Photos/Movies Developed Earlier

I don't know a whole lot on the subject, but I do know and have seen a small film of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia from the actual Civil War. :eek: So, I know it's possible. Who would have done it? Would it have triggered other inventions ahead of time, like lightbulbs and telephones? Anyway, discuss. :D

EDIT: Scratch that civil war film; just found out it was a well-orchestrated viral prank online. :( *sigh*
 
Last edited:
Napoleon53 said:
I don't know a whole lot on the subject, but I do know and have seen a small film of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia from the actual Civil War. :eek: So, I know it's possible. Who would have done it? Would it have triggered other inventions ahead of time, like lightbulbs and telephones? Anyway, discuss. :D

EDIT: Scratch that civil war film; just found out it was a well-orchestrated viral prank online. :( *sigh*
It does seem possible mopics could arise sooner.

That said, it would be pre-1900...so you're in the wrong forum.:eek:
 

JJohnson

Banned
I don't know a whole lot on the subject, but I do know and have seen a small film of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia from the actual Civil War. :eek: So, I know it's possible. Who would have done it? Would it have triggered other inventions ahead of time, like lightbulbs and telephones? Anyway, discuss. :D

EDIT: Scratch that civil war film; just found out it was a well-orchestrated viral prank online. :( *sigh*

Here's a link from Youtube. If that's completely authentic, and the technology existed to film people in 1863...what would the world have been like had we had widespread use of cinemas by the 1860s-70s? Could that have been very early competition for Newspapers for war footage, and entertainment? How soon till talking pictures, cartoons, and then color movies? Prokudin-Gorski had a way to take color images near the turn of the century in Russia...perhaps an enterprising French, British, German, Italian, American, or other type could have either invented their own color photos or copied Gorski and brought his technology home, and later on, applied it to moving pictures?
 
JJohnson said:
[If] the technology existed to film people in 1863...what would the world have been like had we had widespread use of cinemas by the 1860s-70s? Could that have been very early competition for Newspapers for war footage, and entertainment? How soon till talking pictures, cartoons, and then color movies? Prokudin-Gorski had a way to take color images near the turn of the century in Russia...perhaps an enterprising French, British, German, Italian, American, or other type could have either invented their own color photos or copied Gorski and brought his technology home, and later on, applied it to moving pictures?
I expect film cartoons & such would be on roughly the same schedule, just moved backward; probably we wouldn't see a *Disney on quite the same schedule, unless there was a comparable pioneering animator & filmmaker. (IDK if there was.) So, too, no *Mickey Mouse until much later: could be he's a studio creation, like Bugs Bunny OTL, & Disney is only a famous-in-the-business guy, like Chuck Jones, not an icon in his own right. I expect the likes of "Nosferatu" & "From the Earth to the Moon" & "Metropolis" would have been sound pictures, & it's very possible (depending on where the technique originated) Germany, France, or Britain would dominate the industry. It's also very possible (even likely) Hollywood wouldn't be the center of U.S. film production; Florida might very well be. Or Arizona. I do wonder if an earlier start, & so a broader base, means the Southern survives as a film genre. (Best exemplified by "GWTW", but imagine "Dallas" or "Desperate Housewives" in Atlanta, as major film projects.)

Cultural impact? I expect pacifism would have taken deeper roots much sooner (since people can see the effect of war), & we'd have seen arms limitation treaties in the 1890s. The existence of *newsreels could have inhibited early aviation; picture the influence of film on, frex, Lilienthal, when there is film of other inventors leaping off buildings. Or on airlines, when there is film of crashes. (This is a major reason the Hindenberg fire was such a shock.) It's also likely to change politics, as the photogenic candidates do better. There are obvious propaganda uses, too...

It also suggests photoreconnaissance will be better much sooner, which makes it very likely trench warfare proliferates in the next major war (as armies are unable to move in secret); could be this also drives the desire for airships &/or aircraft.
 
It does seem possible mopics could arise sooner.

