Forum Archive Home -> Advanced Video Conversion -> Film colorization how made ?
| Film colorization how made ? | ||||||
| arturjose posted 2007 May 13 19:53 | ||||||
| Hello
I have read this : http://www.legendfilms.net/index.html http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20060727-9999-1b27legend.html how to made this ? this is made with any Software ? you Know this Software? Thank You :) :?: :cry: | ||||||
| Marvingj posted 2007 May 13 20:08 | ||||||
| During the late 1950s and the 1960s, black and white cartoons were redistributed in color—the colorization process was done by tracing the original black and white frames onto new animation cels, and then adding color to the new cels.[2] With computer technology, studios were able to add color to black and white films by digitally tinting single objects in each frame of the film until it was fully colorized. The initial process was invented by Canadians Wilson Markle and Brian Hunt[3] and was first used in 1970 to add color to monochrome footage of the moon from the Apollo mission.
Colorization typically begins with a monochrome film print. From the film print, a high quality videotape copy is made. Technicians, aided by a computer, identify the grey level of every object in every shot and note any movement of objects within shots. A computer adds color to each object, while keeping grey levels the same as in the monochrome original.[4] This technique was patented in 1991.[5] Movies colorized using early techniques have softer contrast and fairly pale, flat, washed out color. However, the technology has improved since the 1980s, and several black and white TV shows and films have been given what some viewers find to be a completely lifelike colorization. A major difficulty with colorization has been its labor-intensiveness. For example, in order to colorize a still image an artist typically begins by dividing the image into regions, and then proceeds to assign a color to each region. This approach, also known as the segmentation method, is time consuming and requires a great deal of painstaking work on dividing the picture into correct segments. This problem occurs mainly since there are no fully automatic algorithms that always identify correctly fuzzy or complex region boundaries, such as between a subject’s hair and face. Colorization of moving images also requires tracking regions as movement occurs across the frames of a particular scene. Again, there have been no completely reliable automatic region-tracking algorithms. One computer-assisted method for colorizing was developed by a team of researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Benin School of Computer Science and Engineering. The new method is an interactive process that does not require precise, manual, region detection, nor accurate tracking and is based on the simple premise that nearby pixels in space and time that have similar grey levels should also have similar colors.[6] | ||||||
| jman98 posted 2007 May 13 20:30 | ||||||
| Oh joy - the bastardization of colorizing black and white movies now sucks less than it used to. Combine this with the fake 5.1 mixes made from mono and you have a perfect fantasy of a film that never existed where somehow a black and white mono film is now in "color" and "5.1 audio". I guess this is perfect for the ADD generation, but I happen to be someone who thinks the past doesn't need to be "improved" this way. | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2007 May 14 04:28 | ||||||
Add to this the xenophobic need of the illiterate to remake perfectly good non-English language films into mediocre shadows of their former selves, and the collection of bastardry is complete. | ||||||
| Forum Troll posted 2007 May 14 05:05 | ||||||
| I remember once watching a colorized version of A Christmas Carol ... it was like a three year old had colored it with pastel chalk .. as a purist, I am against modifying it, but the studios do have the right to sell their product ... and I guess some people just can't stand black and white films. As they say, you can't please all the people all the time. Same reason why pan/scan was created. Oh well. :? | ||||||
| hech54 posted 2007 May 14 05:16 | ||||||
Do you really think you are going to do this on your home computer? | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2007 May 14 05:22 | ||||||
| And Hollywood is in the lowest common denominator business . . . .
However, as we cater to all, a little googling also found this http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=57879 I also seem to remember a discussion at Doom9 regarding an avisynth plugin that was being developed, however I couldn't find it with my brief search | ||||||
| dphirschler posted 2007 May 14 09:32 | ||||||
| I do like what they have done with stabilizing the image though. No more jumping frames.
Darryl | ||||||
| arturjose posted 2007 May 14 15:45 | ||||||
| In these days i have read some pages, look that study:
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~yweiss/Colorization/ The Result there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5r0SFbT8fc http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~yweiss/Colorization/colorization-siggraph04.pdf And now other: http://www.timebrush.com/ (Revival, and Restoration of Black & White Television Shows, Motion Pictures) that "enterprise" made services colorisation in hold B/W film Video The Secret is well hidden! but exist, is possible, only lack the name of the software/s and more explanation Thank You to all Help | ||||||
| edDV posted 2007 May 14 16:10 | ||||||
| Blame Ted Turner for all this. | ||||||
| hech54 posted 2007 May 14 16:31 | ||||||
| I met Ted Turner once MANY years ago before he became a "mogul"....he was an asshole then too.
