DVD Talk
1/only It's a Wonderful Life thread (merge of the three current threads) [Archive] - Page 2 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : 1/only It's a Wonderful Life thread (merge of the three current threads)


Pages : 1 [2]

Carcosa
11-07-07, 10:45 PM
The whole colorization history could be very different if Markle and Hunt hadn't turn out discharging Capra from the project!
Could you imagine if thew investiment made by Ted Turner in the 80's was made today.

I supose it's not easy for Barry. He practically invented the colorization, the first digital process, and since the 80's is beeing attacked by anti-colorizatioin croops, or hard critics about the quality of the colorization technology, or called of Syphilis disseminator like we heard here.
Let's be more repectable to someone who allow some of his time to go to the forums and respond questions and talk with crazy film fans like us.

I agree. People can be pretty militant in their opinions and downright disrespectful, and colorizing films seems to be one of the biggest hot buttons there is on the movie boards. I'd like to think that I'm pretty fair-minded about it and I really thought LEGEND FILMS had came up with the perfect solution with their releases with both colorized and BW restored versions offered in the same package but even THAT inflames the purist crowd. There is no winning this one with people like that...

ctyankee
11-08-07, 08:30 AM
I agree. People can be pretty militant in their opinions and downright disrespectful, and colorizing films seems to be one of the biggest hot buttons there is on the movie boards. I'd like to think that I'm pretty fair-minded about it and I really thought LEGEND FILMS had came up with the perfect solution with their releases with both colorized and BW restored versions offered in the same package but even THAT inflames the purist crowd. There is no winning this one with people like that...

Well said.

Film lovers get an option of color and original b&w and their glass is still half-empty. Go figure.

I'd even go so far to say that seeing a film in color can open up thematic ideas that just don't come through in b&w. Not making it better, but giving a different perspective. For example, I watched SHE in color and the color sets up an interesting contrast between the living areas of the peasants and the golden themed residence of the queen.

Drop
11-08-07, 09:03 AM
Of those color shots the only one that looked good to me was the Donna Reed. It looks fairly natural, the other ones look obviously colorized. It's all in the skin, and it's too brown, too one-tone. In any goven shot it looks like there are no more than 10 colors being used. There's still a lot of improvements to be made, a lot.

rennervision
11-08-07, 10:48 AM
The whole colorization history could be very different if Markle and Hunt hadn't turn out discharging Capra from the project!

Just shows you their original motivation was greed - not art.

Alfred Bergman
11-08-07, 10:55 AM
Of those color shots the only one that looked good to me was the Donna Reed. It looks fairly natural, the other ones look obviously colorized. It's all in the skin, and it's too brown, too one-tone. In any goven shot it looks like there are no more than 10 colors being used. There's still a lot of improvements to be made, a lot.
Well, considering the cost of many Legend Films realises be based in the revenue of DVD sales for most editions, I can preume the technology and work are based on the budget limitation. Like TV productions need to use lower quality and faster CGI graphic, if compared to blockbusters.
Perhaps they could colorize with many more details, but it would increase the cost. Like the Shirley Temple movie Captain January, where some detais wasn't colorized, like the lines between the blocks. Go figure.

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/2817/pdvd002ms4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The real blocks wall probably had the line division with different colors, and the blocks itself more variety of colors, while the colorized image each given tone in the blocks have a defined colors, like the darke portions a color, the mildtones another and the higlights other. So this color spectruns (few variation of colors following the grayscale) is practically the same to all blocks. With more budget they could split the blocks wal in several pieces and add more color variances or some blocks with individual color, getting closer to what would be a real block wall.
Loom the pants of Shirley in the capture.There is a small color bleeding in the right and left side near to the waistline. Blue scaping the pant in right side, and yellow invading the pant on the left side.
Other thing that was intrigant was the color in a steady scenes, where a stead object (small statue) got color fluctuations, like the color invading and moving along the statue details. If was steady the color shpuld get firm, since the statue wasn't moving in geometry or along the frame, so the algorithm should work easily there. Maybe was operator mistake in the chouse of algorithm.

They could also split the skin in several sectors as I said before, getting different colors variances for cheeks, necks, chest, hands back.
The 3D estimation technology it's still crawling, and tooks time. 3D estimation would allow they to vwery effective add week reflex of color, like a face be in a position that the light source in one side be different than the other side light source., like someone imnperpective to the sun etc...

But Legend Film is in the right way. Improving the quality every year.
If they spent 40.000 dollars colorizing a films with this quality, I imagine what they could do with a budget of 500.000 dollars. MUCH MORE COLOR DETAILS AND 3D ESTIMATION...

Alfred Bergman
11-08-07, 11:00 AM
Just shows you their original motivation was greed - not art.
99% of our society is pure captalism, even the churchs... Or bether saying, specially the churchs :-)
About art, I really doubty most directors would had made art for free.
Even Frank Capra would loved colorization if it would get hin $$$$$. He apparently only turned against colorization after got discharged from the project of It's a Wonderfull Life due the film be found in public domain.
All TV, movies, music, entertainment is captalism, and it's tolerated, despite of many crap, remix of oldy music, remakes withou essence... But just colorization got such critics.

Alfred Bergman
11-08-07, 11:07 AM
Well folks, I wasn't ncessarilly refering about you, when I said people made severe critics about colorization but not about violence and sexual exploitation on TV and movies. I refered about the impression I got from internet. I went to forums to webpages, to review, and see variable films comentaries.

Along those internet surfing I see much more critics to colorization than for anything.

All review, forums or amazon.com selling pages have deep critics to colorization. But it's very rare to find critics about ultra-violence, sexual exploitation, in films or TV programs forums, reviews or product page comentaries.

So that's the impression I got.

Alfred Bergman
11-08-07, 11:25 AM
Barry should make a colorization test. Something like colorize the opening and the ending scenes of The Wizard of Oz, which had those sequences in Kansas a B&W sepia tone. If the colors get well like in the Land of Oz scenes, would be quite interesthing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEEUehKXMM8

If we coud erase the memories of this film, from the mind of a anti colorization cinephile, and present the film for hin first as a B&W glossy & grain version, and after that present the original color film, claming it was a digitally enhanced restored and colorized with the latest technology, what would he say??

It's possible for hin to say: "This is a insult, and it's not like the original classic B&W with the strong glossy great silver shades. The colors are garish and too strong. Colorization should be forbiden."

pjflyer
11-08-07, 12:04 PM
What I mean is that we don't see much critic to the TV crap, ultra violence, sexual exploitation, retard almost porn comedies, opression of the actual media, cause the media dominate. But colorization, a small market is target of several furious critics, depite be getting back productions much more health.
This flag of freedon, is in reality a manipulation.
Ending all war??? What do you mean by that?

In your world anti-colorization gets more press than those other issues?

I would say that people that use the word "retard" offensively create more controversy than anti-colorization.

Ambassador
11-08-07, 12:09 PM
Yeah a problem :-) So here am I posting again, trying to fill the three treads...

You're missing my point. The only reason it's a problem is that you yourself keep insisting on posting the exact same information in each thread.

Can't you just let two of these threads die and only post new information in the most recent one? I just don't understand the logic. Are you so desperately afraid that somebody's not going to see all the other threads for this movie?

rennervision
11-08-07, 12:11 PM
99% of our society is pure captalism, even the churchs... Or bether saying, specially the churchs :-)


Dude - you kind of lost me with the "greedy evil church" analogy.

Alfred Bergman
11-08-07, 12:31 PM
Sorry Ambassadaor. Here again... :-)

Continuing about the idea of colorizng Wizard of Oz with Legend films technology, to compare with the original technicolor, the following idea went to me:

If they colorized the Kansas scenes, or a segment of it, would be expansive and it probably wasn't shot with same make-up, ans the sets are different from the sts of Oz Land.
So we have two option.: Find a non used footage in B&W from the film and sent to Legend Films (which is impossible to single mortal like us), or get a quality photograph of the crew performing on the Oz Land sets.

See this great quality still took from the set:

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/2572/wizardofozcolorchallengij8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


An here a nice video of this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEfKX2CCJsU (fist 3 minutes)
The B&W still have good detais and good dynamic range, pretty similar to the video (bit dark and vivid). Practically a 2K resolution image.


So here the challenge.: Is Legend Films able to colorize the photography to look pretty like the scenes on the video of The Wizard of Oz?

I'm sure everyone is anxious about it.

If anybody have the lastest waner DVD, please make a screen capture of the respective scene as close as possible to that shot of this B&W still (shot buy a B&W still plate camera).

Darth Maher
11-08-07, 01:28 PM
Can somebody close one of these threads? :hscratch:

bboisvert
11-08-07, 01:29 PM
^

I'd vote for this one! :lol:

brisco32
11-08-07, 03:55 PM
It just means that I'm sticking to the topic at hand.

SNAP!

The Valeyard
11-08-07, 04:40 PM
Do you have to double post in every Wonderful Life Thread?

And if you're going to "Challenge" Legend Films....why not e-mail them personally instead of dropping a big ass image here?

The Valeyard
11-08-07, 04:43 PM
Dude! Quit with the multiple posts!

MEJHarrison
11-08-07, 05:45 PM
Can somebody close one of these threads? :hscratch:

How about we close two of them since we already have 3.

The Valeyard
11-08-07, 06:15 PM
you dim bulbs dont understand! colorization is the way to go! you censor my colors is unamerican!

Ambassador
11-08-07, 06:16 PM
Sorry Ambassadaor. Here again... :-)

So you're actively trying to piss people off...? How does this help your argument?

For God's sake, don't the moderators have any control over all these f-ing multiple threads? Or have they just given up reading all these colorization threads?

Anyone...?