That said, it would be pre-1900...so you're in the wrong forum.:eek:

I pondered over this. If a mod thinks it best, please move it. :)

Prokudin-Gorski had a way to take color images near the turn of the century in Russia...perhaps an enterprising French, British, German, Italian, American, or other type could have either invented their own color photos or copied Gorski and brought his technology home, and later on, applied it to moving pictures?

That would be so amazing. Just think of that for a second and your mind blows. Picture Queen Victoria on a sound/color camera. :eek:

I expect film cartoons & such would be on roughly the same schedule, just moved backward; probably we wouldn't see a *Disney on quite the same schedule, unless there was a comparable pioneering animator & filmmaker. (IDK if there was.) So, too, no *Mickey Mouse until much later: could be he's a studio creation, like Bugs Bunny OTL, & Disney is only a famous-in-the-business guy, like Chuck Jones, not an icon in his own right. I expect the likes of "Nosferatu" & "From the Earth to the Moon" & "Metropolis" would have been sound pictures, & it's very possible (depending on where the technique originated) Germany, France, or Britain would dominate the industry. It's also very possible (even likely) Hollywood wouldn't be the center of U.S. film production; Florida might very well be. Or Arizona. I do wonder if an earlier start, & so a broader base, means the Southern survives as a film genre. (Best exemplified by "GWTW", but imagine "Dallas" or "Desperate Housewives" in Atlanta, as major film projects.)

Cultural impact? I expect pacifism would have taken deeper roots much sooner (since people can see the effect of war), & we'd have seen arms limitation treaties in the 1890s. The existence of *newsreels could have inhibited early aviation; picture the influence of film on, frex, Lilienthal, when there is film of other inventors leaping off buildings. Or on airlines, when there is film of crashes. (This is a major reason the Hindenberg fire was such a shock.) It's also likely to change politics, as the photogenic candidates do better. There are obvious propaganda uses, too...

It also suggests photoreconnaissance will be better much sooner, which makes it very likely trench warfare proliferates in the next major war (as armies are unable to move in secret); could be this also drives the desire for airships &/or aircraft.

This is quite the interesting post.

The biggest cartoonist that could possibly make really rough shorts given the right tech is Thomas Nast. Boss Tweed cartoons? Nastland? :p

Aero-anythings probably would take big hits from footage of them wrecking. Even nowadays, whenever there's a plane crash, ticket sales go down. Now take them back 120 years and have video of crashings, and the Wrights become penniless bums.

Here's what I think, based on your post:

Let's say the Franco-Prussian War breaks out, and an experimental French filmmaker tags along to cover the devastation. He gets his idea from that guy who *supposedly filmed that Civil War footage linked-to above. His footage is all the rage and is shown in special screenings to kings and other leaders. One or more of them is so moved by seeing the wounded and dying he provides for a playhouse to be turned into the first "moving-picture theatre." It catches on and the filmmaker is requested to film other events, such as the swearing-in of Chester A. Arthur. Politicians pick up on how useful film could be, and push for further advancements. By the 1890s, people like Edison and Bell have experimented in sound, and by 1900, the first sound moving-picture theatre opens. William McKinley's funeral is shot in glorious color with sound speeches and farewells.

The French Army starts using film for military purposes by 1885 or so, and Germany and the USA also adopt it. Footage of the last few battles against the Native Americans in the West, along with footage of Indian villages and lifestyle, turns the American populace against ruthless extermination.

Footage of the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk amazes theatre-goers around the world, but footage of crashes brutally crushes the spirits of many. Planes, for a good while, remain a military and scientific oddity.

Footage of the disastrous battles on the Western Front during WWI make citizens demand an end to the war. WWI ends on pre-war lines essentially, paving the way for a more brutal conflict down the road. It's about 1925 when a dispute between the Soviet Union and Imperial Germany turns violent, resulting in a resounding German victory that His Majesty gleefully announces on a new-fangled device known as a household moving picture receiver, nicknamed the MP Box.

Revanchist Russia descends into economic chaos until _insert Hitler figure_ rises to power among the "True Reds." They blame the "Jews like Trotsky" for their defeat and have an antisemitic Second Bolshevik Revolution, throwing the Leninists and Stalinites out.

In 1939, WWII breaks out as the Soviet Union of All the Russias, and its ally Socialist Italy declare war on Imperial Germany (now reluctantly backed by Britain and France because they hate the Soviets more).

