Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

American History

FBaggins

(27,844 posts)

4. Cost was a factor... but it was more than that

Reply to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2022, 02:28 PM

Dec 2022

Consider how long we've had reasonable-quality 3D motion picture technology.

Sure... it adds to the production expense. But there's also a limited audience for it (and a limited genre of films for which it fits). Would an archivist/historian use it much today?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sincere ignorant, admittedly, question about black and white film and still photos 1939 to 1945 [View all] steve2470 Dec 2022 OP

I have no answer for you.. but hope that there are DU folks out there who can help! secondwind Dec 2022 #1

Well, this fact re: color broadcasts and tv should give you a start: hlthe2b Dec 2022 #2

Color was expensive and slow. mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2022 #3

Cost was a factor... but it was more than that FBaggins Dec 2022 #4

Color film was slow, as in needed a LOT of light, and the process was cumbersome. AndyS Dec 2022 #5

I watch old Ozzie and Harriet tv shows from the early 50s..they were sponsered by KODAK samnsara Dec 2022 #6

Color film was difficult to process. - ADD Grumpy Old Guy Dec 2022 #7