Talk:Film colorization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film colorization has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

	This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Film colorization article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Colorization is back, and supposedly much improved, if any cares to write about it. --Feitclub 22:16, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

It's not just used to colorize old movies but also war footage and stock footage used in modern films...I'll add a bit about it... Lee M 18:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed text taken from http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/C/htmlC/colorization/colorization.htm without proper attribution. --Carl 11:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Updated 2 how? 3 that U... 4 gremlins 2 5 should sin city be in this article at all??? 6 BlackMagic 7 First colorized film 8 Correction 9 "Black-and-White-ization" 10 Checking facts when editing. 11 Factually incorrect edits and replacements

[edit] Updated

I have completely updated this page, adding some more information about early attempts at colorization, and a couple of screenshots, one being from an early colorized version of King Kong, the other being from a recent colorized version of My Man Godfrey. These will help readers distinguish between older colorization technology, and newer colorization technology, and to help them decide whether or not the technology, has indeed improved, as many insist. I will not state my opinion on this matter, and instead let readers decide. (Ibaranoff24 01:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

More updates. I added the Handschiegel (hand colorization) info. (Ibaranoff24 04:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC))

This page has gotten a recent rehaul by what I believe to be a guy who works for Legend Films. It looks more efficent than my last update, but I made a few more slight changes. For instance, I deleted the stuff about Legend Film's recent releases from the "Colorization for artistic purposes" section, because that section is not for films that were avalible for years in black and white and then recently released in a colorized version: the section is for black and white films that contain sequences of color done with colorization technology. (Ibaranoff24 23:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

I changed the King Kong screenshot to a more famous image from the film. (Ibaranoff24 01:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] how?

I'd love to see a discussion on how colorization is achieved, especially pre-computer. Brighterorange 03:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] that U...

"Color" or "colour", pick one.

[edit] gremlins 2

colorization is spoofed in Gremlins 2, where they mention that CCN offers old movies, all colorized - Clamp of Clamp Cable Networks seems to be a spoof of Turner too (clem 23:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

I deleted the part about The Critic spoofing Ted Turner, as the reference doesn't mention colorization at all. Inserting advertisements and changing the endings is quite different from what Turner was doing, and from film colorization. It doesn't belong in the article. (Ibaranoff24 05:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] should sin city be in this article at all???

Sin city was filmed in color, so many of the parts that are colorized were simply not converted to black and white with the rest of the frame. That yellow bastard was filmed in blue and converted to yellow in post processing, this is called "keying" and is a part of green screen cgi and not the same thing as colorization Tanner Wheat 06:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I deleted sin city, someone put it back, can someone please explain why it belongs in this article? Sin City does not use film colorization. First of all it isn't even shot on film, and secondly it was not shot in black and white. Tanner Wheat 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether it was shot on film or digitally isn't really relevant; Wikipedia (inexplicably) terms every movie as a "film". I'm a bit skeptical that the colors seen on screen are just "left in"; at the least they would have to be selectively and digitally enhanced to come across that bright and flat. And completely converting blue to yellow is, if not strictly "colorization", a closely related effect of applying artificial color to a moving picture. I'm more concerned about Pleasantville as an example, since the color in that movie appears to be the original natural colors as filmed, with selective conversion to greyscale. Tverbeek 12:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pleasantville had very realistic colorization, but colorization none the less. (Ibaranoff24 04:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

Okay even aside from the film vs. digital thing, it was still shot in color so nothing is being colorized Tanner Wheat 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide sources for this assertion that "nothing was colorized"? Tverbeek 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Parts could have been filmed in black and white first and then colorized, probably not the case though. Hard to know without a source as Tverbeek has said. — Wackymacs 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

On the DVD for sin city you can see the pre-cg footage of the movie and it is shown in color on a greenscreen background. Certain elements that are supposedly an example of film colorization such as the yellow bastard are shown blue in the original footage and turned into yellow. According to the definition of colorization in this article itself, colorization begins with black and white footage. This movie was not shot in black and white. Tanner Wheat 20:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this acticle isn't directly about that specific form of colorization -- it is about all forms of colorization. The film Sin City was shot in color, then the color was removed digitally, and then the film was recolored using colorization technology. Hence, it BELONGS in this article. (Ibaranoff24 03:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

After reading this discussion, I have added a Color Manipulation section to the article and have moved the Sin City image, references to Pleasantville and Rumble Fish and a new reference to Young Frankenstein to this new section. I hope that this edit is acceptable and non-controversial. It represents my opinion that if we are to describe colorization in the first sentence as the process of converting a black and white image to something with color, that definition is not compatible with the opposite process. --Orayzio 00:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Young Frankenstein was NOT shot in color and released in black and white. The film was shot on black and white film. Mel Brooks had no intention of shooting the film in color. (Ibaranoff24 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

I have to agree, films like Sin City and Pleasantville are actually examples of selective color work, not colorization (adding what wasn't there). That being said, a mention of this in the article wouldn't be a bad idea - at the least it will alleviate misguided attempts to add the information in where it would otherwise (rightly) be missing. Just my two cents. Girolamo Savonarola 20:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BlackMagic

The links to the website for the BlackMagic software seemed kind of spammy to me, so I deleted them. (Ibaranoff24 03:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] First colorized film

Can anyone confirm what was actually the first film to be redistributed in color using the colorization process? The Internet Movie Database lists two seperate titles as being the first: Topper and Yankee Doodle Dandy