Just an idea. :D
 
Napoleon53 said:
This is quite the interesting post.
TY.:)
Napoleon53 said:
The biggest cartoonist that could possibly make really rough shorts given the right tech is Thomas Nast. Boss Tweed cartoons? Nastland? :p
Tweedtoons?:p (Loony Toons, starring Bugs Twill?:p) IDK about Nastland, tho: did he have ambitions that way?
Napoleon53 said:
Aero-anythings probably would take big hits from footage of them wrecking. Even nowadays, whenever there's a plane crash, ticket sales go down. Now take them back 120 years and have video of crashings, and the Wrights become penniless bums.
I was thinking you could push back aviation decades...:eek:

The Wright brothers could be motorcycle racers/tuners, tho. Except even bicycle racing would draw some scary footage.:eek:

I expect early rallying & Grand Prix racing would shock hell out of theatre goers,:eek: & end up safer sooner, too.:cool: (If this butterflies the deaths of Ascari & Clark & Rindt & Revson & others, so much the better.:cool::cool:)
Napoleon53 said:
Let's say the Franco-Prussian War breaks out, and an experimental French filmmaker tags along to cover the devastation. He gets his idea from that guy who *supposedly filmed that Civil War footage linked-to above. His footage is all the rage and is shown in special screenings to kings and other leaders. One or more of them is so moved by seeing the wounded and dying he provides for a playhouse to be turned into the first "moving-picture theatre." It catches on and the filmmaker is requested to film other events, such as the swearing-in of Chester A. Arthur. Politicians pick up on how useful film could be, and push for further advancements. By the 1890s, people like Edison and Bell have experimented in sound, and by 1900, the first sound moving-picture theatre opens. William McKinley's funeral is shot in glorious color with sound speeches and farewells.
I like this, except I imagine the start is a bit earlier. The very first films were fixed-camera stuff of things like people leaving a factory or a train arriving, & they were sensations: the train coming toward the camera started a panic in the theatre,:eek: as people expected it to come out of the screen.:rolleyes: (At the time, how would they know...?;))
Napoleon53 said:
Footage of the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk amazes theatre-goers around the world, but footage of crashes brutally crushes the spirits of many.
Given footage of earlier experimenters leaping to their deaths, I imagine the Wrights either ban film, or stay out of aviation.:eek:
Napoleon53 said:
Footage of the disastrous battles on the Western Front during WWI make citizens demand an end to the war. WWI ends on pre-war lines essentially, paving the way for a more brutal conflict down the road.
I wonder if it goes as badly as OTL. With no aircraft (presumably), & so the ability to move armies more/less in secret, does trench warfare develop on anything like the scale it did OTL?
Napoleon53 said:
It's about 1925 when a dispute between the Soviet Union and Imperial Germany turns violent, resulting in a resounding German victory that His Majesty gleefully announces on a new-fangled device known as a household moving picture receiver, nicknamed the MP Box.
Why does this develop...? And how?
 
The Wright brothers could be motorcycle racers/tuners, tho. Except even bicycle racing would draw some scary footage.:eek:

I expect early rallying & Grand Prix racing would shock hell out of theatre goers,:eek: & end up safer sooner, too.:cool: (If this butterflies the deaths of Ascari & Clark & Rindt & Revson & others, so much the better.:cool::cool:)

You're probably right; earlier nanny state, then? Don't worry folks, we'll shield you from those nasty technological breakthroughs. :D

I like this, except I imagine the start is a bit earlier. The very first films were fixed-camera stuff of things like people leaving a factory or a train arriving, & they were sensations: the train coming toward the camera started a panic in the theatre,:eek: as people expected it to come out of the screen.:rolleyes: (At the time, how would they know...?;))

Yikes, they'd probably have seizures looking artillery going off then. :eek:

I wonder if it goes as badly as OTL. With no aircraft (presumably), & so the ability to move armies more/less in secret, does trench warfare develop on anything like the scale it did OTL?

