, I believe were made on a Debrie Matipo because at the time we had nothing else.
R.B: Do you remember how you chose the shutter colours? And what were the adjustments made? P.B: I remember that a portable 35 projector had been placed in the Lumiere room (which at the time was in via Pietralata), positioned on the right side looking at the screen at the height of the central rows. On the projector (which projected at double speed) an eye-catching external bipolar shutter was mounted which made a rotation every 2 advances of the mortar cross. on the shutter 2 filters had been pasted (I think simply a green and a red) so that they were in sync with the respective image to be projected. both these choices and the modification of the projector were not made by us but by the person in charge of the cabin of the Lumiere who at the time I think was called Manico Mattioli,
R.B: Could you give me an opinion on how the projection seemed to you? P.B: It was a half disaster, both because with the non-central projector with respect to the screen the image was a bit skewed, but also because the synchronism was lost about halfway through (probably because of gaps or something else, the alternation of the frames of one type or the other in the copy had not been respected) so the colours were inverted (red water, pink sky and final Italian flag in reverse). For me, however, the magic of seeing colour images from a black and white film was already a sensational thing
R.B: Do you remember when and where you projected the combined colour copy of the Bank of the Nile? In what state was the colour copy and how did it look? P.B: The copy should have been projected during the rediscovered cinema 1996, 1997 or 1998, but I cannot find confirmation of this (it should be easier for her who is on site to have access to the archives of the film library and obtain this information), however not that we projected ourselves (at the time the .i. was only a photochemical micro-laboratory of 4/5 people, not an event organizer). If by colour copy it means the copy left the laboratory, we say that it was in perfect condition, freshly baked. I believe that for the time a good job was done (totally different and with a higher level of accuracy than the bell tower of s.marco) and despite the intrinsic limits of Kinemacolor color reproduction the result was very good.
•Nubia, Wadi Halfa and the Second Cataract R.B: Luke McKernan mentioned in a text about seeing Nubia, Wadi Halfa and the Second Cataract (1911) :
'Then in 1992 came news of a substantial collection of Kinemacolor films, acquired from a private collector by the Archivio Cinematografico Ansaldo in Genoa. Passed on to the Cineteca Bologna, the twenty or so films presented a major preservation challenge for the city renowned film lab, L’immagine Ritrovata, with many in an advanced state of decay. One film from the collection, Nubia, Wadi Halfa and the Second Cataract (UK 1911), a captivating travelogue, was made available, showing Kinemacolor in all of its haunting beauty, but the rest remained to be puzzled over in the labs.’ (Luke McKernan, 2017, ‘Discovering Kinemacolor,’ https://lukemckernan.com/2017/07/17/discovering-kinemacolor).
56 R.B: In addition to seeing the film Nubia, Wadi Halfa and the Second Cataract, did you also work on this title? P.B: No, I haven't worked on it (unless it's the same title that "shores of the nile")
[…]
R.B: According to you, what are the differences between the photochemical restoration of these films and a 4K digital processing? P.B: Personally I have a bad opinion of the digital media that usurps the name of cinema with impunity, especially when applied to the noble art of restoration, so maybe I'm not the best person to answer this question. If I have to stay within the ambit of what was done in the 90s on the 2 previously treated titles I find it hard to talk about restoration; I would say that perhaps only in the first case (Bell Tower of S. Marco) can we speak of a "correct" preservation process (albeit with the immense technological limits that we had at the time and the inexperience of a laboratory at the beginning), that is creation of an element of conservation / matrix for the production of new copies and of a positive copy with characteristics as faithful as possible to the original, letting the magical reproduction of colour take place (as was the case with the use of kinemacolor) thanks to the use of an artifice mechanic. In the case of the Rive del Nilo we have nothing of all this, at the level of negative duplicate we have made 2 separate matrices (one for even frames and one for odd frames) and then recombine them together in a single positive colour film. The final object does not preserve any of the characteristics of the original (different emulsion, halved length) but its use is much easier. I have no elements to be able to compare the works done at the time with the most recent 4k digital "restorations" because I believe I have seen them only on DVD (not really the best to give an opinion) and I have no idea what choices have been made for what concerns the reconstruction of colour (since a comparison with an original is impossible). I suppose the colourist level of arbitrariness was very high.