Google searches come up with 568,000 results for "Topper first colorized film," and 76,100 results for "Yankee Doodle Dandy first colorized film," so it may in fact be that Topper was the first film to be redistributed in a colorized version. Can anyone confirm this? (Ibaranoff24 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

I no longer have my old issues, but "Video" magazine of the time had an article on colorization, and "Topper" was indeed the first colorized film. Also, I believe the article should point out that without the economic stimulus of colorization, many old films would never be restored at all; and without a best quality, high-contrast negative or print, colorization is not possible. It only makes sense to release both the colorized and original black & white versions. K8 fan 21:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

It came to my attention that the colorization of Sony Home Entertainment's Three Stooges titles have been incorrectly attributed to Legend Films, a company that has also colorized several Three Stooges titles with 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. The company that is responsible for the colorization of the Sony Home Entertainment 3 Stooges titles is West Wing Studios. (Barry Sandrew at 22:40, 16 November 2006|64.165.0.73)

• My mistake. I was unaware that there were so many colorization companies working these days. Legend Films is the only company whose work I've actually seen. I was under the impression that they had colorized Sony's Three Stooges titles as well. (Ibaranoff24 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] "Black-and-White-ization"

The film Good Night, and Good Luck was filmed in Technicolor and then converted to black and white; black and white archival footage of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy was also incorporated into the film. Worth a mention in this article, I think, but how? --RevWaldo 03:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The prints or processing may well have been done by Technicolor (the company), but no film in decades has been "filmed in Technicolor" (the process). Technicolor is filming method using a camera with 3 strips of B&W film, recording through red, green and blue filters. K8 fan 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No American film has been shot in technicolor -- but the Chinese, who own a technicolor facility, have made quite a few films with the process, up to at least the early 90s. Editor437 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checking facts when editing.

Someone named "Son of Somebody" changed the date of the the most advanced colorization patent that was issued to Legend Films which largely automates the process. While the date was in error it is only the month and not the year that had to be changed. The correct date of Patent Issue was February 29, 2007. For verifiation please feel free to contact Legend Films patent attorneys. Please note the attorney letter below.

Dr. Sandrew, Just wanted to let you know that the Image Sequence patent will issue next Tuesday February 29th! Please see the attached letter and issue notice. Let me know if you have any questions. The foreign patents that are based on this patent should follow suit sooner than later.

Best Regards, Joe Mayo Dalina Law Group, P.C. 7910 Ivanhoe Ave #325 La Jolla, CA 92037 Main: 858.729.1927 Direct: 858.442.5877 FAX: 858.777.5425

The preceding comment was added by Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D. (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the error, but are we certain there is a February 29, 2007?--Son of Somebody 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct Son of Somebody. Checked the actual issued patent and it was actually February 20, 2007. This was NOT a leap year :-)!--Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D.

[edit] Factually incorrect edits and replacements

It appears that someone has changed edits regarding Legend Films and has erased factual information about Legend Films that might be considered competitively dis-adventageous.

---

Incorrect Claim (1)The process legend films claims to have created in feb, 2007 was in use as far back as 1993 by Color Systems Technology.

Fact: The process mentioned in erroneous claim (1) was developed back in 1986 and patented in 1991 and 1992. That process has little to do with the new Legend Films Patent. Legend Films was issued its latest colorization patent Image sequence enhancement system and method – US Patent 7181081 on February 20, 2007. However, claim (1) is nonetheless incorrect and this is easily varifiable. Color Systems Technology sued American Film Technologies in the late 80's for patent infringement. The case was dismissed with predjudice. American Films Technology has established itself as having the first patented all digital colorization process.

---

Incorrect Claim (2): Incorrect information regarding the patent process hel (sic) by legend films and misleading as they mainly use off-shore idian (sic) facilities to colorize the films legend works on.

Fact: Legend Film does indeed have a studio in India. The studio is 100% dedicated to Legend Films production and the studio exclusively employs Legend Films latest and proprietary technology.

---

Delition of factual information about Legend Films and the substitution of information (see below):

Factual and material edit:

* Legend Films - Legend Films is holder of the key colorization patents for North America. Its official website features demonstration clips. *Legend Films - Official website features demonstration clips.

Incorrect replacement: [http://www.ceruleanfx.com - Colorization/correction on high profile music videos, film and television. The site features examples of Ceruleanfx's award winning work.

---

Fact: Legend Films has prevailed in every effort to protect our Intellectual Property including all patents including the earliest and broadest digital colorization patents from American Film Technologies, Inc. which Legend Films subsequently acquired. Most of the colorization technology other than Legend Film has been in use since the early and mid 90's.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barry Sandrew (talk • contribs) between 23:09, 23 March 2007 & 15:00, 24 March 2007.

It may have escaped your notice, but Wikipedia is not an extension of your PR. Nick Cooper 15:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick - I feel the above was a necessary and appropriate response to inaccurate information and innappropriate edits. Now that the emotion has worn off I have toned down the above. The contents of the Article that were considered self promoting have been edited. In retrospect I agree that it was over the top though much of it was material to the subject. I have enlisted the help of the Wikipedia Information Team (Zachary Harden) to help me correct this situation. If you have any additional suggestions please contact me. Thanks.

Zach here. Pretty much, to keep it brief, I am one of the members of the Wikimedia m:OTRS team. I been in email communication with Dr. Sandrew about this article and I will help try to keep it as NPOV and free of major advertising from Dr. Sandrew. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)