:):) | ||||||
| ROBERT BLACK posted 2007 May 14 16:48 | ||||||
If only more people would recognize this as a blatant disregard and eventual destruction of culture their would indeed be hope. Unfortunately that isn't the case. Ours are minority opinions. | ||||||
| edDV posted 2007 May 14 16:59 | ||||||
Extend this to honoring the technology of the time. Put yourself into the period experience. If the movie was black and white, experience it as black and white. Should one evaluate a 1920's New York restaurant against current trends? | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 01 18:34 | ||||||
| I would hope everyone posting on this site would visit http://www.legendfilms.net. There are many positive aspects to colorization that most people do not realize. There is very little incentive for the studios to restore their deep catalog titles and certainly public domain titles receive no attention... until now. Colorization actually helps subsidize the restoration of these evergreen classics. Legend Films has restored over 75 classics to date. The restoration would not have commercial value had colorization not been part of the equation. Legend Films always includes the restored black and white version with the colorized version.
Ray Harryhausen always wanted his fantasy films to be produced in color. His mentor, Merian C. Cooper also envisioned his films in color, particularly SHE which Cooper designed and intended to direct in color. However, Cooper's budget was cut by RKO at the last minute leaving him to lens the very colorfully designed film in black and white. Here, the film was intended to be shot in color and we had the color references. Ray color designed Cooper's SHE as well as his two SONY classics, 20 Million Miles To Earth and Earth vs The Flying Saucers the way he originally envisioned them. He complained that there was not a sufficient budget for color filming and even if there was, the color stock available at the time did not allow him to composite with suffient quality. Ray painted the monster he animated from 20 Million Miles in dark greed so he could have a better feel for the character. Ray's color premiere of 20 Million Miles To Earth was received with unanimous acclaim at the LA Film Festival yesterday. Ray will be presenting the colorized film personally at Comic-Con in San Diego on July 27th. An 87 year old Hollywood Icon and pioneer in stop motion who Speilberg, Lucas and Scorsese consider a mentor. Ray Harryhausen gets it! Would anyone deprive him of seeing his films the way he envisioned them? BTW, he approached Legend Films, not the other way around. Thanks, Barry | ||||||
| JohnnyMalaria posted 2007 Jul 01 18:40 | ||||||
| I hate colorized films.
However, by colorizing them, you can appeal to those who cannot stand B/W and - best of all - you can turn the color off and get the intended B/W form! | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 01 18:52 | ||||||
| Choice = good. Dictating what someone should watch or how someone should watch it = not good (and rather arrogant). You should watch your black and white original versions. Hopefully you'll choose to watch the fully restored versions that accompany the colorized versions which subsidized that restoration rather than the decaying crap that existed before colorization.
It's wonderful to have a point of view but one should not impose that point of view on others. Also, crtitics should look at the preservation angle that will make these films available to new generations in black and white and in color. Thanks, Barry jpg[/img] | ||||||
| arturjose posted 2007 Jul 02 03:01 | ||||||
| In the first Post my Question is:
"this is made with any Software ? you Know this Software? " The real response is : THE Software, have the Name MATLAB if any want confirm That, download the zip http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~yweiss/Colorization/colorization.zip this Zip is in that page: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~yweiss/Colorization the project in colorization.zip, open in MATLAB..... MATLAB is the soluction to colorize, but i no understand that program, is very complicated to me :( | ||||||
| JohnnyMalaria posted 2007 Jul 02 08:06 | ||||||
| MATLAB is a hard-core mathematical and scientific application and is very expensive (>$1900). As you note, it is also very complicated!
The software on that site requires the main MATLAB program to run. | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 02 08:20 | ||||||
Absolutely not. Legend Films is a proprietary process that is far more sophisticated that what optimizatiion claims. It's built on pattern recognition algorithms that allow for detail that optimization could never attain. There have been no movies colorized using that software to date and is little more than a novel form of PhotoShop without the bells and whistles. Legend Film's process is resolution independent using log or linear 16 bit black and white as opposed to typical 8 bits of other processes. The resulting images are 48bits color. | ||||||
| JohnnyMalaria posted 2007 Jul 02 10:29 | ||||||
I was refering to the MATLAB code in the link provided by arturjose, not your company's product.... | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2007 Jul 13 05:37 | ||||||
| My copy of SHE has just arrived from Amazon, and I am still waiting on Carnival of Lost Souls and House on Haunted Hill to ship. I hope to sit down this weekend and watch both versions, as well as the extras (not a bad collection for an independent outfit).
From what I have seen thus far, Ray is certainly a big wrap for your process, the general restoration of the footage is pretty good (again, this is mostly from the extras and a quick chapter skip through the film), and the colourisation is certainly an improvement on previous attempts. Some of the colour is strikingly strong, although some colours and scenes still have somewhat of an "Eastman Color" pastel feel to them. You have won over my son though. He has been a fan of the original King Kong since he was four, and a Harryhausen fan for the past couple of years (loves Jason and the Argonauts, and understands now the historical link to Spy Kids II). He was watching the trailer for the colourised version of SHE and stated that "it looks awesome". This is from an 8 year old who also grew up on Harry Potter and Spiderman movies. Anyway, I'll post my feelings further once I have watched SHE (both versions) and the other discs (when they arrive - perhaps you could hurry up the pressing plant - you have people waiting). | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 13 16:47 | ||||||
| Thanks gunslinger and gunslinger, jr.