R.B.: In addition, what are in your opinion the strengths of the digital and photochemical method? In particular, which of the two methods could more efficiently preserve the characteristics of the nitrate and the color when it is projected on the screen? P.B: Have we passed to a more general and non-specific question about kinemacolor? What to say, having already mentioned before my aversion to digital I run the risk of being a bit impartial, but I will try to be as objective as possible. Obviously there are many differences between photochemical and digital. In both cases, however, the final object of our work, unlike other branches of restoration, will be on a support different from the original, akin to it in the case of photochemistry (although in a century and history of cinema there are been enormous technological transformations we will still have a film) or on a completely different media, whose fruition is different (not always the job is finalised to have a DCP), whose only point in common with the original (optional, depending on of the use that is made of the digital file) is the projection (which will probably last only a few years). The possible interventions with photochemical are very limited by technology, to get something as similar as possible to the original one must know how to play with the few variables that printers, films and chemistry allow you and often the results are modest. In the case of digital instead, thanks to the infinite potential that the media offers, obtaining a visually comparable result to the original is extremely easier. However it is just as easy, whatever the level of ethics that is applied to the job, to get carried away and exaggerate on some characteristics of the image, based on purely aesthetic evaluations.
R.B: Do you remember when and how you worked on other Kinemacolor titles? P.B:I have not worked on other titles
R.B: Can you tell me how it was to see the projection of the films worked in photochemical? Also, if you have seen the 2017/18 digital projection, can you tell me about your experience? P.B: We are talking about something that happened in 1992 and in one occurred in 96 or 97, too many years have passed, I don't think I can answer them sensibly. It is not even just a question of memory; in these years I have changed a lot and my way of seeing things has improved, at the time I was young and inexperienced, I
57 didn't even know what a kinemacolor was but I remember that the feeling of seeing some colour come out of white and black was exciting. P.B: If it should happen to me to see them now my stomach would probably tip over and I could say that I could do them much better now. Those works were done in a "pioneering" era of film restoration, with inadequate means and by people with little experience. I didn't attend the 2017/18 screening so I wouldn't know what to answer.”
II. Email exchange with Mariangela Suppa, ARRI Scan operator at L’Immagine Ritrovata, 11 March 2019.
[Translated from Italian original]:
“We started scanning the rolls of this project in 2016 and the processing is still ongoing. In general the reels are very fragile, which is why they have sometimes been scanned with sprocketless motors, which have rubber spools without pins (unlike normal motors that have metal spools with pins). In some cases we even had to scan the frames by moving the film and saving the frames manually. Sometimes it was necessary to stop the scan and put the rollers back into treatment, and then finish the scan when the film was less fragile. On the scanned image we reported problems such as decay, breakage, instability, blur and / or splits due to the physical condition of the film.
Below I made a diagram of the scans, from the most recent to the oldest:
VARIETA_PISELLI_ODOROSI 21 Jun 2018 4K DRY SPROCKET scan from AS1 Last part scanned by hand due to the breaks already present on the film.
LUCA_COMERIO 14 May 2018 4K WET SPROCKET scan from AS1 Very small roller without physical problems.
GIORNATA_HENLEY 28 Sep 2017 4K DRY SPROCKETLESS scan from AS2
SCENE_LAGO_GARDA 12 May 2017 4K scan DRY SPROCKET and SPROCKETLESS from AS2 Roller split in two following a break in the scanner. Some ftg have been scanned by hand.
CORSA_CERVI_EXMOOR 10 May 2017 4K DRY SPROCKETLESS scan from AS2 The second half of the roller was scanned at the tail to facilitate transport of the film. Some ftg have been scanned by hand.
INDIA_INCORONAZIONE_IMPERIALE 11 Nov 2016 4K DRY SPROCKETLESS scan from AS2
58 Very fragile, divided into two rolls (R01B-1 and R01B-2). Some ftg have been scanned by hand.
INAUGURAZIONE_CAMPANILE_SAN_MARCO 16 Jun 2016 4K DRY SPROCKET scan from AS2 Two other rollers in the box, TIT and FRAMMENTO, were also scanned.