Alfred Bergman
11-08-07, 08:04 PM
I'M SORRY AMBASSADOR, AND FORSORRY VALEYARD TOO!

I'm not here to piss-off in anybody, let m put it clear. I just was trying to contribute with the discussion, and since there was 3 treads about this reralise, I felt I had to inform in all the 3, SINCE NOT EVERYONE WOULD REED ALL THE 3 TREADS.

THANKS FOR THE MODERATOR, BY HELPING A LOT BY MERGING THOSE 3 TREADS IN ONE!
WELL DONE :-)

PatrickMcCart
11-08-07, 08:12 PM
I'M SORRY AMBASSADOR, AND FORSORRY VALEYARD TOO!

I'm not here to piss-off in anybody, let m put it clear. I just was trying to contribute with the discussion, and since there was 3 treads about this reralise, I felt I had to inform in all the 3, SINCE NOT EVERYONE WOULD REED ALL THE 3 TREADS.

THANKS FOR THE MODERATOR, BY HELPING A LOT BY MERGING THOSE 3 TREADS IN ONE!
WELL DONE :-)

I really doubt that anyone cares enough about colorizations (besides you) to need three threads to remind them.

Alfred Bergman
11-08-07, 11:44 PM
Does anyboday remamber the film Pleasentiville???

The best use of colorization technology as FX for a film!

By the way, I'm kiding with color again...

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6062/dorothyinpleasantvilledv0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Pleasantville was very hard to print well for theaters, since it's difficult to adjust color film footage prints to have a 100% look ob B&W. In color film stock, if you shot the picture of a pure B&W photographic paper image, the result when developed will bew yellowed a bit, or pushed to red or purple. Hard to get really close to pure B&W.
In Pleasantville the colors was mostly neutral, since the few characters in color wasn't suposed to have color source as sun, but just pure white light in almost all scenes. That's why I did this "Dorothy Pleasantiville" so pure in color.

PS : Dorothy shirt is not 100% white (or 100% B&W) cause, in this Pleasantiville-like shot, a girl from old farm times wasn't suposed to have modern bleach for washing machines :-)

I hope you enjoy...


---

domino harvey
11-09-07, 12:04 AM
Does Borat post here now

PatrickMcCart
11-09-07, 06:41 AM
Pleasantville was not colorized, but rather grayscalized.

Alfred Bergman
11-09-07, 08:36 AM
Pleasantville was not colorized, but rather grayscalized.
Not exactly... The film was shot in color footage, and sellective had to be grayscalized, letting the desired characters in color, but as long the fictional set, city, was suposed to be pure B&W, most shots had to reduced the light interference, from enviroment, or light of sun, hue refles to look like as was shot in pure white light environment, and for this task colorization was used locally those regions with color interference.
Also in many shots the characters had to completelly recolorized to look very neutral color, as long the color interference was too strong to be reduced locally, and some scenes on the end, when the grass an trees turn to color needed to look very neutral too, since there should be not a sun to shine yellow over it. So a lot of things got colorization tools to get neutral colors, or even complete recolorized in specific situations.
You can note that the complete recolorized scenes looks just a bit artificial, but nice.

So yes, it had lot of colorized FX :-)

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/4023/pleasantivilleexampleqh8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

This shot of Jeff Daniles and Joan Allen show a peculiar situation when the B&W character got ligh reflex from the color character near hin and from color painting bright in background . Interesting...

Mopower
11-09-07, 08:47 AM
Jeesh, Now I know why I stick the the HD Forum. Too many wack jobs in this one.

Droog
11-09-07, 12:49 PM
Does anyone have any specs on the R1 release coming next Tuesday?

Carcosa
11-09-07, 01:41 PM
Jeesh, Now I know why I stick the the HD Forum. Too many wack jobs in this one.

:scratch2:

Did I miss something?

PatrickMcCart
11-09-07, 07:06 PM
Does anyone have any specs on the R1 release coming next Tuesday?

It's EXACTLY the same as last year's 60th anniversary edition except that it includes a 2nd disc that contains the colorized version.

Droog
11-09-07, 08:21 PM
Oh, ew. No sale. I'll just get last year's from CH as an enrollment or something.

Thanks for the info though.

Alfred Bergman
11-10-07, 12:42 PM
The B&W it's the very same edition. BUT THE COLORIZED EDITION IS SHARPER MORE CRISP ETC. THE QUESTION IS: WHY THEY DIDN'T UDES THE CRISPER AND SHARPER TRANSFER (OR ENCODING) TO A NEW b&w EDITION? iT WOULD BE JUST THE COST OF A NEW ENCODING.

JerryKILL
11-10-07, 03:44 PM
The Curse of the Cat People (1944) is a remarkably good film to view on a double bill with It's A Wonderful Life. Don't let the horror title fool you, it is not a horror film but more of a fantasy film. When I first watched it last year, I was immediately struck by the similarities between the two films. Even more amazing is that it predates It's A Wonderful Life by 2 years!

PatrickMcCart
11-10-07, 04:59 PM
The B&W it's the very same edition. BUT THE COLORIZED EDITION IS SHARPER MORE CRISP ETC. THE QUESTION IS: WHY THEY DIDN'T UDES THE CRISPER AND SHARPER TRANSFER (OR ENCODING) TO A NEW b&w EDITION? iT WOULD BE JUST THE COST OF A NEW ENCODING.

They used the same transfer. I think the colorized version has a little bit of edge enhancement from looking at the DVD Beaver caps.

baracine
11-11-07, 10:57 AM
I'm eagerly awaiting my copy by mail. (It has shipped on Friday from Amazon.com.) I notice that DVDBeaver mentions that four audible pops have been eliminated from the 60th Anniversary edition's soundtrack in the new colourized version. I just want to say that I think it's too bad they couldn't have gone whole hog and sweetened the mono sound into an optional 5.1 Dolby version that would have isolated the beautiful Dimitri Tiomkin music score. This was tried in the latest (B&W) A Christmas Carol (1951) and the results are wonderful, most of the time the music coming loud and clear from the surround speakers, leaving the front image open to the dialog and sound effects - which are also dispersed throughout the system for eerie effects.

baracine
11-11-07, 11:02 AM
Of those color shots the only one that looked good to me was the Donna Reed. It looks fairly natural, the other ones look obviously colorized. It's all in the skin, and it's too brown, too one-tone. In any goven shot it looks like there are no more than 10 colors being used. There's still a lot of improvements to be made, a lot.

This "one-tone" look is intentional, as has been mentioned somewhere. The golden hue of the colourized version does not aim to reproduce the glory of Technicolor but to evoke the nostalgia of Christmas Past - especially in the flashbacks, and, let's face it, this film is made up of flashbacks and/or dream sequences for most of its running time. The colourists also wanted to preserve the "noirish" aspects of the film. Another commentator - or possibly the same - has also commented on the vividness and modern look of the dance at the gym/swimming pool scene, which I can't wait to see.

Barry Sandrew
11-11-07, 12:07 PM
This "one-tone" look is intentional, as has been mentioned somewhere. The golden hue of the colourized version does not aim to reproduce the glory of Technicolor but to evoke the nostalgia of Christmas Past - especially in the flashbacks, and, let's face it, this film is made up of flashbacks and/or dream sequences for most of its running time. The colourists also wanted to preserve the "noirish" aspects of the film. Another commentator - or possibly the same - has also commented on the vividness and modern look of the dance at the gym/swimming pool scene, which I can't wait to see.

Thanks Benoit - I'll be very interested in reading feedback from people after they've viewed the new color version. All the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive so far. BTW, there was no edge enhancement or contrast adjustment in the color version, only a very maticulous color design and application. Legend did produce some frame restoration where necessary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/its-a-wonderful-life/5330

…And the colorized version? This isn´t the old computer-generated one that looked like a diorama in motion and made everyone want to charge Ted Turner with pitchforks for even having the audacity to suggest that old films should be colorized.

The colors added to this 1946 film look absolutely natural, as if it were always in color. And color spreads a nice blanket of warmth over this holiday classic, so that it feels cozier than ever. With color, you also notice details in the film that may have been lost in black and white--like a skull that the miserly Mr. Potter (Lionel Barrymore) keeps on his desk, or the antics of the various strange pets that Uncle Billy (Thomas Mitchell) keeps at the Building & Loan.

In the past, I´ve been one of those black-and-white purists who were opposed to colorizing movies under any circumstance. But this new full-color "It´s a Wonderful Life" has made a believer out of me. It looks that good.

Not every film shot in black-and-white was a director´s choice based on aesthetics, I´m reminded. Sometimes black-and-white was simply a budgetary decision, and with a film like this--set during the colorful Christmas season and sprinkled as liberally with small-town Americana as it is Hollywood snowflakes--I can´t imagine a valid artistic reason for choosing black and white over color.

“Whether we like it or not, color makes that big of a difference for today´s young people, and it might be the thing that ensures that this film will remain a popular annual tradition for future generations.