So glad you both like SHE. We premiered it in LA to an industry crowd and got overwhelming praise and accolades from the audience. We premiered the color release of 20 Million Miles to Earth with SONY at the LA Film Festival last month and at the end of July I'll be presenting it at Comic-Con along with Ray doing running commentary. At the LA Joan premiere Taylor, the co-star was there as well as the little boy (Peppi) who is now 60. Joan hadn't see that film in 50 years. In addition, Legend Films has just completed Earth vs The Flying Saucers for SONY with Ray doing color design. Barry  | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2007 Jul 14 00:47 | ||||||
| I look forward to the release of both, although I suspect I'll have to get them on import.
SHE is a great film, and the restoration is quite good. Some of the cross fades are very grainy, but I understand how difficult it is to get these clean. From a critical perspective on the process, it certainly is an improvement on what was being done 10 years ago (as you would expect), and in many instances does look quite good. I guess the thing that stands out the most is the feel that there is a still a limited range of colour saturation across most of the film. Yet to me, the most effective colours were the strong colours - the green blanket and red robe in the drawing room scenes at the start, for instance. There also seemed to be an issue keeping consistency with some of the colours - Randolph Scott's shirt and jacket seemed to vary in saturation, especially in the latter scenes. I suspect this has something to do with the luminance of the original footage, which seems to veer toward almost over-exposed in some scenes. The trailers are also interesting. I assume they have been colourised individually, just like the films. Again, there seems to be a wide variance in effectiveness. Carnival of Souls and House on Haunted Hill both look quite good, and some effective moments that are aided by the use of colour. The trailer for Night of the Living Dead, on the other hand, just looked obviously colourised to me, rather than even remotely natural. In comparing the work done of SHE to colour films shot in a similar period - Wizard of OZ, for instance - I feel the biggest difference is still the total range of colour being achieved, and the level of saturation of those colours. Perhaps your technical directors could stand to be a bit bolder in some instances ? I think the work you have done with SHE is very good, and you are right - it is a small price to pay if it also results in restored black and white versions, especially when you get the whole package for the same price. I look forward to the arrival of the next two discs (hurry up, Amazon), and the release of 20 Million Miles to Earth and Earth Vs The Flying Saucers. | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 14 22:05 | ||||||
| Gunslinger,
The Legend Films technology provides our designers with a visual guage of the available spectrum of luminance for color application and the amount of saturation that can be applied to "fit" that spectrum. There is ideally a one to one application of color to grey scale. If more saturation is applied than can "fit" the available grey scale (luminance) then it will look artificial. The result is a colorized film that looks like it was originally shot in color. Often the color looks vintage because the underlying gray scale looks vintage. In other words, we cannot (would not) push saturaton if the underlying grey scale can't handle it. If you look at Legend Films' DVD of My Man Godfrey you will see a beautifully colorized film that, by design does not look at all current, but looks appropriate for the vintage quality of the film. Many people actually think that all colorized films should look like they were produced today. Actually a colorized film is a creative derivative work that is another interpretation of the film that should stand alone and should not be compared to nor expected to replace the black and white original. Often, as in Carnival of Souls, Reefer Madness and Plan 9 From Outer Space, we take creative liberty with the film and do not attempt to create simply a "realistic" look from the black and white print or negative. If we had a black and white version of Wizard Of Oz with the same print quality and dynamic range of luminance as the color version, we could certainly duplicate the color and saturation that you are familiar with. However, not all vintage films are of that quality. Legend Films never (or only under rare conditions) modifies the original underlying luminance of the films we colorize. That is the one variable we do not try to control. The highlights, midtones and shadows should remain intact. Indeed, when we produce colorization for the major studios the films are delivered to us digitally with the precise black and white look that the studio designs. Consequently, we do not modify the underlying grey scale in any way because that would infringe on the way the studio wants it to look. . | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2007 Jul 14 23:02 | ||||||
| There are very very FEW originally B&W films that benefit from it.
Almost all B&W classic were shot without color because of budget constraints rather than because the director's envisioned them in B&W, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be colorized. Such discussion with "B&W purists against colorizations" will be unheard of in next 30 or so years, once all the people who lived through B&W period are gone :) But then, the colorization have to be perfected, of course. As everyone else I've seen some piss-poor "colorization attempts" that only degraded film's perception insead of enhance it. | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 14 23:21 | ||||||
| With the advances of Legend Films colorization process, Ray Harryhausen has, over the past two years made the colorization of his black and white films a crusade. He was deprived of his original vision because of budget constraints and difficulties in compositing with the color stock then available. He has also colorized his mentor's SHE (Merian C. Cooper) after RKO cut the budget at the last minute forcing the filming of SHE in B&W inspite of the fact that Cooper designed and directed the film full of colorful costumes, color effects and dramatic color ambiance. | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2007 Jul 15 00:36 | ||||||
How will you guys deal with the movies that were not prepared to be made in color, but deliberately set from the ground up to be shot in B&W? I know wardrobe people back then used i.e. very weird clothes colors (they often intentionally dyed them too) just to have that 'special greytone' on a B&W screen... same things often happen to cast's make-up. Hence my question. Because I don't think "perfect" colorization of such scenes, where they i.e. applied turquoise color make up on the actor's forehead just to make it look more dim than the rest of his face (which appeared as darker grey in B&W movie apparently) would be any great idea either ;) | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 15 19:57 | ||||||
| Those exteme efforts you describe were rare. Howver, many of the hoops directors had to jump thru to create a look that would have been a no-brainer had color been available works in our favor. It improves the quality our deriviative creative color interpretations. | ||||||
| arturjose posted 2007 Jul 15 21:44 | ||||||
| Mister BARRY SANDREW, if you want propaganda and clients to your company, open you one Topic.