COLLECTION + GUADO_FIUME + PASTO_POLLI_PODERE_PROWSE-JONES_PINNER 9 Jun 2016 4K DRY SPROCKET scan from AS2 These three titles are all in a single 600 roll that we decided to scan individually.
VITA_NOSTRI_ASCARI_ERITREI 16 Mar 2016 4K DRY SPROCKET scan from AS2
PLOTONI_NUOTATORI 15 Mar 2016 4K DRY SPROCKET scan from AS2
PITTORESCHE_CASCATE_ITALIA 15 Mar 2016 4K DRY SPROCKET scan from AS2”
III. 2017 Workflow Indications for the Digital Restoration department: [For Italian Original, see Appendix B, III ]
“Workflow from May 2017
Phase 1: Stabilization. Export on the server for Mastering.
Phase 2: Post-Colour The rendered colour corrected reels have a halved length after the rejoining of the even and odd DPX. Print align when possible, to try to place in register the RGB (when this doesn’t help don’t apply). Now that the frames are sequenced without interruption try to stabilise better the intertitles. Apply a Dust filter over the entire reel (mem ‘speckle_cc). Export from DR into ‘our’ SAN.”
IV. Conversation with Silvia Vandelli, Digital Restoration department, 17 May 2019. Description of the 2018 digital workflow cited by Vandelli from an email written by Elena Tammaccaro, responsible for the Kinemacolor project).
Clarification of terms: Color = Colour Correction Department DR= Digital Restoration Department PH= Phoenix Restoration software (Digital Vision) SAN= Storage Area Network
59 [9, May, 2018, Translated from Italian original].
“Hi Ruxandra!
This is the workflow:
-The first step and the stabilization to the DR. (only stab no def) -Then flexible renamer in SAN
Color -We import even and odd dpx and apply the color filter (odd and even separation and then rename) -The dpx are recombined -The gaps are checked -The dpx recombined with color and without framework and without LUT are made in SAN
DR -The recombined dpx are imported into dr for: - alignment adjustment (launches at night and checks the next morning) - cleaning if necessary -export for color
Color -Last pass of color correction and rendering with the framework and lut and render for mastering
In Mastering they will proceed with: -montage of explanations -to be encoded 16 @ 24’
Silvia Vandelli: After returning from the color, the film entered digital restoration (DR) , first on PH where the print align was used (but this works only on translation (alignment), therefore aligning axis x and y). The second alignment step was done on Diamant, where a Color Registration filter was used, and that works not only on alignment, but also on deformations. As values, the green was given as a reference matrix. Correction mode: DWarp. It also corrected deformations. Correction level: based on the scene between value 5 and 20. Not more than that because that creates digital artifacts.”
V. Email from Maura Pischedda (originally sent to Elena Tammacaro)
“The initial situation of Kinemacolor was very varied, both from a chemical and a physical point of view. Of all the material arrived, some reels were unwindable, others were only partially unwound and others still completely glued and with a very advanced level of decay (these were considered unusable in full).
From the point of view of chemical treatments, we have resorted to the following treatments: -Desiccation Treatment (Silica Gel): on the reels and / or on the unwindable reel portions - Rehydrating Treatment (Water + Glycerin): on the unwindable but dry and fragile reels - NB: this type of treatment is used to soften and make the film more plastic, but since it could reactivate a possible decay, we used it only for the reels not decayed. - Softening treatment (Camphor): this treatment is similar and alternative to the rehydration treatment, compared to which it is less problematic as it does not reactivate any decay present on the film. In the case of Kinemacolor, we used it on unwindable but also dry and fragile reels in which there were traces of more or less advanced decay. We also used it on the portions and / or reels that had been subjected to the desiccation treatment. In some cases we have done the standard treatment) reel in dryer - camphor in the container at the
60 base of the dryer), but in most cases we put a camphor bag inside the container with the reel and we left it inside to the entire duration of the workflow.
Also from a physical point of view the situation is quite varied: there have been cases in which the rollers have not given any problems and others in which the fragility of the support has created problems both in repair and in scanning, with continuous breaks both on the image and on the perforations. As for the image, then, we can say that we begin from reels in which the image is perfectly preserved, to others in which the decay has compromised more or less conspicuous parts.
More or less this is the general picture.
Here are some technical terms.