Paramount finally got it right. Whether you prefer it in black-and-white or color, this edition of "It´s a Wonderful Life" looks better than ever.”
________________________________________
http://blogs.nypost.com/movies/archives/2007/11/dvd_extra_georg.html

“…It is impressive and probably the best colorized movie to date. Legend Films' latest effort very respectfully works around the almost noir-ish cinematography by Joe Biroc, Joseph Walker and the un-credited Victor Milner. Color draws attention to the Jack Okey's incredibly detailed set decoration for Mr. Gower's drugstore, for instance. Probably the best sequence in color is the fabled swimming pool dance, including very intricate shadow lighting that would never have been used in an actual color film of the era (Legend adopts the more recent convention of stressing the golden side of the spectrum, particularly in the flashbacks to the 1920s).
________________________________________

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/wonderfullife.htm


\\\Disc 2 has the colorized edition of the film (also dual-layered and progressive). To be fair - it looks quite impressive and unless I was reviewing I would probably never have indulged in a viewing. But I am and I did. I'd seen the film so many times that watching it in color was a kind of neat change - I admired the colorization - the look in Donna Reeds eyes - but I, of course, cannot recommend this to those who have not seen the film before. But to those who keep it as a holiday staple with the family huddled near and the cold wind whistling outside - it might make the leap to those in the family who 'don't like black and white films' (savages that they might be). It seemingly does not contain the below mentioned audio 'pops'. I am kind of keen on this technology and it's amazing to see how far it has come
________________________________________

http://www.saworship.com/article-page.php?Page=ministry.php&ID=4029

I have never been a fan of colorization, because old black and white classics were lit with b&w film in mind. Shadows and texture added to the look and mood of a film and the addition of computer coloring seemed to detract from those qualities. But with an improved technique of colorization, some pictures have actually taken on a new exuberance. It’s A Wonderful Life is one of those. The look is simply splendid, even to the point of enhancing the production.


.

marknyc
11-11-07, 08:09 PM
Anyone have any more screen caps of the coloriized version?

baracine
11-12-07, 07:29 AM
I've been watching the excellent French documentary Movies Dream In Color on the 2-disc set Discovering Cinema.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51eBbklgetL._AA240_.jpg

It's interesting to know that the documentary makes the point that when cinema was invented, audiences were partly disappointed that it didn't preserve the advances in colour that were made in the magic lantern and other projected images for entertainment purposes and that cinema's early years, with Pathé and Gaumont in France, and many others in England, was a quest for artificially colored images: tinting, toning, painted on, hand-stenciled or mechanically stenciled on, until various other "natural" colour processes came into existence: additive colour projection, subtractive colour projection, Technicolor, Agfacolor and Kodachrome.

It's a great set for lovers of colour, only hindered by the fact that the film's numerous extras are 25 fps PAL to NTSC with a lot of ghosting, especially in the ground-breaking Technicolor 20-min short, La Cucaracha (1934).

Alfred Bergman
11-12-07, 06:56 PM
I never hea about anyone making politic agains hand-stenciled colored silent films!!!

Does anybody heard about that or have any historic register about campaign against it???

PatrickMcCart
11-12-07, 07:47 PM
The difference:

The majority of hand-stenciled color films were meant to be shown that way. Greed was supposed to have gold stenciled in. Pathe released some features stencil colored all the way through. Colorization today is entirely after the fact on films that were never intended to have color added. While some allowance can be made in the case of Ray Harryhausen's films that he's supervising, it's not the same thing.

It was an interesting novelty even then. This is why it took photographic processes to make color truly viable.

In the case of Georges Melies films, he did prefer for his films to be hand-colored. Many have new 35mm prints with genuine hand-stenciling added.

But colorization doesn't work for all B&W films. Colorizing Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton films would be a total waste of money and time. It's second-guessing what they wanted and saying "We're adding color to make them better."

Barry Sandrew
11-12-07, 09:03 PM
The difference:

The majority of hand-stenciled color films were meant to be shown that way. Greed was supposed to have gold stenciled in. Pathe released some features stencil colored all the way through. Colorization today is entirely after the fact on films that were never intended to have color added. While some allowance can be made in the case of Ray Harryhausen's films that he's supervising, it's not the same thing.

It was an interesting novelty even then. This is why it took photographic processes to make color truly viable.

In the case of Georges Melies films, he did prefer for his films to be hand-colored. Many have new 35mm prints with genuine hand-stenciling added.

But colorization doesn't work for all B&W films. Colorizing Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton films would be a total waste of money and time. It's second-guessing what they wanted and saying "We're adding color to make them better."


Patrick - both Ray and I agree with you. I've heard Ray say many times that there are films that should be colorized and there are films that should not. He goes on to say that one needs the wisdom to tell the difference.

There is one thing you said that I definitely don't agree with. We never add color to "make them better". Our films are a color interpretation of the original and, unlike remakes (which are widely accepted) our intention is not to replace the original. In fact we enhance the original black and white with full restoration as part of the colorization process. Also, every film we produce is accompanied by the black and white original.

.

Dane Marvin
11-12-07, 09:36 PM
I appreciate you, Barry, for posting here to make your arguments. I have the new IAWL disc pre-ordered and look forward to watching both versions.

Carcosa
11-12-07, 10:06 PM
Patrick - both Ray and I agree with you. I've heard Ray say many times that there are films should be colorized and there are films that should not. He goes on to say that one needs the wisdom to tell the difference.

There is one thing you said that I definitely don't agree with. We never add color to "make them better". Our films are a color interpretation of the original and, unlike remakes (which are widely accepted) our intention is not to replace the original. In fact we enhance the original black and white with full restoration as part of the colorization process. Also, every film we produce is accompanied by the black and white original.


Yes, this is true. Ray Harryhausen himself is behind the recent and upcoming colorized versions of his own early Columbia films but their are folks out there who find even this to be an abomination. There are those who will be fervently against this on ANY level. Even though Legend is restoring and releasing BW versions of films also they are STILL getting hammered about this which tells you which side of the argument has no compromise.

Barry Sandrew
11-12-07, 11:27 PM
Yes, this is true. Ray Harryhausen himself is behind the recent and upcoming colorized versions of his own early Columbia films but their are folks out there who find even this to be an abomination. There are those who will be fervently against this on ANY level. Even though Legend is restoring and releasing BW versions of films also they are STILL getting hammered about this which tells you which side of the argument has no compromise.

No film is immune from critics; even new films can't satisfy everyone. Yes, the critique of colorized classics has historically attracted a more visceral response from some reviewers, but recent Legend Films releases have definitely throttled down that criticsim from a shrinking minority. Do those few negative reviewers question why we continue to restore largely forgotten classic black and white films and then colorize them? Do they think we are in the business of losing money? No... because they know that the general consumer, like me is obviously not content in acting like sheep. We prefer to make our own decisions on what entertainment to purchase and how we wish to view it. I'm well prepared to get into the more convoluted and esoteric arguments for and against colorization but the real litmus test is the increased purchases that colorized films generate from appreciative consumers. It's those increased sales that helps subsidize the continued restoration of the original black and white originals. Those few reviewers that hold on to their elitist attitudes should wake up to consumer preference. The few reviewers that will not objectively critique the colorized versions on their merits are doing their readers a great disservice.


.

Seeker
11-14-07, 06:53 PM
So does anyone have this now and what do they think?

dolphinboy
11-14-07, 09:32 PM
So does anyone have this now and what do they think?

I have it. One of versions is actually in color!

baracine
11-15-07, 06:31 AM
I have it. One of versions is actually in color!

Well, duh!

I just got mine in the mail tonight and I will be posting my impressions. P.S.: Glenn Erickson (DVD Savant) wrote me that the reason he didn't review the colour version is that (and I quote) "colorization is BAD". I'm very disappointed in my old friend.:(

baracine
11-15-07, 06:33 PM
I went directly to the colour version and came back to check the B&W version. I own the Republic edition, which was THX-certified and made from the original negative. This B&W version (the 60th Anniversary edition transfer) is a little bit more cleaned-up. The extras are the same as they were on the Republic and 60th Anniversary editions so the major selling point here is the colour and I wasn't disappointed. All through both versions, by the way, the bitrate pretty much seems stuck on 10, which makes these discs super-SuperBit editions...

The colour is nothing short of miraculous. I was of course awed by the general quality and inventiveness of the colourization process at first even if I understand that this is a reinterpretation that wouldn't have been even possible without the groundwork of the original art direction, lighting and rich B&W photography. But I must say that the overall colour presentation doesn't distract at all from the drama and the qualities of the original B&W film. If anything, it makes it a better film, with more detail, more texture, more things to see, more realistic touches that are lost in the B&W version, in a word, more involvement in the story and a sense of heightened reality.

DVD Savant (Glenn Erickson) wrote to me that he doesn't like the fact that colourized films "rewrite history" and I have to admit that he's probably right about that, in the sense that no major studio would have financed the colour photography of a 2-hour non-musical meandering existential morality lesson bordering on socialism like It's A Wonderful Life back in 1947. So what we are seeing is a bit like a glimpse into a parallel universe where enlightened producers would have financed quality colour films like this one, where colour is used for psychological effect and not just to dazzle.

The result is just glorious, even when it doesn't mimic the obvious sheen and glamour of Technicolor: the hazy golden tones of the childhood scenes and Mr. Gower's drugstore, the spot-on recreation of the roaring twenties (with seafoam-coloured flapper tulle dresses like my mother used to tell me about), the liveliness of the comedy scenes, the neon lights of Pottersville, the extra poignancy of the dramatic scenes where everything seems to shift into dreariness - including the colours - and the absolute EC-comics eeriness of the "dream" sequence where everything has taken on a film noir fatalistic quality. I could go on: the natural aspect of the snow scenes both in the daylight and at night and the lovely summer moonlight courting scenes, the you-are-there quality of the interiors, the added life given the matte paintings, Violet's dresses, Uncle Billie's brown squirrel, the homey atmosphere of the happy family scenes alternating with more lugubrious passages, the Matisse-inspired Russian peasant blouse of the female patron at Nick's Bar, the shimmer of the high school swimming pool, Donna Reed's luminous smile, Zuzu's petals. Colour allows many gradations from brand new modern and cheery to drab, ancient and lived-in, that are only hinted at and not properly seen in B&W and for this, I think It's A Wonderful Life is a better film and its narrative qualities are actually improved in this colour version. It tells the story more convincingly.