This Topis is to discuss how made colorization in Black an withe Movies | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2007 Jul 15 21:57 | ||||||
| Have you looked at his site ? You opened this thread asking how to colourise black and white film. You even linked to Legend Films' website yourself. Your topic peaked the interest of the president of that company and now you insult him.
If you had asked what it was like to walk on the moon, and Neil Armstrong had come and posted, would you have been so rude to him. Poor form. | ||||||
| arturjose posted 2007 Jul 15 22:02 | ||||||
| Example:
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~yweiss/Colorization/ 
 | ||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2007 Jul 15 22:05 | ||||||
| I just wanted to say how nice it is to see somebody like the
President/COO of Legend Films, Inc., posting on a forum, and sharing some information. Bravo. | ||||||
| arturjose posted 2007 Jul 15 22:05 | ||||||
| VIDEO
With Matlab: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5r0SFbT8fc | ||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2007 Jul 15 22:06 | ||||||
This was vaporware from a few years ago. Go search the forum, about 2005. There was a lot of negative information on it. | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 15 22:33 | ||||||
I certainly would not be looking for clients on this site :wink: However I'm always interested in intelligent discourse on colorization. Apparently arthurjose is not interested in a balanced or even an positive discourse on colorization.  | ||||||
| arturjose posted 2007 Jul 15 23:00 | ||||||
| I did not learn so far a small technique about colorization
with your discourse, and i`am here to learn | ||||||
| arturjose posted 2007 Jul 15 23:21 | ||||||
| Mister Barry Sandrew
I`am 100% apologist to made all black and withe movie to colors I`am 100% apologist do encode Mono to Dolby Digital 5.1 congratulations for the work in your company, but i like learn is not my job, is not my work, is my hobby and my hobby is only for me, not for sale if you want see, i only can made that: The original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejn1Ijji51k and the same but made for me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR8Ah07tohI compared with your work this is one sh.... but i have learned alone to made that i only use Tmpgenc plus, if you have something, teach to me and to others users. Jose Araujo | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2007 Jul 16 02:15 | ||||||
| arturjose :
There are several photoshop plugins - recolour, blackmagic, coloraige - that do the same as the link you posted above. Still image processing, while complex, is simpler than colourising a video clip. With still images the colourising is applied based on tonal ranges withing areas define by edge detection routines. Nothing moves, so the processing is straight-forward once the colours and areas are defined. With video it is much more complex Objects move, lighting, and therefore luminescence, changes. Objects pass in front of and behind other objects, they cast shadows. All of these changes must be accounted for. Edges don't only have to be detected, but also tracked. It is very complex. You could use the plugins I have listed above (and google will find then easily) to colour video, but you would have to work frame at a time. Finally, if the results of this work were so simple to apply, why isn't this option in most NLEs, or widely available as a plugin ? Surely, if it can be easily applied to stills and video, as this page implies, then plugins for after effects would be easy to develop for those who have created photoshop versions. If you seriously want to learn how it works, rather than just, as it appears now, be handed a working solution that requires little effort of your part, download the siggraph paper and matlab code from the website you linked to and start reading. The fact that very few companies do colourisation, and those that do, like Legend Films, use proprietary software developed in-house over many years, is testament to just how complex and difficult it is to get right. | ||||||
| arturjose posted 2007 Jul 16 08:56 | ||||||
| Dear guns1inger
thanks. | ||||||
| gll99 posted 2007 Jul 16 18:47 | ||||||
| My 2 cents:
Rather than seeing it as a distortion of the original producers, author, director or studio's work, any technique that results in a restored print should be applauded. The early attempts at colorizing were less than successful but at least they tried and we shouldn't compare those to more recent results. Lets face it, for all the so called purists arguments, nothing is ever destroyed in this process. The original is still as it was. If I understood the representative from Legend Films correctly they even provide an improved copy of the bw print along with the colorized one so that's a bonus. As a child, I seem to recall many colour posters when the movie itself was in bw. Why did the studios advertising department provide those if they shunned colour so much. I really question how many Studios/Producer/Directors would have chosen bw if costs and the availability of the colour equipment were not a factor. There may be little advantage in colouring certain works ie... genre noir with often foggy or dark exteriors and dimly lit interiors where male actors often wore grey, white of black dinner jackets though much of the film. These were essentially filmed that way by making use shadows, fog etc... for dramatic effect when they were often done with very limited budgets and time constraints. In most cases, it was more a matter of the director working to best advantage within the limitations imposed by the financial backers rather than a choice to film in bw. It is doubtful that much would be gained in colorizing most of those. Excellent choices for conversion would be comedies, musicals and other broad scope movies where vibrant colours would bring life to the picture. Especially suitable are those where scenery and costumes make it obvious that they would have been filmed in colour without technological or budgetary constraints. | ||||||
| Nelson37 posted 2007 Jul 16 20:09 | ||||||
| The same kind of "purists" used to argue about how the horse was better, and how men should not fly because we do not have wings.