Unwound reels: reels which are unwindable Not completely unwound reels: reels which are partially unwindable Stuck / Completely stuck reels: completely glued reels Chemical decayed reels / reels affected by chemical decay
Desiccation treatment (With Silica Gel): drying treatment - for totally or partially glued reels
Rehydration treatment: rehydration treatment - for dry reels, fragile (fragile / brittle reels), embarked (warped reels), very tight (reels with high shrinkage)
Rehydration treatment for nitrate reels: Water + glycerol
Softening treatment (with camphor) for dry and fragile rollers on which however it is better (due to the high decay that could be reactivated) or not necessary (because the level of dryness and fragility is not very high) to do a rehydration treatment. Very suitable for nitrates because camphor is the plasticizer of nitrates.”
VI. Email exchange with Giandomenico Zeppa, colorist at L’Immagine Ritrovata.
“The LUT we used is a FILM PRINT EMULATION LUT, to simulate the type of contrast (non-linear) characteristic of the filmic support. As for the colors instead the resultant comes from the combination of the filters. In Kinemacolor more than 40 filters were used (at the discretion of the operator) and on the choice of the color of the filter we did this research film by film. To make the filters (but also the two matrices of the even and odd frames sequence) transparent, we used the blend mode channel combine (on Nucoda). On some software you will find screen or lighten. However it is a normal procedure used in graphics and video to superimpose images or images and text etc …”
Appendix B This section contains the conversations and documents in the original language.
I. Email correspondence with Paolo Bernardini, 1 April 2019. [Original language email exchange]
“Premetto che, come ho già detto a Céline, ho lavorato solo su "Venezia e il campanile di S.Marco" e "Rive del Nilo" per cui sull'altro titolo non posso aiutarla (e per ciò che ricordo non ne è stato fatto alcun restauro fotochimico)
61 •Venezia e il Campanile di San Marco
Ruxandra Blaga: In primo luogo, vorrei chiederle se ricorda quando avete iniziato il lavoro per Venezia ed il Campanile di S.Marco?
Paolo Bernardini: Nei primi mesi del 1992.
R.B: Se Venezia e il Campanile di S.Marco è stato lavorato in fotochimico anche a colori oppure solo la proiezione del film è stata in bianco e nero e proiettato con otturatore bicolore?
P.B: solo B/N, sia duplicazione che stampa copia credo siano state fatte su una Debrie Matipo perché all'epoca non avevamo altro
R.B: Si ricorda come avete scelto i colori dell'otturatore? E quali sono stati gli aggiustamenti fatti?
P.B: ricordo che era stato messo un proiettore 35 portatile in sala al Lumiere (che all'epoca si trovava in via Pietralata), posizionato sul lato destro guardando dallo schermo all'altezza delle file centrali. Sul proiettore (che proiettava a velocità raddoppiata) era stato montato un vistoso otturatore esterno bipale che faceva una rotazione ogni 2 avanzamenti della croce di malta. sull'otturatore vi erano stati incollati 2 filtri (credo semplicemente un verde e un rosso) in modo che fossero in sincrono con la rispettiva immagine da proiettare. Sia queste scelte che la modifica del proiettore non sono state fatte da noi ma dal responsabile di cabina del Lumiere che all'epoca credo si chiamasse Manico Mattioli.
R.B:Potrebbe darmi un parere su come le sembrava la proiezione? P.B:è stato un mezzo disastro, sia perché col proiettore non centrale rispetto allo schermo l'immagine era un po' sghemba, ma anche al fatto che circa a metà proiezione era perduto il sincronismo (probabilmente perché per lacune o non so che altro, l'alternanza dei fotogrammi di un tipo o dell'altro nella copia non era stata rispettata) per cui i colori erano invertiti (acqua rossa, cielo rosa e bandiera italiana finale al contrario). Per me comunque la magia di vedere delle immagini a colori da una pellicola in bianco e nero era già una cosa sensazionale
•Rive del Nilo
R.B: Inoltre, si ricorda quando e dove avete proiettato la copia combinata colore de Rive del Nilo? In che stato era la copia a colori e come le sembrava?