The only thing that would allow a casual observer not familiar with the B&W film to guess this is a colourization is, as usual, the skin tones. Although they are realistically varied from one character to the next, they still rely on a rather limited palette centered on copper tones in each individual face. But this a very minor quibble that doesn't take away from the overall success of the process. And this could also be interpreted as the fact that the people of Bedford Falls are not made up like Hollywood stars in a Technicolor musical - except for Violet, of course.

I'm also sure it's an illusion that the 2.0 mono actually sounded a lot more vivid while I was watching the colour film. This version is especially recommended for people who think they have seen this film too many times and could use a fresh look at it from a different perspective.:)

Alfred Bergman
11-16-07, 10:17 PM
The only thing that would allow a casual observer not familiar with the B&W film to guess this is a colourization is, as usual, the skin tones. Although they are realistically varied from one character to the next, they still rely on a rather limited palette centered on copper tones in each individual face. But this a very minor quibble that doesn't take away from the overall success of the process. And this could also be interpreted as the fact that the people of Bedford Falls are not made up like Hollywood stars in a Technicolor musical - except for Violet, of course.


Wel, as I said before, the skin tones colorization would be finelly improved if they took some few extra work to create individual color spectrum (color variance along graysacale as shadows/middletones/highlights)for each skin tone major relevant variable regions. This would avoit excessive satured necks, allow bether color for cheecks, hands back veins color, etc.

I still wonder what could Legend Films do with large budget, to segment 200% more objects or each object in more regions.

-

PatrickMcCart
11-16-07, 11:19 PM
For a film like It's a Wonderful Life, it just didn't need color. It's like the logistics behind Disney's cartoons in the 1930s. They made the Silly Symphonies in color starting in 1932, but continued making Mickey Mouse shorts in B&W for another three years. It wasn't a matter of saving money as much as it being unnecessary.

It's sort of like deciding which movies to adapt to the IMAX DMR process. It's obvious to IMAX-ize Spider-Man 3, but it would be unnecessary for Little Miss Sunshine.


I think the new colorization looks great, but it doesn't add anything. Although, it doesn't detract, either.

The Valeyard
11-17-07, 12:52 AM
P.S.: Glenn Erickson (DVD Savant) wrote me that the reason he didn't review the colour version is that (and I quote) "colorization is BAD".

:clap:

Carcosa
11-17-07, 01:21 AM
:clap:

yes i see that dim bulbs are now on this thred too and want to stop the color freedom choice thing because yo only think cushy corporations only want tu make money and thats all . i demand that all m ovies and cartoons like tom a nd jerry be coloriozed and not censored. i love the freedom way

John Hodson
11-17-07, 07:30 AM
Censorship and colorization are not entirely dissimilar issues, inasmuch as it could be argued that colorization is a form of censorship. However using words like 'freedom' and 'choice' to defend the practice just makes me want to vomit.

Sorry.

Alfred Bergman
11-17-07, 12:41 PM
Do you, anti-coorization guys, realise that colorization helpED to get a whole new generation to start appreciate classics films???

Many of the audience of classic films today are due the colorization made in 80's and 90's. The films colorized films was broadcasted in fine hours, getting audience, and the colors helped to broke the prejudice to, old films.

Colorization also helped preserve the films, sice Ted Tunner in the 80's did preservation master for the library he purchased, followed by competer colorization of many.

And now with DVD technology we have a clear option to choose what version to watch.
In 80's we could turn the colors out of TV, but back then they used much old grain reduction making it soft.

So, if we have so much fine realises, like from Warner, of vintage films, much of that is due colorization had get new generation to enjoy classics.

-

The Valeyard
11-17-07, 01:14 PM
yes i see that dim bulbs are now on this thred too and want to stop the color freedom choice thing because yo only think cushy corporations only want tu make money and thats all . i demand that all m ovies and cartoons like tom a nd jerry be coloriozed and not censored. i love the freedom way


rotfl

This never fails to crack me up!

Thanks.

Carcosa
11-17-07, 01:30 PM
rotfl

This never fails to crack me up!

Thanks.


:)

John Hodson
11-17-07, 02:12 PM
So, if we have so much fine realises, like from Warner, of vintage films, much of that is due colorization had get new generation to enjoy classics.

-

That's the mother of all sweeping generalisations. And pure conjecture.

:)

Apologies, Carcosa, for being too dull to see that your tongue was pushed firmly in your cheek...

baracine
11-17-07, 03:53 PM
(...) I think the new colorization looks great (...)

I will take whatever encouragement I get wherever I can get it.

marknyc
11-17-07, 06:10 PM
Interesting debate, but no one can post any screen caps of the color version? Would like to see some more before I consider purchasing.

Alfred Bergman
11-17-07, 09:33 PM
Here more images.

Looks good.

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/1053/itsawonderfullife2disccjz5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
By BetoDarce (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/BetoDarce)

Colorization of skin it's the last frontier in technology challenge for colorization... The guy on the right (image bellon) got a bit strange skin color for this scene.


http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4760/itsawonderfullife2disccnc0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
By BetoDarce (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/BetoDarce)

The faint soft hair lines got skin color in Donna Reed's characters.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9691/itsawonderfullife2disccur4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
By BetoDarce (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/BetoDarce)

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5561/georgeincolorvw7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
By BetoDarce (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/BetoDarce)

Anyway a very beautiful work.

-

PatrickMcCart
11-17-07, 09:55 PM
Looks almost as beautiful as the original photography.

Carcosa
11-17-07, 11:02 PM
Apologies, Carcosa, for being too dull to see that your tongue was pushed firmly in your cheek...

No problemo!

Yes, that post was for Valeyard...sorry if most folks don't get the "in" joke...I guess you kind of had to be there. :)

Ambassador
11-18-07, 11:16 AM
That's the mother of all sweeping generalisations. And pure conjecture.
Since when have any of the pro-colorization folks on this board provided hard data to prove their claims that colorization itself has actually resulted in increased appreciation for old movies? (And I don't mean that to be entirely snarky. It's a study that's waiting to be made.) On the whole, I'm much more respectful of Baracine's position -- i.e., that it provides a sort of Dadaist reimagining of the original film.

PatrickMcCart
11-18-07, 11:28 AM
Since when have any of the pro-colorization folks on this board provided hard data to prove their claims that colorization itself has actually resulted in increased appreciation for old movies? (And I don't mean that to be entirely snarky. It's a study that's waiting to be made.) On the whole, I'm much more respectful of Baracine's position -- i.e., that it provides a sort of Dadaist reimagining of the original film.

Yeah. I went to a 35mm screening of Casablanca at a theater in a rural part of north Georgia and it was still a packed house. The audience was a wide mix of teenagers my age at the time (this was 2004) to older folks those who very possibly saw it when it originally came out. The only sounds I heard were laughs at all the right parts and applause at the end (!).

Of all the people I know who like B&W classics, it was NOT the color versions. Generally, the people who don't like B&W classics wouldn't like them anyways because they're old.

baracine
11-18-07, 12:10 PM
Since when have any of the pro-colorization folks on this board provided hard data to prove their claims that colorization itself has actually resulted in increased appreciation for old movies? (And I don't mean that to be entirely snarky. It's a study that's waiting to be made.) On the whole, I'm much more respectful of Baracine's position -- i.e., that it provides a sort of Dadaist reimagining of the original film.

Please... Choose your words more carefully. Nowhere in my long rave have I said anything about the colourization being "Dadaist"! Not in words and not in meaning, either.

Alfred Bergman
11-29-07, 12:39 PM
Take a look in the screen capture on DVD Beaver: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews34/20_million_miles_to_earth_blu-ray.htm

Seens OK, but the title openning, showing the planet Earth seens a great mess. The continents are very poor traced, with color very unstable, and the poles don't have the white shade it shoud. The fog around the plante seens to have done just over the same ocean color, very unrealistic

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/5213/titlecolornt1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
By BetoDarce (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/BetoDarce)

The simple and pooly painted green on the continents make it look like a poor hand painted film from 1905.
Sorry Barry, the rest seens fine, but just this oppening that is bad.

We see the plante had low contrast with just minor tonality difference from continents to the water, and I preume the Legend Films algorithms didn't managed to separet it well. If we increase the contrast the detection of those edges get easier. So it was only required that the software algorith woul "see" the image as a contrating image, but the contrast of final product would be keeped.

baracine
11-29-07, 05:09 PM
Take a look in the screen capture on DVD Beaver: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews34/20_million_miles_to_earth_blu-ray.htm

Seens OK, but the title openning, showing the planet Earth seens a great mess. The continents are very poor traced, with color very unstable, and the poles don't have the white shade it shoud. The fog around the plante seens to have done just over the same ocean color, very unrealistic

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/5213/titlecolornt1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
By BetoDarce (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/BetoDarce)

The simple and pooly painted green on the continents make it look like a poor hand painted film from 1905.
Sorry Barry, the rest seens fine, but just this oppening that is bad.

We see the plante had low contrast with just minor tonality difference from continents to the water, and I preume the Legend Films algorithms didn't managed to separet it well. If we increase the contrast the detection of those edges get easier. So it was only required that the software algorith woul "see" the image as a contrating image, but the contrast of final product would be keeped.

Alfred, to be fair, you can only see this is Planet Earth in the colour version.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews34/a%2020%20million%20miles%20blu-ray/title-bw.jpg

Alfred Bergman
11-29-07, 10:11 PM
Alfred, to be fair, you can only see this is Planet Earth in the colour version.


Come on Baracine... I Like colorization too and thinks Barry is going fine. But this particular scene it's horrible. Barry's tools can do bether, if properly used and adjusted. The colorist responsible for this scene needs to get a advertence or get more ability or patience.
Don't tell me the planet is well colored, please. Don't make me colorize it myself (the still) with apropriated colors details.