Whether a film is "better" in BW or color is debatable. Many have talked about the "original vision" of the creator. Few are backing Harryhousen's "original vision". How much of this BW hysteria is another form of "it was better in my day"? I look at it this way. Take a film like "12 angry men". An excellent movie for young people to see, in many ways. This could be said of many older movies. However, how many young people will sit through something so obviously old, or outdated? Many will simply automatically dismiss the film as worthless. Colorize it, and it will be more acceptable to them. Now something like "the Maltese Falcon" IMO would look silly in color. But if somebody wants to make a color version, more power to them. However wonderful the original is, if nobody watches it what is the value? | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 16 20:32 | ||||||
| Colorization is not better than the original black and white. It's different and should stand on it's own as a creative interpretation... i.e, a creative derivative work.
Many people look at colorization as simply the job of changing a B&W film to color. However it's much more involved and sophisticated than that. The designer has a great deal of latitude in how he or she wants the film to look and uses the underlying b&w as a structure and guide on which to build their own interpretation of the film. | ||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2007 Jul 16 21:07 | ||||||
| I often mistake early color film as colorized. It was just not very good. I might have to check out a Legend Films release, I'm curious how 21st century colorization techniques look.
But I'll always prefer the B&W. For nostalgia, if nothing else. I colorize B&W photos, but I paint them by hand (in software). I don't use an automatic routine of any kind. It's not the same. | ||||||
| Marvingj posted 2007 Jul 16 21:51 | ||||||
| The chief objection to the colorization of movies in the 1980s was it represented a diversion from the intentions of their creators. The fact that it is the creators of the texts now making the digitally inspired changes doesn't make it forgivable. The creators' intentions were what they were when they created these works, and that doesn't change because their intentions might be different if they were creating the same works today.
Another understandable factor for the "new colorization" is the need for the owners of these bodies of work to make them continually lucrative. Let's face it, as much as we believe films and (to a much lesser extent) television programs are works of art, they are also equally works of commerce. In this age of the "long tail" when it comes to music and moving images, movies, and such can continue to be assets with ongoing value for many, many years. It behooves their creators and owners to ensure they will continue to be marketable. Even though CGI alterations may not end up being any more long lasting than colorization was, right now such updates are, in some cases, thought to be necessary. | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2007 Jul 17 01:56 | ||||||
Obviously NONE :) AFAIR very few i.e. "film-noir" were made with B&W in mind from the get go. 99.99% of B&W films were made in B&W just and only because of budget. Wasn't it Hitchcock who said that he regret not being "famous director" from the begining? (because it would spare him from constant battle over the budgets - and sacrifices such as lack of color negatives). Purists can always take down the color on their tvs (simply slide the saturation to 0) and voila, they still enjpy B&W cleaned-up and restored version (if original "B&W" version hasn't been included - which IMHO is a waste of space on a DVD). Same goes for those opposing "fake" multichannel sound - how hard it is to push buttons on your amplifier to have the sound back in MONO?! "Purists" should go fcuk themselves and never come back LOL | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2007 Jul 17 04:41 | ||||||
| Except that taking down the colour on your TV is not the same thing.
Hitchcock chose to make Psycho in black and white for two reasons. One was budgetary - he wanted to make a film on a small budget, in a short time frame utilizing his TV crew. The other reason for black and white was so he make the shower scene the way he wanted. If it had been in colour it would never have got past the censors. In the last 20 years, several films have been shot in released in black and white - Schindler's List, The Man Who Wasn't There, PI, The Good German. These were artistic decisions on the part of the film-makers. There is nothing wrong with the preservation of the original films. Prior to colour, films were planned for and designed for black and white - that was all they had to work with. Many films gain nothing at all from the conversion to colour, other than to appease the moron audience who have the attention span of oh look ! a beetle !. Citizen Kane doesn't become a greater film because it is in colour, or less powerful because it isn't. I accept that the technology is moving forward and the colourising processes being employed now are a great improvement over the techniques used a decade ago. I also accept that colourising and releasing colourised version of older films may be the only way to ensure the preservation of the originals in many cases. But if you honestly cannot watch a film because it isn't in colour then you aren't really watching the film. A great film is a great film because of the content - the story, the characters, the acting, the directing. If all of that means nothing simply because it was shot in black and white then adding colour really isn't going to change your experience. | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2007 Jul 17 05:23 | ||||||
Therefore I am sure it is safe to assume and you'll agree, that it would have been similar (if not exactly the same) percentage of films that were deliberately shot in B&W in the older times as well, and thats what I was talking about earlier. One every few thousands of old movies was really made with B&W in mind, the rest, 99.99% of them, were shot in B&W just because they couldn't afford color reels, thats all.