Interesting. Given the infantry weapons of the time, I'd say trenches are almost assured. Generals are going to insist upon using mounted machine guns like Vickers, and no one in their right mind is going to carry around something like that in an advance/charge of infantry, and when they dig in, the other side's infantry will dig in to take cover.

Honestly I just wanted an easy way to spoof Hitler tropes and TV. :p:D

Why does this develop...? And how?[/QUOTE]
 
Napoleon53 said:
You're probably right; earlier nanny state, then? Don't worry folks, we'll shield you from those nasty technological breakthroughs. :D
Could do. It might just be a sense of "no need for drivers & fans to get killed just for being here".:eek:

To some extent, it's gone overboard, & there's valid reason to say to racing fans, if you're going to stay & watch, you forfeit your right to perfect safety. I don't think it need go as far as it has--& if a move to greater safety starts sooner, it can hit the point of "too much safety & too little enjoyment" sooner... Not to say I oppose improved driver safety measures; IMO, drivers who are safer, & feel safer, will race harder--& that means better racing.:cool: (Same way parachutes made fighter pilots more aggressive.)
Napoleon53 said:
Yikes, they'd probably have seizures looking artillery going off then. :eek:
:eek: I don't doubt there could be panics & heart attacks.:eek: At least the first few times...
Napoleon53 said:
Interesting. Given the infantry weapons of the time, I'd say trenches are almost assured. Generals are going to insist upon using mounted machine guns like Vickers, and no one in their right mind is going to carry around something like that in an advance/charge of infantry, and when they dig in, the other side's infantry will dig in to take cover.
It's less about MG than artillery, which by 1897 was back to the most lethal thing on the battlefield again. Without a/c, trench networks become less likely. Entrenchments (field works), sure, just not the "mountains to sea" networks of OTL. Nor the dead-static warfare: railway & road offer considerable opportunities for mobility, if the enemy can't watch your every move from an eye in the sky... (Think of Stuart in the ACW--& of the influence of his absence at Gettysburg.:eek:)
Napoleon53 said:
Honestly I just wanted an easy way to spoof Hitler tropes and TV. :p:D
Fair enough.;)
 
i thought i'd revive this thread because i find the idea of earlier photographs and motion pictures to be fascinating (as well as playing into a basic idea i had for a small part of my ASB ATL). i decided to go over the basic history of photography (read: as written on Wikipedia :p) and found an interesting part (i bolded the interesting parts):
The oldest surviving permanent photograph of the image formed in a camera was created in 1826 or 1827 by the French inventor Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.[1] The photograph was produced on a polished pewter plate. The light-sensitive material was a thin coating of bitumen, a naturally occurring petroleum tar, which was dissolved in white petroleum, applied to the surface of the plate and allowed to set before use.[8] After a very long exposure in the camera (traditionally said to be eight hours, but possibly several days), the bitumen was sufficiently hardened in proportion to its exposure to light that the unhardened part could be removed with a solvent, leaving a positive image with the light regions represented by hardened bitumen and the dark regions by bare pewter.[8] To see the image plainly, the plate had to be lit and viewed in such a way that the bare metal appeared dark and the bitumen relatively light.[9]

Niépce had previously experimented with paper coated with silver chloride. Unlike earlier experimenters with silver salts, he succeeded in photographing the images formed in a small camera, producing his first results in 1816, but like his predecessors he was unable to prevent the coating from darkening all over when exposed to light for viewing. As a result, he had become disenchanted with silver compounds and turned his attention to bitumen and other light-sensitive organic substances.[9]

In partnership, Niépce (in Chalon-sur-Saône) and Louis Daguerre (in Paris) refined the bitumen process,[10] substituting a more sensitive resin and a very different post-exposure treatment that yielded higher-quality and more easily viewed images. Exposure times in the camera, although somewhat reduced, were still measured in hours.[9]

