[buck746]

It lost because there were only 3 prisms made. It also required a lot more lot as running thru an optical splitter means at least half of your light was lost, it's not a big issue today. Modern cameras are insanely more sensitive than film was at the time. Alfred Hitchcock used this on "The Birds". In the YouTube video they got a great result even with a smaller studio than would have been used on Mary Poppins. The trick needed the screen as far back as you could get it to minimize the chance of spill, that used to be normal on blue screen before the software improved.

[kadoban]

> It lost because there were only 3 prisms made.

But it seems so much better that that shouldn't have been a blocker. Like optics isn't magic, and knowing that someone did it before should be enough incentive? Not like movies are a small or poor industry.

[astrodust]

Incentive is one thing, budget is another.

Keep in mind stuff gets lost all the time, even really important things like nuclear weapon components like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank

[cooper_ganglia]

I wonder if it’s just more cost effective to use a well-established tool like green screen, and then contract out all the rotoscoping clean-up to other countries for less than minimum wage?

[wbl]

Today we could use a dichoric coating but back then I think fabrication was much harder.