Exactly. Such people will not buy "Citizen Kane" regardless of it being color or B&W, FS or WS or HD, or even if in the future it will be 'restored' to some futuristic "Real 3-D" - they still won't buy it, much less understand it even if someone else would force them to see it. Thats normal. After all we are NOT the same, we all differ intellectually (and in many other ways), despite what all the politically correct pigs try to teach and preach and brainwash the masses. But... we're not discussing such people here (and I doubt there are any in this thread either) ;) There is nothing wrong with "color restoration" same as there is nothing wrong with any restoration of old films (or sound, ie music). If any "purist" misses i.e. brownish hue of the B&W film (if thats what you meant by taking down color on tv not being the same) they can always choose NOT to buy colored version, I still see no problem at all. | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2007 Jul 17 05:47 | ||||||
| If you understood anything about film design, especially for black and white film, then you would understand why turning down the colour on a colour film is not the same as watching the black and white print.
However it is obvious by your tone and attitude that there is no reasonable discourse to be had here. | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2007 Jul 17 05:56 | ||||||
Yeah, right. Just don't buy any colourized versions, is anyone pointing a gun to your head at the dvd stand or something? :O Since youre such purist, why do you even buy B&W DVDs - do you even understand how the B&W films end up on your color DVD (even though the film appear as B&W)? :D You should buy a projector and reels instead if youre such purist LOL because I can assure you, the 'distortion' that you would experience from turning down color on a color film is *nothing* compared to 'distortion' you are experiencing every time any film is being displayed on *any* tv versus it being projected on the screen :D | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2007 Jul 17 07:40 | ||||||
| If you had bothered to read any of the preceding thread you know that I have in fact already purchased and commented on one of Legend Films colourised versions, with two more now in the post. I appreciate the technical side of what they are doing, and also appreciate the fact that they ship both the restored black and white original as well as the colourised version. They also happen to pull together a pretty good extra package - something else you probably consider a waste of space on the disc.
If only you had some idea of what you were talking about, this might be worth continuing on with. | ||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2007 Jul 17 09:01 | ||||||
| Any photographer will tell you that stripping color is not the same as shooting B&W. I guess you'd require darkroom, shooting AND viewing time to get that one. | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 19 12:32 | ||||||
EXACTLY! And that's why colorization does not ruin a black and white film. If a classic is destroyed by colorization then it probably isn't a classic to begin with. Used effectively, color enhances the perception and interpretation of the film and the original creative intent. Hey... no one should get heated over the colorization issue. It's really nothing more than a issue of choice. FYI - if colorization were not in demand, I'd open a car wash. | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2007 Jul 19 18:20 | ||||||
| A bad colourisation is like the audio being slightly off-sync. Some people won't notice, some people wont care, and for some it will be unwatchable. It becomes a distraction and ultimately ruins the experience. That was part of the problem with early attempts at computer colourisation. | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 19 18:29 | ||||||
I agree, but that's no longer an issue. | ||||||
| manono posted 2007 Jul 19 21:12 | ||||||
I disagree. I prefer to think that if a film is enhanced by colorization, then it isn't a classic to begin with. Look no further than your own Reefer Madness. A crummy movie made more enjoyable by the colorization. Purple smoke indeed! | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Jul 19 21:48 | ||||||
The restored black and white has pure white smoke, just the way you like it. The Legend Films DVD is now the best black and white version available and it exists in High Definition as well. That wouldn't have been possible had we not provided the colorized version. As a consequence we greatly increased the asset value of the film as measured by our sales. FYI: There is no incentive for anyone to transfer and restore public domain classics to High Definition. Look at the PD crap that is on the shelves selling for a buck. Those unwatchable black and white versions would be all you could purchase if it was not for the latest advances in colorization. | ||||||
| AlfredBergman posted 2007 Jul 30 21:18 | ||||||
| Colorization can represent a vast variable gamma of possibilities and design of colors, as said Barry Sandrew. I do colorization myself and know about the process quite well.
I invite all you to take a look on those colorizations of B&W photographs & movie stills: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/1/alberto/web/alberto.htm Unlike Legend Films agreement with studios, imposition from studios, I usually alter the b&W original contrast adjust, getting britter, darker, or lower or higher contrast, according my intentions for the colorization. In my humble opinion the original film B&W grading scene to scene could be adjusted a little, when needed, to be adequate for colorization. I don't refer about apatial alteration of contrast in a specific are of a frame, but a contrast adjust along the entire frame, as a photographer use to in developement and exposuredo in B&W photograph. There are scenes on some Legend Films work, that, despite of great technology, didn't get well due the fact of the original contrast balance, for the scene, was too weird to proper get colors. Like too bright, or too flat middle range tones etc, lacking density etc. Think with me: Once the B&W original version are available as a separated film, there is no more need to all scenes in the colorization follow the original B&W grading of the original photography. Colorization it's a different version itself, and a weird contrast can distort the colors. If the B&W will be turned into entire new way as colored image, why keep always the original contrast gradding even when it spoils the color in scenes here and there? I hope the studios open their eyes and stop to require this silly exigency. Let the colors shine fine!!! | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2007 Aug 01 23:20 | ||||||
Yes, I completely agree with your thoughts! BTW: great job here:  | ||||||
| AlfredBergman posted 2007 Aug 03 13:35 | ||||||
| f[/quote]
Yes, I completely agree with your thoughts! BTW: great job here: [/quote]
This was the only image on that page that wasn't really colorized, but a full color transplant. I had a smaller color version and the larger B&W version. I had to adjust gamma, contrast of the B&W, and geometric distortions and size to be able to transplant the colors from the little color version to the large B&W. I could fully colorized that image to look warmer, with more contrast colors. Alfred | ||||||
| Nelson37 posted 2007 Aug 08 10:23 | ||||||
| An interesting tidbit.