In 1833 Niépce died of a stroke, leaving his notes to Daguerre. More interested in silver-based processes than Niépce had been, Daguerre experimented with photographing camera images directly onto a silver-surfaced plate that had been fumed with iodine vapor, which reacted with the silver to form a coating of silver iodide. Exposure times were still impractically long. Then, by accident according to traditional accounts, Daguerre made the pivotal discovery that an invisibly faint latent image produced on such a plate by a much shorter exposure could be "developed" to full visibility by mercury fumes. This brought the required exposure time down to a few minutes under optimum conditions. A strong hot solution of common salt served to stabilize or fix the image by removing the remaining silver iodide. On 7 January 1839[citation needed], Daguerre announced this first complete practical photographic process to the French Academy of Sciences[citation needed], and the news quickly spread. At first, all details of the process were withheld and specimens were shown only to a trusted few[citation needed],. Arrangements were made for the French government to buy the rights in exchange for pensions for Niépce's son and Daguerre[citation needed], and then present it to the world (with the de facto exception of Great Britain) as a free gift[citation needed],. Complete instructions were published on 19 August 1839[citation needed],.
what i'm getting at is that, if Daguerre could accidentally discover the shorter exposure time, what's to say that Niepce couldn't do the same between 1816 and 1826/1827? this could very well be the earliest POD we're looking for with earlier photographs and film, with other changes resulting in earlier color film, motion pictures, and talkies being attributable to butterflies after the initial POD
 

Flubber

Banned
what i'm getting at is that, if Daguerre could accidentally discover the shorter exposure time, what's to say that Niepce couldn't do the same between 1816 and 1826/1827?


The state of chemical knowledge available to him, the variety of chemicals available to him, and the purity of chemicals available to him among other things.

Niepce did ground breaking work, but he didn't have the materials available to Daguerre less than a decade later. Chemistry was advancing that quickly.
 
a fair point, but what's to say it couldn't have developed a little sooner? if it was, indeed, advancing that quickly, why couldn't it appear sooner?

which reminds me, i need to get back to going over those details and see what more i can find for a possible POD
 

Flubber

Banned
a fair point, but what's to say it couldn't have developed a little sooner? if it was, indeed, advancing that quickly, why couldn't it appear sooner?


That's a hard question to answer. Not because it can't be explained, but because it would take a several posts.

I'm going to ask a question now that is not meant to be insulting in any way, but the answer is fundamental to the question you're asking about chemistry. Okay?

Are you aware of any technological progress during your life? I mean, have there "always" been cell phones, laptops, video games, and so forth for as long as you've been aware?

Talk to a teen or young adult and their experience of "progress" is when Assassin's Creed 4 replaced Assassin's Creed 3, when iPhone5 replaced iPhone4, or each year's new Madden relelase. They can't quite grasp the point that there were video games and cell phones earlier but they were nothing like the 2013 variety. They can't even fathom a time when there were no cells of video games, let alone when automobile tires had inner tubes.

Their incomprehension has them asking the same questions like "Why weren't they produced sooner?", "Why didn't people know they would work?", "Didn't people want that stuff?". Sounds a lot like your questions regarding chemistry, doesn't it?

Chemistry advanced pretty much as fast as it could. Not having Lavoisier end up at the guillotine might have sped things up a little, but research into basic science requires thousands of tiny advances in basic theory, technology, and manufacturing across a huge spectrum of disciplines along the way. Chemists needed to invent equipment, chemists needed to share ideas, chemists needed to perform thousands upon thousands of seemingly dead end experiments. Many times chemists needed to wait for advances in equipment and ideas from other fields, not that they knew it at the time.

It took us almost 60 years to spot the Higgs boson after it had been theorized and it was done using equipment which could have never conceived of in the early 60s. We needed to wait for advances in and equipment from dozens of different disciplines even though we knew specifically what we were looking for.

Progress is fractal in a way, it's not some uniformly smooth wave moving forward at a steady speed and which only needs to be goosed every so often. There are lumps, bumps, hillocks, and slow spots. An edge here lags behind while an edge there runs ahead for a time.

You could have Niepce come up with the mercury fume trick, but he'd been working with silver chlorides, not iodides, and he'd been working with them for over a decade. Perhaps he believed he'd exhausted their potential and that's why he moved to organics. Perhaps he was just ready for a change.

There's another point to consider here, the goals of the two men in question. Niepce was a general chemical researcher while Daguerre was a businessman.