P.B: La copia dovrebbe essere stata proiettata durante il cinema ritrovato 1996, 1997 o 1998, ma non trovo conferma di ciò (dovrebbe essere più facile per lei che si trova in loco avere accesso agli archivi della cineteca ed ottenere questa informazione), comunque non l'abbiamo proiettata noi (all'epoca l'i.r. era solo un micro laboratorio fotochimico di 4/5 persone, non un organizzatore di eventi). Se per copia a colori intende dire la copia uscita dal laboratorio, diciamo che era in perfetto stato, appena sfornata. Credo che per l'epoca sia stato fatto un bel lavoro (totalmente diverso e con un livello di accuratezza maggiore rispetto al campanile di s.marco) e nonostante i limiti intrinsechi di riproduzione colore del Kinemacolor il risultato fu molto buono
•Nubia, Wadi Halfa and the Second Cataract
R.B: Luke McKernan ha raccontato in uno dei suoi testi di aver visto Nubia, Wadi Halfa and the Second Cataract (UK 1911):
'Then in 1992 came news of a substantial collection of Kinemacolor films, acquired from a private collector by the Archivio Cinematografico Ansaldo in Genoa. Passed on to the Cineteca Bologna, the twenty or so
62 films presented a major preservation challenge for the city renowned film lab, L’immagine Ritrovata, with many in an advanced state of decay. One film from the collection, Nubia, Wadi Halfa and the Second Cataract (UK 1911), a captivating travelogue, was made available, showing Kinemacolor in all of its haunting beauty, but the rest remained to be puzzled over in the labs.’ (Luke McKernan, 2017, ‘Discovering Kinemacolor,’ https://lukemckernan.com/2017/07/17/discovering-kinemacolor).
R.B: Oltre ad aver visto il film Nubia, Wadi Halfa and the Second Cataract, ha anche lavorato su questo? Se si, com'è stato lavorarci?
P.B: No, non ci ho lavorato (a meno che non si tratti dello stesso titolo che "rive del nilo")
[…]
R.B: Secondo lei, quali sono le differenze tra il restauro fotochimico di questi film e una lavorazione digitale 4K?
P.B: Personalmente ho una pessima opinione del media digitale che usurpa impunemente del nome cinema, specie se applicato alla nobile arte del restauro, per cui forse non sono la persona più indicata a rispondere a questa domanda.
Se devo rimanere nell'ambito di ciò che negli anni 90 fu fatto sui 2 titoli trattati precedentemente faccio fatica a parlare di restauro; direi che forse solo nel primo caso (campanile di s.marco) possiamo parlare di un "corretto" processo di preservazione (seppure con gli immensi limiti tecnologici che avevamo all'epoca e l'inesperienza di un laboratorio alle prime armi), cioè creazione di un elemento di conservazione/matrice x produzione nuove copie e di una copia positiva con caratteristiche il più possibile fedeli all'originale, lasciando che la magica riproduzione del colore avvenisse (come era caso della fruizione del kinemacolor) grazie all'utilizzazione di un artificio meccanico. Nel caso di Rive del Nilo non abbiamo nulla di tutto ciò, a livello di duplicato negativo sono state fatte 2 matrici separate (una per i fotogrammi pari ed una x quelli dispari) per poi ricombinarle insieme in un'unica pellicola positiva colore. l'oggetto finale non conserva nessuna delle caratteristiche dell'originale (emulsione diversa, lunghezza dimezzata) ma la sua fruizione è molto più facile.
Non ho elementi per poter comparare i lavori fatti all'epoca con i più recenti "restauri" digitali 4k perché credo di averli visti solo in dvd (non proprio il massimo per dare un giudizio) e non ho idea di quali scelte siano state fatte per ciò che riguarda la ricostruzione del colore (visto che una comparazione con un originale è impossibile). Suppongo che il livello di arbitrarietà del colorist sia stato molto elevato.
R.B: Inoltre, quali sono per lei i punti di forza del metodo digitale e di quello fotochimico? In particolar modo, quale dei due metodi può preservare maggiormente le caratteristiche del nitrato e del colore quando viene proiettato sullo schermo?