Just watched an interview with Robert Mitchum and Jane Russel on TCM. Mitchum commented about the "film noir" concept, his statement was to the effect that this was not due to any great vision of the director, but merely budget restraints as most of the lighting was devoted to "big ticket" productions. Folks develop an expectation of what a movie should be, and don't like change. I have seen almost all the Laurel and Hardy movies presented as originally intended, piano player, etc. When you see a talkie, or a color movie (I believe there was only one), even though they were originally made that way, you expect BW and silent. IMO it is less "artistic merit" than just not what was expected. Any effort which preserves these oldies is worthwhile. I know a lot of the old silent comedies have already been lost forever. If somebody digitized and preserved these in order to sell plumbing fixtures, I would applaud the process. A good colorization IMO will preserve the impact of older films for future generations, who will themselves judge whether they like the original BW, turn-of-the-century color, or the new Super Whizzo 3000 hologram conversion. | ||||||
| AlfredBergman posted 2007 Aug 09 12:59 | ||||||
I once talked with a engineer who worked for Cintel (developer of Telecine and motion picture scanners) and he told me that was in favor of scan several less famous films in 2K (2024 pixels horizontal resolution) with some compression factor for each frame (almost lossless) and stock it with regulary recopying to other digital files or to modern digital files that appear in future. According hin this would be much less expansive than copying to fine grain chemical film masters. Decades ago many studios intentionally just burned old negatives without make any copy. They simple destroyed the films they thought would have no market anymore. Today this is considered a atrocity. If colorization of movies helps to generate public interest for old films, the studios will invest more to restore and preserve their classics. Also, for those ones, colorization critics, that said the digital restoration could help more filmsif they didn't sepnd money colorizing, I was informed by Barry Sandrew, from Legend Films, creator of the colorization process and rebirth of colorization in HD, that the restoration and colorization are made together using the same algorithm to pattern detection. The development of this new colorization software with this unic avanced almost automate pattern detection, was what made possible to so many titles got digital restoration for a DVD sales comercial budget. Detail: My complaim, about let original grading spoils colors in some scenes, was about specific situations, like when there is much lack of density On images'with no fog or natural agent to decrese density, or too dazzled brightness scenes without natural agent to cause it. Just situations that can't stand colors well. Those was casual choices for B&W that are not or almost never used for color photography since can disrupt the colors natural look. The majority of director grading would be keeped for the majority of scenes, like Noir drak look etc. DOES ANYBODY HAVE THE ESPEICAL EDITION DVD OF CASBLANCA??? IN THE EXTRAS THERE ARE SCENES OF A CASABLANCA SERIES (1983) MADE IN COLOR. I WOULD LIKE TO COLORIZE A RICK'S CAFE BEAUTIFUL HI-RES STIL USING LIKE BASE THOSE COLORS FROM THIS SERIES, SINCE THE CAFE SET WAS SUPOSED TO BE RECREATED LIKE THE ORIGINAL OF THE 1940 MOVIE. SOME SCREEN CAPTURES WOULD HELP MY WORK. | ||||||
| edDV posted 2007 Aug 09 14:00 | ||||||
| I think all the controversy would end if the "colorization" industry pledged to first make an optimized monochrome archive print (film negative and digital file) as a first step before colorizing for commercial release. A film library (e.g. AFA or UCLA) could be designated as curator for the monochrome file+print to assure it would not be lost to history.
This would be a major marketing plus for the industry, remove criticism and even turn industry opinion positive. | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2007 Aug 10 07:48 | ||||||
Yet another great idea found on this forum :)
I have it. However, the colorized version is still under the copyrights (and will be long after we all die, thanks to greed of current ruling corpocracy), so if I post them officially, I could be in trouble ;) *but* since you are my friend, I think the law doesn't forbid (yet) me from lending you my computer (via remote access) with both DVDs in the drives? (helloooooo Adam! Your opinion is needed :D ) | ||||||
| AlfredBergman posted 2007 Aug 10 20:44 | ||||||
| Maybe few people know, but The Godfather, despite the great DVD treatment about 2 years ago, was only digitaly restored, andthe negative wasn't cared about. Film restorer Robert Harris made several critics about the studios digitally clean films in SD and HD and let the negatives still in poor conditions.