--

Alfred Bergman
11-29-07, 10:21 PM
The colorist practically created a new continent between USA and Brazil, bellow the letter O of the word Million and. He also added a giant green-zone in North Pole. Without speak about ocean with some green and Canada with blue.
Is Canada more cold than North Pole??? I think Santa Claus is happy with sun glasses :-)

---

Drop
11-29-07, 10:33 PM
Those caps from 20 Million Miles to Earth (outside the title card) look like a much better color job than It's a Wonderful Life. Still it has a long way to go.

baracine
11-30-07, 07:30 AM
Come on Baracine... I Like colorization too and thinks Barry is going fine. But this particular scene it's horrible. Barry's tools can do bether, if properly used and adjusted. The colorist responsible for this scene needs to get a advertence or get more ability or patience.
Don't tell me the planet is well colored, please. Don't make me colorize it myself (the still) with apropriated colors details.


--

Alfred, as usual, I have no way of knowing whether you own this DVD or have even seen it. Suffice it to say that this scene would have been improved 100 % if the grain had been totally eliminated from the orignal B&W footage. It must have been like colourizing porridge.

baracine
11-30-07, 08:42 AM
Those caps from 20 Million Miles to Earth (outside the title card) look like a much better color job than It's a Wonderful Life. Still it has a long way to go.

Actually, It's A Wonderful Life is a much more complicated, involved, researched and successful project than 20 Million Miles to Earth.

Drop
11-30-07, 09:36 AM
Actually, It's A Wonderful Life is a much more complicated, involved, researched and successful project than 20 Million Miles to Earth.

It can be as researched and complicated as it wants, but to my eyes those colors look more appropriate and better incorporated. It helps that 20 Million Miles to Earth is a monster film, so those vivid and surreal colors work.

Whereas It's A Wonderful Life also looks like a monster film, but it isn't one.

baracine
11-30-07, 03:04 PM
It can be as researched and complicated as it wants, but to my eyes those colors look more appropriate and better incorporated. It helps that 20 Million Miles to Earth is a monster film, so those vivid and surreal colors work.

Whereas It's A Wonderful Life also looks like a monster film, but it isn't one.

Imagine how much more detailed and nuanced your opinion would be if you actually saw the DVDs in question!

Alfred Bergman
11-30-07, 09:02 PM
Imagine how much more detailed and nuanced your opinion would be if you actually saw the DVDs in question!
This is due the moving and audio visual association. Our brain will notice less incoscistences in terms of color naturality since will also be busy analizing the sound and moviment. The sound and moviment help to hide the fails.
It's like to eat a bad toast but with a good cheese.

Anyway the Legend Fimscolorization it's not a bad toast, but have some fails here and there. The best worldwide even so.
I beleive there are people more sensitive to colorization than others, and so those more sensitive persons will tend to fin]d the look more artificial.
That's why some review said Legend Films colorization looks perfect, and other say that looks not fully natural yet or even quite artificial or fake.

--

Drop
11-30-07, 10:37 PM
Imagine how much more detailed and nuanced your opinion would be if you actually saw the DVDs in question!

You're right, and I do intend to see the films. I have the new It's a Wonderful life on my Xmas list, and hope I get it. I will atleast rent 20 Million Miles. I fully expect both to look better in motion, but I shall see and report back to this thread because I know you are waiting to disregard my undoubtedly somewhat negative review.

baracine
12-01-07, 06:01 AM
You're right, and I do intend to see the films. I have the new It's a Wonderful life on my Xmas list, and hope I get it. I will atleast rent 20 Million Miles. I fully expect both to look better in motion, but I shall see and report back to this thread because I know you are waiting to disregard my undoubtedly somewhat negative review.

I find it remarkable and certainly worth mentioning that most of the opponents of colourization usually tell you flat-out that they "never" watch colourized films and that even Alfred Bergman, who is an ardent defender and practitioner of colourization, never seems to have seen the DVDs he is talking about so knowingly, putting his entire trust in screen captures and reports by people like myself.

I see a pattern here. Most of the defenders of the new Bram Stoker's Dracula SD and BD transfers admitted that they had (1) never seen it, and/or (2) never seen the preceding Superbit transfer, and/or that they (3) had never seen the film and/or that, if they did, (4) it was impossible for anyone to remember how the film looked in theatres. The same goes for the defenders of the Platinum Edition Peter Pan transfer.

I even had a three-page argument recently on a thread I started about the films of Sacha Guitry with an archival expert who, for all I know, never gave any indication that he had ever seen a single film by that director.

I have therefore come to the general conclusion that more people venture opinions on films and DVDs in these threads than have actually seen the films or DVDs they are talking about.

On a totally unrelated mater, I have just rewatched Ratatouille on DVD for the nth time and am still amazed at its life-like, photo-realistic colours, considering that these are "only" CGI drawings - i.e. a totally artificial universe. I wonder what would happen if you asked the Pixar colourists, art directors and colour timers to apply their skills to colourizing black and white film...

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Ratatouille/disney_and_pixar_s_ratatouille_movie_image_s.jpg

<div><object width="425" height="335"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/2P76Unpu20K01ddZy"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/2P76Unpu20K01ddZy" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="335" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1vk50_9minute-preview-of-pixars-ratatouil_fun">9-Minute Preview of Pixar's RATATOUILLE!</a></b><br /><i>envoy&eacute; par <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/RatatouilleMovie">RatatouilleMovie</a></i></div>

John Hodson
12-01-07, 07:19 AM
I find it remarkable and certainly worth mentioning that most of the opponents of colourization usually tell you flat-out that they "never" watch colourized films

I won't claim to have never watched a crayoned in film, but for the umpteenth time why should anyone support a practice that they find inherently repellent? Even should they (plain and fancy they) finally perfect the process it is simply wrong. Bad. Nasty.

You're an intelligent guy Baracine; you know perfectly well why people won't watch them. But you stand there, at the school gates, whispering 'Pssst!! Wanna see a colorized film? They're not habit forming ya know - g'wan, try one...' ;)

baracine
12-01-07, 08:52 AM
I won't claim to have never watched a crayoned in film, but for the umpteenth time why should anyone support a practice that they find inherently repellent? Even should they (plain and fancy they) finally perfect the process it is simply wrong. Bad. Nasty.

You're an intelligent guy Baracine; you know perfectly well why people won't watch them. But you stand there, at the school gates, whispering 'Pssst!! Wanna see a colorized film? They're not habit forming ya know - g'wan, try one...' ;)

I think the debate has evolved - painfully - from simply stating a value judgement like "Colorization is bad" to actually judging cases. If you admit this, you will find it equally absurd to judge cases without referring to the evidence. Not only do I know and understand why people won't watch them, I also know why other people will watch them. Regardless of whether you think it is "immoral" or "against nature" or "not in the Bible", or what have you, to colourize a particular film, I think the work and the art of the colourists is just as impressive on a film like It's A Wonderful Life, for instance, as it is on a film like Ratatouille, and done for much less money to boot. You can't competently judge the art of the process with just your moral prejudices.

In other words, once you leave the dogmatic comfort of the platform where you throw rocks at the sinners with the other Pharisees and actually cross over to judging colourized films on their artistic merit, you actually need to look at them before passing judgement on aesthetic grounds. That's all I'm saying. Apparently, in the world we live in, it's somewhat OK to condemn things and people on moral grounds without any evidence, but it takes some form of evidence to condemn things and people on aesthetic grounds.

John Hodson
12-01-07, 09:21 AM
I think the debate has evolved - painfully - from simply stating a value judgement like "Colorization is bad" to actually judging cases.

Oh, terribly sorry; didn't realise that the debate had 'evolved'. And here was I, antediluvian prejudices on display for all to see, thinking that consistently using terms like "immoral" or "against nature" or "not in the Bible" to belittle the naysayers belonged to a less enlightened debate.

Silly me. BTW, I don't deny that that technology is impressive (that isn't the argument IMHO), I have seen crayoned in films, and I've made my judgement - I find them abhorrent, I think that the practice is "immoral", "against nature" and "not in the Bible" (delete as appliable).

Alfred Bergman
12-01-07, 11:20 AM
I have watched some DVDs, yes. Have few, since importation is expensive, and tax and shipping. Most rant when find a DVD Rent service thatbhave it but it's rare.

You need to colorizations follows the dictator caled B&W tones.
Colorization it's still, or mostly a 2D job over a 3D imaging. The B&W film it's not 3D, you may say, but have all the 3D influence of the sets and relations of light reflection, while the colors applied over the images it's mostly just 2D calculated.

The colorists of Ratatouille would do no bether, or even less than the best Legend Films colorists.

First: The 3D universe of CGI gives countless posibilitis to adjust colors, since they can control the bright or dark aspect of the surface, the wall, the trees. Also can control the light emission of the CGI sun, handlighs. Can control everthing.
Colorization follows the B&W image without change the tones relation from one object to another, and most can't even change the B&W gradding the the overal frame or scene. They can just change the hue and saturation, creating colors spectruns to each object.

Like I said before and turn to say, colorization will only be very realist when they get ability to estimate all 3D deepnes of each object. And even than some wizard of software development create something like that in a year or two, will be very expensive, or almost so expensive as create a GCI cartoon like Ratatouille.

In the meantime we enjoy what actual technology and budget can offer, and that can be quite nice depsite of imperfections.

baracine
12-01-07, 11:37 AM
Like I said before (...), colorization will only be very realist when they get (the) ability to estimate (the) 3D depth of each object. And even then, some wizard of software development (will) creating something like that in a year or two will be very expensive, or almost (as) expensive as (to) create a GCI cartoon like Ratatouille.