P.B: Siamo passati quindi ad una domanda più generalistica e non specifica sui kinemacolor? che dire, avendo già menzionato prima della mia avversione al digitale corro il rischio di essere un po' imparziale, ma cercherò di essere il più obiettivo possibile. ovviamente tra fotochimico e digitale le differenze sono molteplici. in entrambe i casi comunque l'oggetto finale del nostro lavoro, a differenza di altre branche del restauro, sarà su un supporto diverso dall'originale, affine ad esso nel caso del fotochimico (sebbene in un secolo e passa di storia della cinematografia ci siano state enormi trasformazioni tecnologiche avremo pur sempre una pellicola) o su un media completamente diverso, la cui fruizione è differente (non sempre il lavoro è finalizzato ad avere un dcp), il cui unico punto in comune con l'originale (facoltativo, a seconda dell'uso che che si fa del file digitale) è la proiezione (cosa che probabilmente durerà ancora solo pochi anni).
63 Gli interventi possibili col fotochimico sono molto limitati dalla tecnologia, per ottenere qualcosa il più simile possibile all'originale bisogna saper giocare con le poche variabili che stampatrici, pellicole e chimica ti permettono e spesso i risultati sono modesti. Nel caso del digitale invece, grazie alle infinite potenzialità che il media offre, ottenere un risultato visivamente paragonabile all'originale è estremamente più facile. È altrettanto facile comunque, qualunque sia il livello di etica che viene applicata al lavoro, farsi prendere la mano ed esagerare su alcune caratteristiche dell'immagine, basandosi su valutazioni puramente estetiche.
R.B: Si ricorda quando e come ha lavorato su altri titoli Kinemacolor? P.N: Non ho lavorato su altri titoli
R.B: Mi può raccontare com'è stato vedere la proiezione dei film lavorati in fotochimico? Inoltre, se avete visto la proiezione digitale del 2017/18, mi può raccontare la sua esperienza?
R.B: Stiamo parlando di una cosa avvenuta nel 1992 e di una avvenuta nel 96 o 97, sono passati troppi anni, non credo di poterle rispondere in maniera sensata. Non è neanche solo una questione di memoria; in questi anni sono cambiato molto e la mia maniera di vedere le cose si è affinata, all'epoca ero giovane ed inesperto, non avevo nemmeno idea di cosa fosse un kinemacolor ma ricordo che la sensazione di vedere uscire del colore da delle immagini in bianco e nero fu entusiasmante. Se mi dovesse capitare di vederli adesso probabilmente mi si ribalterebbe lo stomaco e mi verrebbe da dire che ora potrei farli molto meglio. Quei lavori sono stati fatti in un'epoca "pionieristica" dell'attività di restauro pellicole, con mezzi inadeguati e da persone con scarsa esperienza. Non ho assistito alla proiezione 2017/18 quindi non saprei cosa risponderle.”
II. Email correspondence between author and Mariangela Suppa, ARRI Scan operator at L’Immagine Ritrovata, 11 March 2019. [Original language email exchange]
“Abbiamo iniziato a scansionare i rulli di questo progetto nel 2016 e la lavorazione è ancora in corso. In generale i rulli sono molto fragili, per questo a volte sono stati scansionati con i motori sprocketless, che hanno rocchetti gommati senza pin (a differenza dei motori normali che hanno rocchetti metallici con pin). In alcuni casi abbiamo dovuto addirittura scansionare i fotogrammi spostando la pellicola e salvando i fotogrammi manualmente. A volte è stato necessario fermare la scansione e rimettere i rulli in trattamento, per poi terminare la scansione quando la pellicola risultava meno fragile. Sull'immagine scansionata abbiamo segnalato problematiche come il decadimento, le rotture, l'instabilità, le sfocature e/o gli sdoppiamenti dovuti alla condizione fisica della pellicola.
Di seguito ho fatto uno schema delle scansioni, dalla più recente alla più vecchia:
VARIETA_PISELLI_ODOROSI 21 giu 2018 Scansione 4K DRY SPROCKET da AS1 Ultima parte scansionata a mano per via delle rotture già presenti sulla pellicola.
LUCA_COMERIO 14 mag 2018 Scansione 4K WET SPROCKET da AS1 Rullo molto piccolo senza problemi fisici.
64 GIORNATA_HENLEY 28 set 2017 Scansione 4K DRY SPROCKETLESS da AS2
SCENE_LAGO_GARDA 12 mag 2017 Scansione 4K DRY SPROCKET e SPROCKETLESS da AS2 Rullo diviso in due in seguito a una rottura nello scanner. Alcuni ftg sono stati scansionati a mano.