The most successfull realise was a film, the most damaged was it's negatvie, since they used to print thousand prints from the original negative, without make a interpositive and internegative. To get all image definition of a 35mm films it's need 2K (2024 pixels right to left) or sometimes even 4K (4048 pixels right to left) Modern films emulsion have finer grain particles and so higher resolution than film brands from 60's to 80's. HD don't get all definition of a fim. Hey, that's the image I want to colorize. If get natural will be great. I spend a lot of time until get the right colors, since all colorization softwares for home, even Photoshop, are just dumb to colorization, and we need to precisilly sellect and guess each hue and saturation grading for each element, in a poor interface that is very limited. That's why most Home digital colorization are mostly awful. With so many object will be a hell's work :-) But I will try. I already enhanced the B&W image a little bit in sharpness, using a quality special plug-in filter, and contrast, also correcting also some whitned on the edge of the photo. I think there must be a scene very similar this still in the Casablanca (1983) color series. Thank you for offer help with the DVD extras screen captures. If we don't publis will not make any harm. Anyway if the colorization get great it will help to promotwe Casablanca. So everybody will be happy about. my email: albertodarce@hotmail.com www.doctormacro.info/Images/Bogart,%20Humphrey/Annex/Annex%20-%20 ... ca)_06.jpg | ||||||
| Barry Sandrew posted 2007 Aug 12 21:18 | ||||||
| Alfred -
To quote my good friend Ray Harryhausen... "Legend's new colorization is a wonderful innovative process and I'm happy that I can finally see my black and white films the way I originally envisioned them; in color. Some films will benefit greatly by colorization and others will not. One simply needs the wisdom to know the difference." 'nough said. | ||||||
| gll99 posted 2007 Aug 12 22:00 | ||||||
I can vouch that this is a valid quote. There was a timely article by James Portman in the local paper on July 28, 2007 where it's clear that Mr Harryhausen and Producer Charles Schneer chose b/w when making 20 Million Miles to Earth because of lack of funds and not as a creative choice. He is obviously very happy with the results. "Very impressed" are the words he used and said he was an active participant with Legend Films in choosing the colour palette in the colourizing process. The article speaks glowingly of a splendidly restored b/w version in addition to the colourized version and gives due credit to Legend Films of San Diego. Apparently the DVD version allows the switching between colour and b/w while the disc is playing without interrupting the action. For me, the only thing wrong is that it's released by spit petewee :protest: $ony.  | ||||||
| somebodeez posted 2007 Aug 13 08:42 | ||||||
Amen :!: | ||||||
| AlfredBergman posted 2007 Aug 13 14:11 | ||||||
Barry, I found a nice idea, but a bit morbid to think about. Anyway I will tell all you: Most old film producers are very old or dead, and todays new generation are quite a shame, considering the poor artistic producion of todays cinema, special in USA (no ofense). I think that there is more caes of several B&W films shot this way due budget limitations. Well, If to color design a film we need just a kind of storyboard, using B&W frames and colorizing as stills, and it's quite cheap compared to colorize the entire film (140.000 frames average), it's possible to just register the intented color desired by a director. On Brazil for example, I would like to personally talk with some director and ask if they intented their movies in color but was forced to use B&W, like Ray Harryhousen, or if would like to at least register the color design. Case there is no budget or case the technology need some years to become 100% convincing to the most accurate eyes, they wish would be registered for a future colorization project. On Brazil B&W was used much more even up to late 60's and early 70's, since brazilian movies had very limited budget. Probably other countries have a similar case. The morbid in all of this, is cause give a feeling of: We need hurry to register their intention while they are still alive. With the technology to accurate colorize the "storyboard stills film frames" we could register the director's artistic choice. Their could work would have a alternate view by their own art in a future colorization of the entire film. Personally I think it's important to allow old directors to "work again", to show their artistic ability once more. Actual film industry it's so poor that perhaps some rework from the past could be a example, a reminds of what is really cinema. Alfred Bergman | ||||||
| konig posted 2007 Oct 31 03:36 | ||||||
| how much storage will be needed for storing a film like that to preserve at top quality and what format do they use at big bucks productions, i ve been told that modern films are stored at 400mbytes raid boxes is this true. how powerful are the computer to handles these massive files | ||||||
| Cornucopia posted 2007 Oct 31 06:44 | ||||||
| At a guess, Storage space needed:
24fps * 4096x2048 (aka 4k) * 3bytes (48bit color) * ~135min. * 2 films (at a time) * 20% overhead = 11,741,366,845,440 Bytes or ~10.6TB. Bitrate pipeline needed (when uncompressed): 9663676416 bps or 9Gbps to video port Probably ~1.5Gbps (undecoded slightly lossy compression) to HD/Buss This requires probably 4x RAID arrays, Fibre Channel, and the fastest Xeon or Quad core computers, etc. That's why it's not for everybody. These guys use Storage Networks, Distributed processing, etc. Scott | ||||||
| arturjose posted 2008 Sep 30 21:58 | ||||||
| somebody already discovered, the secret to do that?
thank you :) |
Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.