So what you're saying is that whenever we get the illusion of reality from a colourization job, it's mostly entirely due to the colourist's talent, intuition and his "best estimate" of the 3D depth of each object. In other words: artistry!

baracine
12-01-07, 11:39 AM
I have seen crayoned in films, and I've made my judgement - I find them abhorrent, I think that the practice is "immoral", "against nature" and "not in the Bible" (delete as applicable).

Not to mention that it makes little Baby Jesus/little Baby Roger Ebert (delete as applicable) cry.

Barry Sandrew
12-01-07, 12:12 PM
Imagine how much more detailed and nuanced your opinion would be if you actually saw the DVDs in question!

:-) Never fails to amaze me.

Barry Sandrew
12-01-07, 12:20 PM
I think the debate has evolved - painfully - from simply stating a value judgement like "Colorization is bad" to actually judging cases. If you admit this, you will find it equally absurd to judge cases without referring to the evidence. Not only do I know and understand why people won't watch them, I also know why other people will watch them. Regardless of whether you think it is "immoral" or "against nature" or "not in the Bible", or what have you, to colourize a particular film, I think the work and the art of the colourists is just as impressive on a film like It's A Wonderful Life, for instance, as it is on a film like Ratatouille, and done for much less money to boot. You can't competently judge the art of the process with just your moral prejudices.

In other words, once you leave the dogmatic comfort of the platform where you throw rocks at the sinners with the other Pharisees and actually cross over to judging colourized films on their artistic merit, you actually need to look at them before passing judgement on aesthetic grounds. That's all I'm saying. Apparently, in the world we live in, it's somewhat OK to condemn things and people on moral grounds without any evidence, but it takes some form of evidence to condemn things and people on aesthetic grounds.

You're good! Couldn't have said it better myself. I find it the height of arrogance for anyone to tell me what I should not watch... what I should watch... and how I should watch it. Fortunately the vast majority of consumers and professional reviewers are not sheep.

.

John Hodson
12-01-07, 02:51 PM
...you actually need to look at them before passing judgement...

I find it the height of arrogance for anyone to tell me what I should not watch... what I should watch...

Heaven forfend that I, for one, would have the arrogance to tell anyone what they should, or should not, watch, but you boys seem to want yer cake AND yer 'alfpenny...

Barry Sandrew
12-01-07, 03:02 PM
Heaven forfend that I, for one, would have the arrogance to tell anyone what they should, or should not, watch, but you boys seem to want yer cake AND yer 'alfpenny...

How's this for black and white vs color spectrum...

Censorship is bad, choice is good. Artistic elitism (creative restriction) is bad, freedom of artistic expression is good.

John Hodson
12-01-07, 03:24 PM
I've said it before Barry, using words like 'choice', and 'freedom' when, for instance, tampering with the work or artists and professionals who are long gone and are simply unable to make any objection makes me want to vomit; in the case of the subject of this thread, both Capra and Stewart's objections to colorization are on record. Though it didn't, oddly, make it as an extra in the set.

I doubt that the fact that the two-disc set also includes the monochrome version would be any comfort to either; no 'freedom', no 'choice' for them.

I rather think the bottom line for Paramount is 'profit', which, as we've been in a Biblical frame of mind, is the first commandment of Tinsel Town.

Barry Sandrew
12-01-07, 05:09 PM
I've said it before Barry, using words like 'choice', and 'freedom' when, for instance, tampering with the work or artists and professionals who are long gone and are simply unable to make any objection makes me want to vomit; in the case of the subject of this thread, both Capra and Stewart's objections to colorization are on record. Though it didn't, oddly, make it as an extra in the set.

I doubt that the fact that the two-disc set also includes the monochrome version would be any comfort to either; no 'freedom', no 'choice' for them.

I rather think the bottom line for Paramount is 'profit', which, as we've been in a Biblical frame of mind, is the first commandment of Tinsel Town.

The purpose of time limited patents AND copyrights is to allow the original creators to have a monopoly for a fair period of time. Then the creation falls into public domain where free enterprise allows that creative work to be more readily available and affordable.

I really can't waste time dicussing the absurd notion that profit motive is a bad thing. What do you think Capra's motive was when he signed a contract to colorize It's A Wonderful Life?

.

John Hodson
12-01-07, 05:21 PM
I don't allude to it being 'bad' Barry; I intimate rather that it's the prime motivator, rather than 'freedom' or 'choice'.

What do you think Capra's motive was when he signed a contract to colorize It's A Wonderful Life?

Now you bring it up, presumably you know why then he subsequently objected to the process; because he couldn't exercise artistic control. And he never will.

Why I am reminded of...

Man: Look, this isn't an argument.
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is.
Mr. Vibrating: It is not.
Man: Look, you contradicted me.
Mr. Vibrating: I did not.
Man: Oh you did.
Mr. Vibrating: No, no, no.
Man: You did just then.
Mr. Vibrating: Nonsense.
Man: Oh, this is futile.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: I came here for a good argument.
Mr. Vibrating: No, you didn't. No, you came here for an argument.
Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: It can be.
Man: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is. It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: But that's not just saying, "No it isn't."
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't. An argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is.
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look...
Mr. Vibrating: [bell rings] Good morning.
Man: What?
Mr. Vibrating: That's it. Good morning.
Man: It was just getting interesting.
Mr. Vibrating: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
Man: That was never five minutes. ..

Alfred Bergman
12-01-07, 05:36 PM
So what you're saying is that whenever we get the illusion of reality from a colourization job, it's mostly entirely due to the colourist's talent, intuition and his "best estimate" of the 3D depth of each object. In other words: artistry!

According Barry, and I can't enter in details, his software it's so rich and well designed that it's not require a wizard colorist to do a good estimation to prepare the colors and the colors interaction to the enviroment.
The colorist artistry is about the choice of some colors, and the final color balance (after the film be colorized).
The colorist don't need to calculate the color spectrun for a pure red shirt, for shadow, mildtones and bright areas. And also have not to calculate the red color changes in sun, by night, or by candle. The software did it, as a tool. Those tools abilities are used for natural looking purposes.
For certains patterns anf kind of object the colorist must knows ands research the color properties, like wood, patterns, and elaborated materials with deeper color variances along grayscale. But I supose they have a kind of library on HD.
Once colorization it's not intented to always look natural, the colors can also be set to different behaviors, psychedelic look, etc. And so may not intent to follow the laws of color behavior.

The colorist don't do 3D estimation, but Barry once said here that the software had few 3D estimation for some few cases. I bet those case are situation where a pure flat color would turn a object too much artificial, like a face with one side ilunimated by a candle and the other side with moonlight shine, for example.

But for single mortals like me who colorize using Photoshop, it's a real hard task to calculate the color spectrun, once Photoshop it's a deep mess in terms create and adjust color spectrun.
No decent colorization software was ever realised on market, but just digital simple crayons without any logic to color spectrun creation or nature.

Carcosa
12-01-07, 05:42 PM
I hope this otherwise interesting thread doesn't degenerate into the unresolvable debate about colorization. Those who are against it are rigid and absolute with no compromise. LEGEND FILMS has done some terrific restorations and provided those results in b/w AND color. I myself PREFER the original presentation and I'm getting it with their discs. Seems like a win-win situation but the anti color crowd will object no matter what. Oh well....

Jay G.
12-01-07, 05:58 PM
I think the work and the art of the colourists is just as impressive on a film like It's A Wonderful Life, for instance, as it is on a film like Ratatouille.
So you're saying that the colorized It's A Wonderful Life looks as good as a cartoon. I'm sorry, but if I wanted to watch something that looked like a cartoon, I'd watch, you know, a cartoon.

Also, Ratatouille had no colorists working on it. Check the credits. They didn't render the image and then paint colors on top; the rendered an image that already had color. As a result, Ratatouille is able to deliver color that's even more realistic than a colorized film is able to achieve.

Take a look at the image you provided:
http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Ratatouille/disney_and_pixar_s_ratatouille_movie_image_s.jpg

Near the bottom of the image, you can see that the trees on the right-hand side of the image have a reddish hue to them, possibly from some out-of-frame light source. Imagine if the image had been rendered in B&W and then handed to a colorist: they would have no information to indicate that there had been a reddish hue in the original color, and likely would just paint the trees shades of green. Likewise the gradual shift of the city from golden dusk on the right to purple twilight on the left would be hard to reproduce in a colorized image, if not downright impossible.

But this isn't just about the technical accomplishments. It's about preserving and viewing the film the way the film was originally created and originally intended to be seen.

Let me illustrate this position by using an example where the technical qualities of the color version cannot be questioned. The Man Who Wasn't There is a film that was actually shot in color, and was converted in B&W in post. One can see comparison pics of the two versions at the following link:
http://www.youknow-forkids.com/manwhowasnttherecolour.htm

The color version of that film is the original color of the image, as it had been shot. However, I still prefer the B&W version, as that was the one the Coen Brothers intended to be seen. The fact that the color image is 100% real doesn't make it in any way the correct image.

And I find this whole "how dare you tell someone else what they should, should not watch," argument to be absurd. People voice their opinions on the correctness of certain behaviors all the time. No talking in a theater; turn your cell phone off, etc. David Lynch prefers that people watch his films in one complete viewing, so much so that he doesn't allow chapter stops on DVDs of his films, when he can. I don't have to agree with those opinions to acknowledge that they are a valid point of view.