Niepce wasn't trying to produce photographs. His results were simply one of many results he got while researching light sensitive chemicals. He noted the effect, investigated it for a while, and moved on to other areas that interested him.

Daguerre on the other hand was looking specifically for something like photographs. He was making tons of money with his very popular diorama theaters, but if he could develop a way to quickly produce the tableaux the theaters used he could make more money still. Something like photographs could allow him to print all the tableaux he needed.

Niecpe was conducting basic research and documenting everything he found while Daguerre was conducting research towards a specific goal. It shouldn't be surprising that both men produced different results.

Finally, I've often thought photography could have been developed as an alchemist's trick very early on. It's not that hard - once you stumble across the process.
 
well to give you some perspective, i was born in 1990; computers were the big new thing, then cell phones ;) it is, indeed, incredible how fast technology advances
 

Flubber

Banned
well to give you some perspective, i was born in 1990; computers were the big new thing, then cell phones ;) it is, indeed, incredible how fast technology advances


So you do have some conception of progress then.

(FWIW, I built my first home computer over a dozen years before you were born. ;) )

Over the holidays a fourteen year old nephew of mine asked, in all innocence mind you, why it "took so long" for flat screens and touchscreens to be developed. I tried to explain the many technologies "beneath the surface" of those seemingly simple devices and his eyes glazed over. People just should have made them, he opined, because it's obvious they're better than CRTs and keyboards. :rolleyes:
 

Flubber

Banned
And before I forget about the other half of the question here; movies...

You're going to need machined screw threads for movie cameras and projectors because you're going to need drive screws with a uniform thread pitch.

Whether hand cranked or motor driven and whether the film is being exposed or projected, you cannot have the film's frame rate varying due to varying thread pitch and produce any sort of visual fidelity.

That means you're going to have to wait for Maudslay to produce his screw-cutting lathe around 1800 CE.
 
Flubber said:
That means you're going to have to wait for Maudslay to produce his screw-cutting lathe around 1800 CE.
I'm not seeing anyone suggesting this should (could, would) be done before about 1860. IIRC, the fundamental inventions existed, including celluloid for film. (You do also need someone to invent roll film...)

The difference between Niepce & Daguerre is a crucial one. For this to be done sooner, you need someone with a need, or a desire, to spark the required development(s). So who takes the *Daguerre role for film? Who needs roll film? The obvious choice I see is the military...but that's a bit convenient.:rolleyes: They didn't press for it OTL.:rolleyes:
 
im starting to think that our earliest possible POD would be for Lavoisier to avoid execution; whatever contributions he could make in his remaining life could speed up the OTL schedule of chemistry and therefore photography by however many years; from there, the butterfly effect could very well cause some other discoveries and inventions to occur a little earlier than IOTL, adding on to the schedule speed-up (so, for example, if Lavoisier makes a contribution in 1804, that could speed up the schedule by, say, five years; then, Niepce could conceivably make further discoveries based on that, leading to the oldest surviving permanent photographs dating to 1820 rather than 1826, speeding up the discovery by another six years. adding these together, Daguerre may discover mercury fumes can develop latent images from shorter exposures as many as eleven years earlier than IOTL).

just an idea ;)

also, it took me a while, but here's a very basic run-down of what photography's history based on what's on wikipedia:

  • 1816
    • Niepce successfully photographs images in a small camera but they darken with continued exposure
  • 1826/7
    • oldest surviving permanent photograph formed in a camera (produced on polished pewter plate with bitumen and eight hours of exposure)
  • 1830s
    • motion pictures are produced with revolving drums and disks independently by von Stampfer, Plateau, and Horner in Austria, Belgium, and Britain, respectively
  • 1833
    • Niepce dies of a stroke and leaves his notes to Daguerre
  • 1835
    • Talbot succeeds in creating stabilized photographic negatives
  • 1839
    • January 7: Daguerre announces his complete photographic process with brief exposure and further development from latent images in mercury fumes; at first, the process's details are withheld
    • August 19: complete instructions for Daguerre's process are published
    • Talbot begins working to perfect his own photographic process
    • Herschel makes the first glass negative, but it's difficult to reproduce
  • 1840
    • Talbot invents the calotype process (chemically developing faint/invisible latent images); calotype negatives can be used to make numerous positive prints via contact printing; Talbot patents it, greatly limiting its adoption; the calotype process was further refined by Eastman after Talbot gave up on photography
  • 1841
    • Puhar invents a process for making photographs on glass (recognize July 17 1852)
  • 1847
    • Niepce St. Victor publishes his invention of a process to make glass plates with albumen emulsion
    • Levitsky designs a bellow camera that improved the process of focusing
  • 1849
    • Levitsky's photos of the Caucasus are exhibited; he also first proposes the idea of artificial light in a studio
  • 1851
    • Archer inventions the collodion process
    • Levitsky wins the first gold medal for a portrait photograph
  • 1861
    • Maxwell creates the first color photo
  • 1862
    • several patentable methods for producing images are devised
  • 1870s
    • emulsions not sensitive to red or green light become available
  • 1872
    • June 19: Muybridge photographs a horse in fast motion using 24 stereoscopic cameras at Palo Alto
  • 1873
    • a practical method to make silver halide film sensitive to green light is discovered by Vogel
  • 1881
    • Berkeley publishes his discovery that dithionite was not needed in the developing process
  • 1882
    • Marey invents a chronophotographic gun capable of taking 12 consecutive frames a second to study organic locomotion
  • 1884
    • Eastman develops dry gel on paper (film) to replace photographic plates to make plates and boxes and toxic chemical unncessesary
    • Vogel discovers a method to sensitive silver halide film to orange light
  • 1887
    • Anschutz presents his electrotachyscope
  • 1888
    • July: Eastman's Kodak camera hits the market (mass-marketed in 1901)
    • October 14: the Roundhay Garden Scene is filmed in Leeds, England, as the earliest known surviving motion picture
  • 1889
    • June 21: Friese-Greene is issued patent #10131 for his chronophotographic camera capable of taking up to ten photos per second with perforated celluloid film
  • 1890
    • February 28: the British Photographic News publishes a report on Friese-Greene's camera
    • March 18: Friese-Greene sends a clipping of the story to Edison, who had been developing the kinetoscope
    • April 19: the report on Friese-Greene's camera is reprinted in Scientific American
  • 1891
    • the kinetograph is patented
  • 1893
    • results of Edison's work on the kinetograph are shown to the public for the first time
    • Edison introduces the Kinetograph and Kinetoscope at the Chicago World's Fair, which quickly spreads to Europe, but Edison never tries to get Europeann patents for it
  • 1894
    • Anshutz's electrotachyscope projects moving pictures in Berlin
    • February 5: Le Roy presents his Marvellous Cinematograph to a group of twenty in New York City on his fortieth birthday
    • June: Jenkins shows his Phantoscope for the first time
  • 1895
    • May: Lauste devises his Eidoloscope for the Lathams
    • November 1 - 31: Skladanowsky presents the first motion-picture film with their Biscop apparatus
    • December: Lumiere's cinematographe projects pictures to a Paris audience; after this, the Edison company (and other inventors) develops its own projector
  • 1907
    • the first practical color plate, Autochrome, reaches the market
  • 1925
    • the 35mm film Leica camera is introduced
  • 1957
    • first digitally scanned photographs


i think another important thing to consider for potential subsequent PODs due to the butterfly effect would be the accidental discoveries that are made, such as Daguerre finding out about mercury fumes and their development capabilities. since its discovery at that time was a mistake, after all, why couldn't it have been made slightly earlier by someone else, or later on, even?



and again, the list i provided above is just a very basic run-down of the historical timeline of photography and film
 
That's amazing Oshron. :eek: I would very much like to borrow that TL of events for my What Madness Is This? TL, with necessary changes as needed to make it fit, of course. Would you mind? I'd give you full credit. :)
 
i honestly can't take credit; that's all what happened historically, i just compiled it into a list and cut out some stuff inbetween. all of those details are on these two wikipedia articles (keep in mind that i only looked at the text under "Precursors of film" for motion picture history and didn't go on into the Silent Era). i compiled it just to list the events we should look at for figuring out how permanent photos and motion pictures can develop sooner
 
Top