CORSA_CERVI_EXMOOR 10 mag 2017 Scansione 4K DRY SPROCKETLESS da AS2 La seconda metà del rullo è stata scansionata di coda per facilitare il trasporto della pellicola. Alcuni ftg sono stati scansionati a mano.
INDIA_INCORONAZIONE_IMPERIALE 11 nov 2016 Scansione 4K DRY SPROCKETLESS da AS2 Molto fragile, diviso in due rulli (R01B-1 e R01B-2). Alcuni ftg sono stati scansionati a mano.
INAUGURAZIONE_CAMPANILE_SAN_MARCO 16 giu 2016 Scansione 4K DRY SPROCKET da AS2 Sono stati scansionati anche altri due rulletti presenti nella scatola, TIT e FRAMMENTO.
RACCOLTA + GUADO_FIUME + PASTO_POLLI_PODERE_PROWSE-JONES_PINNER 9 giu 2016 Scansione 4K DRY SPROCKET da AS2 Questi tre titoli sono tutti in un unico rullo da 600 che abbiamo deciso di scansionare singolarmente.
VITA_NOSTRI_ASCARI_ERITREI 16 mar 2016 Scansione 4K DRY SPROCKET da AS2
PLOTONI_NUOTATORI 15 mar 2016 Scansione 4K DRY SPROCKET da AS2
PITTORESCHE_CASCATE_ITALIA 15 mar 2016 Scansione 4K DRY SPROCKET da AS2 ”
65 III. Kinemacolor Digital Restoration Workflow, May 2017.
IV. Conversation with Silvia Vandelli, Digital Restoration department, 17 May 2019. Description of the 2018 digital workflow cited by Vandelli from an email written by Elena Tammaccaro, May 9, 2018, responsible for the Kinemacolor project. [9, Maggio, 2018]
Ciao Ruxandra!
Questo e il workflow:
- Il primo step e la stabilizzazione al DR. (solo stab no def) - Poi flexible renamer in SAN
Color - Si importano i dpx pari e quelli dispari separati e si applica il filtro colore (separazione dei pari e dispari e poi rinominazione) - I dpx vengono ricombinati - Si fa il controllo delle lacune - Si renderano in SAN i dpx ricombinati con la color e senza quadro e senza LUT
DR I dpx ricombinati vengono importati in dr per: -aggiustamento dell’allineamento (si lancia render di notte e si controlla la mattina dopo) -pulizia se necessaria -export per la color
Color Ultimo passaggio di correzione colore e render con il quadro e lut e render per il mastering
Al mastering procederanno -montaggio delle spieghe -si encoda 16@24
Silvia Vandelli: Dopo che tornava dalla color si faceva passaggio in DR, prima su PH in cui si usava il print align (lavora però solo sulla traslazione, quindi allineando asse x e y). Il secondo passaggio di allineamento si faceva su Diamant, in cui si usava un filtro Color Registration, e quello lavora non solo sulla traslazione, ma anche sulle deformazioni. Come valori si dava il green come matrice di riferimento. Correction mode: DWarp. Correggeva anche deformazioni. Correction level: in base alla scena tra valore 5 e 20. Non oltre che fa artefatto.
66 V. Email from Maura Pischedda (originally sent to Elena Tammacaro)
“Allora, la situazione iniziale dei Kinemacolor era molto varia, sia dal punto di vista chimico che da quello fisico. Di tutto il materiale arrivato, alcuni rulli erano svolgibili, altri erano solo parzialmente svolgibili ed altri ancora completamente incollati e con un livello di decadimento molto avanzato (questi sono stati considerato inutilizzabili in toto).