Likewise, I can understand that some people may want colorized versions of films, and I can respect their right to have that opinion. At the same time I don't have to view their opinion as in any way, shape, or form as correct, nor do I have to even acknowledge them the option of a colorized version. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's right.

mzupeman2
12-01-07, 06:43 PM
I purchased the black and white edition from last year since people say that transfers is similar. I don't need the color, don't want it, so I don't waste my cash on it when last years is cheaper. Problem solved. I don't understand why this thread has degenerated into this mess.

Jay G.
12-01-07, 07:22 PM
LEGEND FILMS has done some terrific restorations and provided those results in b/w AND color. I myself PREFER the original presentation and I'm getting it with their discs. Seems like a win-win situation...
Sure, it seems like a "win-win," until you realize that having two versions of a film on a disc means that the B&W version isn't going to have the same amount of space on the disc that it would've had it been the only version on the disc, possibly compromising quality.

Plus, adding a color version adds to the cost of the DVD, as this release illustrates. B&W fans would be paying extra for a version of the film they didn't want. Fortunately for this release, a previous release that's just sans the color version is available that's cheaper, but not all films have this option.

Add in the aesthetic disdain for colorization, and it's easy to see how these DVDs that offer an option that shouldn't exist in the first place irks purists. It's like 4:3 versions of WS films: I don't care if other people like these versions, they still shouldn't exist IMO.

Carcosa
12-01-07, 08:49 PM
Sure, it seems like a "win-win," until you realize that having two versions of a film on a disc means that the B&W version isn't going to have the same amount of space on the disc that it would've had it been the only version on the disc, possibly compromising quality..
Well, since IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE is on SEPARATE discs, I guess this is a non-issue, right? I really find this point to be pretty flimsy. DVDs are CRAMMED with (usually useless) special features that utilize valuable disc space. Are you equally concerned about that? Blue-ray and HD have made this a non-issue for the future anyway, so I guess that will take care of that.

Plus, adding a color version adds to the cost of the DVD, as this release illustrates. B&W fans would be paying extra for a version of the film they didn't want. Fortunately for this release, a previous release that's just sans the color version is available that's cheaper, but not all films have this option..
The single disc of SHE only runs about $15...how much cheaper can one really expect a disc to be? I must also note that the 2 disc set of IAWL sells for an obscene $3 more than the standard single disc. Boy, another example of the consumer getting boned.

Add in the aesthetic disdain for colorization, and it's easy to see how these DVDs that offer an option that shouldn't exist in the first place irks purists. It's like 4:3 versions of WS films: I don't care if other people like these versions, they still shouldn't exist IMO.
Ahhh...the ONLY real reason for objection...and the only honest statement made in the posting. You just DON'T like it.... and thats OK.

But I think you're wrong.

Carcosa
12-01-07, 09:03 PM
Likewise, I can understand that some people may want colorized versions of films, and I can respect their right to have that opinion. At the same time I don't have to view their opinion as in any way, shape, or form as correct, nor do I have to even acknowledge them the option of a colorized version. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's right.

I guess the concern by purists like yourself is the "slippery slope" thing; where a colorized CITIZEN KANE becomes the "accepted" version in the future. It's an understandable, legit concern...

But I really have no fear of this happening.

There really isn't a HUGE clamour to colorize everything. As the process has become more refined and the home video consumer more sophisticated, the desire to see films as they where originally presented has become a MAJOR driving point of the market. This same market will prevent that from becoming the "norm". At the same time, technology has given folks like Ray Harryhausen the chance to realize his own ORIGINAL desire to see his early BW movies in color as he ORIGINALLY intended. He made these films...who has the right to tell him he's wrong?

mzupeman2
12-01-07, 09:44 PM
Eh, who cares? Seriously, this thread isn't about the It's A Wonderful Life release anymore, it's about the debate of acceptability in changes of original artistic work. Can we just skip this and move on with the thread in a positive manner? This has been discussed to death in the past. It's almost as bad as going off the rails when we start talking about Star Wars on these forums. Let' just move on. Buy it or don't.

Carcosa
12-01-07, 10:13 PM
Eh, who cares? Seriously, this thread isn't about the It's A Wonderful Life release anymore, it's about the debate of acceptability in changes of original artistic work. Can we just skip this and move on with the thread in a positive manner? This has been discussed to death in the past. It's almost as bad as going off the rails when we start talking about Star Wars on these forums. Let' just move on. Buy it or don't.

-Sigh-

You are quite right sir....

Alfred Bergman
12-01-07, 10:39 PM
What about discuss how the colors affected each scene in It's A Wonderful Life ?

But a true nice discussion, and not just as a door to attack or promote colorization.
-

Jay G.
12-01-07, 11:33 PM
I guess the concern by purists like yourself is the "slippery slope" thing; where a colorized CITIZEN KANE becomes the "accepted" version in the future.
I don't know where you got that idea from. It's more the idea that a significantly altered work is being passed off as the same movie, and that people who watch it think it's the same as watching the film as it was originally presented. It's like reading the Cliff Notes to a book and thinking that means you've read the book. No, it means you read the plot. It's the same with altered aspect ratios. It's also the thinking process behind these alterations in that they are an attempt to appeal to the masses, and that the masses won't be able to appreciate a work unless it fills their screen and is in color. It's dragging culture down to the lowest common denominator, instead of requiring the lowest common denominator to rise to the culture.

There really isn't a HUGE clamour to colorize everything.
So, because the people who want to see it the wrong way are in the minority, that makes it OK?

At the same time, technology has given folks like Ray Harryhausen the chance to realize his own ORIGINAL desire to see his early BW movies in color as he ORIGINALLY intended. He made these films...who has the right to tell him he's wrong?
I do. Just as mzupeman2 pointed out how people have the right to criticize George Lucas's latter attempts to revise STAR WARS to what he "ORIGINALLY intended." Directors always have to compromise their vision for a film based on various real-life situations. Harryhausen should just accept the films for what they are instead of trying to add color to something that never had it.

Jay G.
12-01-07, 11:35 PM
What about discuss how the colors affected each scene in It's A Wonderful Life ?

But a true nice discussion, and not just as a door to attack or promote colorization.
If you want to start one, you certainly can. I'm just responding to what's been written here.

Carcosa
12-02-07, 01:38 AM
I do. Just as mzupeman2 pointed out how people have the right to criticize George Lucas's latter attempts to revise STAR WARS to what he "ORIGINALLY intended." Directors always have to compromise their vision for a film based on various real-life situations. Harryhausen should just accept the films for what they are instead of trying to add color to something that never had it.

I see...so what you seem to be saying is that YOU are the supreme decision maker here...NOT the guys who make the movies. Chaplin tinkered with THE GOLD RUSH for decades after it was finished. Guess that was uncalled for. As is every "Director's Cut" ever released. I hope you are equally outraged about those travesties. And let’s NOT hope missing Amberson's footage turns up...that would be tampering with the original bonafide release to add it back. And since Welles is dead, HE couldn't OK it anyway so THAT’S not acceptable. Who KNOWS how it should have went together. Unfortunately, this is where your logic takes you. Unless you...uh...compromise.

Well, in a way you are the supreme decision maker. Simply don't buy the movies that offend you sensibilities. If some folks want a colorized version of IAWL, God bless 'em. I hope Legend Films fills THAT void and makes money, because it gets some good films restored in BW and that’s fine by me, being the compromising whore that I am.

I personally think that Leonardo had every right to paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa if he wanted to...as long as the painting was in his possession :)

I guess this REALLY has gotten off-topic and I have jumped in when I should have let it go. It is ironic that I am generally in agreement with you...I prefer films in their original form and I myself am no HUGE fan of colorization. I can actually understand the objections if the original films were not offered (George Lucas FINALLY released the Star Wars in spotty transfers....) but in this case it is, as I said, a win-win proposition. YOU and I get the version we want, and color people get something they want to see. I suspect it has less to do with purist vison but really an emotional, gut level hatred of colorization.

Jay G.
12-02-07, 10:39 AM
I see...so what you seem to be saying is that YOU are the supreme decision maker here...NOT the guys who make the movies.
No, I'm not saying that at all, and you'd have to reach to get that interpretation from what I wrote. I simply wrote that I have the right to have my own opinion and the right to voice it, not that my opinion was authoritative. You were the one suggesting that there are authoritative opinions, suggesting that nobody has the "right" to disagree with Harryhausen's opinions of his own films.

Chaplin tinkered with THE GOLD RUSH for decades after it was finished. Guess that was uncalled for.
Probably. The only tinkering I can find that occurred was changes to make the film appeal more to people in the sound era, adding narration and music, something which was probably unnecessary and likely made more for mercenary reasons than creative.

As is every "Director's Cut" ever released.
Most director's cuts are an attempt to restore the original creator's original intentions, before interference by the studio or others, using the footage that was originally shot.

And let’s NOT hope missing Amberson's footage turns up...that would be tampering with the original bonafide release to add it back.
There's quite a difference between adding back footage that was originally shot and existed and inserting something that never existed before into the film.

And since Welles is dead, HE couldn't OK it anyway so THAT’S not acceptable. Who KNOWS how it should have went together.
Well, it certainly couldn't be called a director's cut, like how the restored version of Touch of Evil isn't referred to as such. However, again, they'd be working with the original notes and whatever else they have to restore what originally existed back to its original state. Colorization doesn't do that, it adds something that never originally existed on film.

Simply don't buy the movies that offend you sensibilities.
It's not the movies that offend my sensibilities, which is my point. The colorize IAWL is not IAWL, it's a bastardized derivative work. People wouldn't accept an edited version of the film, or a cropped version of the film, as valid, so I don't see why not accepting a colorized version as valid is so hard to understand.

I hope Legend Films fills THAT void and makes money, because it gets some good films restored in BW and that’s fine by me, being the compromising whore that I am.
So only films that get colorized get restorations? That doesn't make any sense. I'm thinking that if Legend Films didn't feel that they had to colorize old films, they'd then have even more money to restore the original film.