Dal punto di vista dei trattamenti chimici, abbiamo fatto ricorso ai seguenti trattamenti: -Trattamento Essiccante (Silica Gel): sui rulli e/o sulle porzioni di rullo non svolgibili - Trattamento Reidratante (Acqua+Glicerina): sui rulli svolgibili, ma secchi e fragili - NB: questo tipo di trattamento serve per ammorbidire e rendere più plastica la pellicola, ma poiché potrebbe riattivare un eventuale decadimento, lo abbiamo utilizzato solo per i rulli non decaduti. -Trattamento Ammorbidente (Canfora): questo trattamento è simile e alternativo al trattamento reidratante, rispetto al quale è meno problematico in quanto non riattiva un eventuale decadimento presente sulla pellicola. Nel case dei Kinemacolor, lo abbiamo utilizzato sui rulli svolgibili ma anche secchi e fragili e in cui fossero presenti tracce decadimento più o meno avanzato. Lo abbiamo utilizzato anche sulle porzioni e/o sui rulli che erano stati sottoposti al trattamento essiccante. In alcuni casi abbiamo fatto il trattamento standard )rullo in essiccatore - canfora nel piattino alla base dell'essiccatore), ma nella maggior parte dei casi abbiamo messo un sacchetto di canfora dentro la scatola con il rullo e l'abbiamo lasciata al suo interno per tutta la durata della lavorazione.
Anche dal punto di vista fisico la situazione si presenta abbastanza varia: ci sono stati dei casi in cui i rulli non hanno dato nessun problema ed altri in cui la fragilità del supporto ha creato problemi sia in riparazione che in scansione, con continue rotture sia sull'immagine che sulle perforazioni. Per quanto riguarda l'immagine, poi, diciamo che si va da rulli in cui l'immagine è perfettamente conservata, ad altri in cui il decadimento ne ha compromesso parti più o meno cospicue.
Più o meno questo è il quadro generale.
Ecco un po' di termini tecnici.
Unwound reels: rulli svolgibili Not completely unwound reels: rulli sono parzialmente svolgibili Stuck/Completely stuck reels: rulli completamente incollati Chemical Decayed reels/reels affected by chemical decay: rulli chimicamente decaduti. Desiccation treatment (With Silica Gel): trattamento essiccante - per rulli totalmente o parzialmente incollati Rehydration treatment: trattamento reidratante - per rulli secchi (dry reels), fragili (fragile/brittle reels), imbarcati (warped reels), molto ristretti (reels with high shrinkage) Rehydration treatment for nitrate reels: Water + glycerol Softening treatment (with camphor) per rulli secchi e fragili sui quali però è meglio (a causa dell'elevato decadimento che potrebbe riattivarsi) o non è necessario (perché il livello di secchezza e fragilità non è molto alto) fare un trattamento reidratante. molto indicato per i nitrati perché canfora è il plastificante dei nitrati.”
VI. Email exchange with Giandomenico Zeppa, colorist at L’Immagine Ritrovata.
‘La LUT che abbiamo utilizzato e' una FILM PRINT EMULATION LUT, per simulare il tipo di contrasto (non lineare) caratteristico del supporto filmico.
67 Per quanto riguarda i colori invece la risultante viene dalla combinazione dei filtri. Nel Kinemacolor venivano utilizzati piu di 40 filtri (a discrezione dell'operatore) e sulla scelta del colore del filtro abbiamo fatto delle ricerche film per film.
Per mettere in trasparenza i filtri (ma anche le due matrici della sequenza dei fotogrammi pari e dispari) abbiamo utilizzato il blend mode channel combine (su Nucoda). su alcuni software trovi screen o lighten. Comunque si tratta di un normale procedimento utilizzato in grafica e video per sovrappore le immagini o immagini e testo etc…’
Acknowledgements :
Thank you to Giovanna Fossati for the wonderful support and patience offered during the writing of the thesis and the lovely P&P team. A big thank you to the team of L’Immagine Ritrovata, with special thanks to Claudia Pirozzi and Maura Pischedda for their support and guidance through the photochemical restoration and inspection of the Kinemacolor nitrate prints, the advice of Celine Pozzi, Silvia Vandelli, Marzia Mariano, Mariangela Suppa, Giandomenico Zeppa, Alberto Gemmi, Marianna De Sanctis, who have guided me through the restoration workflow and its documentation, to Davide Pozzi and Elena Tammacaro for their support in taking up the Kinemacolor project as a case study in my thesis, and to Paolo Bernardini, for the guidance through the 1990s Kinemacolor restorations performed at L’Immagine Ritrovata. Last but not least, to the fabulous support of Codruța, Doru, Patricia and Paul.
68