I suspect it has less to do with purist [vision] but really an emotional, gut level hatred of colorization.
And why would I have a "gut level hatred of colorization" if not for aesthetic and artistic reasons? I already said that I wouldn't prefer the color version of The Man Who Wasn't There, despite the film originally being shot in color, so I'm obviously not just opposed to colorization because it looks fake.

Carcosa
12-03-07, 12:40 AM
Thanks for the interesting give and take, Jay G. As always I enjoy reading your posts and always find them enlightening....

baracine
12-03-07, 07:23 AM
What about discuss how the colors affected each scene in It's A Wonderful Life ?

But a true nice discussion, and not just as a door to attack or promote colorization.
-

For this to happen, Alfred, - an intelligent discussion based on the merits of the DVD itself - posters would have to buy or rent the DVD, watch it and report on it like I did. As I'm the only one who has bothered to do these three things so far after more than 300 posts, I don't think the intelligent discussion you wish for is going to happen anytime soon.

Maybe there should be a special dvdtalk forum for people who don't actually watch DVDs. It could be called "DVD Talk for the visually impaired".

Jay G.
12-03-07, 09:56 AM
For this to happen, Alfred, - an intelligent discussion based on the merits of the DVD itself - posters would have to buy or rent the DVD, watch it and report on it like I did. As I'm the only one who has bothered to do these three things so far after more than 300 posts, I don't think the intelligent discussion you wish for is going to happen anytime soon.
But of course, you've failed the "not just as a door to promote colorization" requirement, so even you wouldn't be capable of such a discussion.

And of course, a discussion about colorization is a discussion of "the merits of the DVD itself," since the only significant difference with the new release over past ones is the colorized version of the film.

Also, one doesn't have to view a colorized version of a film if one opposes it on principle, since objection on principle has nothing to do with the technical aspects of the process. I've seen the screencaps of the colorized version posted here, and I can tell from them that from a technical standpoint, the process has made huge strides in realism, although not completely there yet. However, I wouldn't care if the process was 100% realistic, it's not the way it was originally presented and intended to be presented.

You're like one of those FS supporters trying to win over OAR supporters by saying, "no really, just watch this version! You'll see that the image is opened up and less claustrophobic and you can see the tops of people's heads in close-ups and...." which is all BS. I don't need to watch an altered version to know that it's been altered. If you want to place your personal preferences over the original artwork and allow it to be altered to fit those preferences, that's fine. Just don't think everyone else has to agree with you, or even humor the idea of the altered work as a legitimate successor to the original.

However, if you're willing to send me a copy of the 2-disc DVD, I'll be willing to humor you and watch the color version at least once. I'm not going to wast any of my own money on even renting the colorized version though.

Alfred Bergman
12-03-07, 10:37 AM
I think Barry prefer to watch this forum instead of watch some Box fighting on TV.
Those discussions never end and people keep almost fighting . Sometimes it's even funny...
Peace on Earth foks :-)

Carcosa
12-03-07, 10:52 AM
I think Barry prefer to watch this forum instead of watch some Box fighting on TV.
Those discussions never end and people keep almost fighting . Sometimes it's even funny...
Peace on Earth foks :-)

Yeah, the arguing is endless...but it can be fun to do...especially with the articulate posters in this thread (no, I don't include myself in that catagory).

I really do find the debate over this subject very interesting.

baracine
12-03-07, 11:49 AM
But of course, you've failed the "not just as a door to promote colorization" requirement, so even you wouldn't be capable of such a discussion.

And of course, a discussion about colorization is a discussion of "the merits of the DVD itself," since the only significant difference with the new release over past ones is the colorized version of the film.

Also, one doesn't have to view a colorized version of a film if one opposes it on principle, since objection on principle has nothing to do with the technical aspects of the process. I've seen the screencaps of the colorized version posted here, and I can tell from them that from a technical standpoint, the process has made huge strides in realism, although not completely there yet. However, I wouldn't care if the process was 100% realistic, it's not the way it was originally presented and intended to be presented.

You're like one of those FS supporters trying to win over OAR supporters by saying, "no really, just watch this version! You'll see that the image is opened up and less claustrophobic and you can see the tops of people's heads in close-ups and...." which is all BS. I don't need to watch an altered version to know that it's been altered. If you want to place your personal preferences over the original artwork and allow it to be altered to fit those preferences, that's fine. Just don't think everyone else has to agree with you, or even humor the idea of the altered work as a legitimate successor to the original.

However, if you're willing to send me a copy of the 2-disc DVD, I'll be willing to humor you and watch the color version at least once. I'm not going to wast any of my own money on even renting the colorized version though.

Reality Check:

This thread is in the "DVD Talk" forum (not the "Movie Talk" forum), which discusses the merits of DVDs and not the merits of films or film processes.

This thread is the merging of three different threads started about the coming of a colourized DVD of It's A Wonderful Life.

If you don't care to see this DVD and you have expressed that feeling and your reasons for it (usually once is enough), I don't see what you are expecting and why you linger.

The same goes for me, of course, since not one poster in the thread (excepting myself and Barry Sandrew, of course, who will be barred if he is suspected of promoting his own DVD) seems to have seen the DVD in question.

mzupeman2
12-03-07, 01:30 PM
But of course, you've failed the "not just as a door to promote colorization" requirement, so even you wouldn't be capable of such a discussion.

And of course, a discussion about colorization is a discussion of "the merits of the DVD itself," since the only significant difference with the new release over past ones is the colorized version of the film.

Also, one doesn't have to view a colorized version of a film if one opposes it on principle, since objection on principle has nothing to do with the technical aspects of the process. I've seen the screencaps of the colorized version posted here, and I can tell from them that from a technical standpoint, the process has made huge strides in realism, although not completely there yet. However, I wouldn't care if the process was 100% realistic, it's not the way it was originally presented and intended to be presented.

You're like one of those FS supporters trying to win over OAR supporters by saying, "no really, just watch this version! You'll see that the image is opened up and less claustrophobic and you can see the tops of people's heads in close-ups and...." which is all BS. I don't need to watch an altered version to know that it's been altered. If you want to place your personal preferences over the original artwork and allow it to be altered to fit those preferences, that's fine. Just don't think everyone else has to agree with you, or even humor the idea of the altered work as a legitimate successor to the original.

However, if you're willing to send me a copy of the 2-disc DVD, I'll be willing to humor you and watch the color version at least once. I'm not going to wast any of my own money on even renting the colorized version though.

It's not a discussion of the merits of the DVD itself.

What's being debated here is a VERY open ended discussion about colorization in and of itself. Unless It's A Wonderful Life is the very first film in history to ever be colorized, which it isn't, then there's no point in discussing it here. It's been discussed to death on these forums in the past. As I've already said once before, this thread has gone off the rails such as every Star Wars thread ever has. Some people are trying to steer it back on course but some people aren't letting this happen.

A proper discussion about the merits of this DVD as far as colorization goes, would include how the colorization itself looks on the title, how you like it, how you dislike it, why you do or don't like it, and if this is going to end up being a purchase for you. But being that you aren't going to even spend money to buy or rent this thing to ever watch it, then you're going way beyond your two cents here and going into that open ended debate that doesn't need to be discussed here.

I don't think people like Jay G has tried to 'convert' anyone. He was simply saying that there needs to be enough sense in this thread for a discussion based on the DVD itself, and apparantly we can't do this here. The only people who have attacked someone like Jay G, has been the people who are dead set against colorization.

Now, I personally couldn't ever see this film in color, and that's my choice. I'm not dropping my five cents but I'm certainly not going to say it doesn't look nice, it looks like a job well done. A film like Miracle On 34th St. however didn't bother me in color, since it's not such a 'mood' piece like It's A Wonderful Life. And that's all that really needs to be said there. Why the discussion needs to venture beyond that point until more people actually have more to say about the new colorized version after they've seen it, is beyond me.

baracine
12-03-07, 03:36 PM
I don't think people like Jay G has tried to 'convert' anyone. He was simply saying that there needs to be enough sense in this thread for a discussion based on the DVD itself, and apparantly we can't do this here. The only people who have attacked someone like Jay G, has been the people who are dead set against colorization.

I agree with everything you say but could you just correct your post and replace Jay G. with baracine? I'm the one saying this discussion should be about the DVD and Jay G. is the one saying that all fans of colourization should burn in hell.

Thank you.

Carcosa
12-03-07, 07:17 PM
Ah....this is getting interesting.....

-popcorn-

mzupeman2
12-03-07, 07:20 PM
I agree with everything you say but could you just correct your post and replace Jay G. with baracine? I'm the one saying this discussion should be about the DVD and Jay G. is the one saying that all fans of colourization should burn in hell.

Thank you.

Whatever. The same point stands no matter who was on what side.

So, has anybody actually who sat down and watched the colorized version want to share opinions? Such as if it really changes the experience for them and heightens/dampers it?

Jay G.
12-03-07, 08:25 PM
Reality Check:

This thread is in the "DVD Talk" forum (not the "Movie Talk" forum), which discusses the merits of DVDs and not the merits of films or film processes.
Like I wrote before, I'm just responding to what's been posted. And considering that the colorized version of the film is the only reason this release exists, discussing the merits of the colorization process is a discussion of the merits of the DVD.

If you don't care to see this DVD and you have expressed that feeling and your reasons for it (usually once is enough), I don't see what you are expecting and why you linger.
Because people post things that I feel should be responded to, such as mischaracterizations of people who don't like the colorization process, and your mistaken assumption that one has to view an alteration before one can be opposed to the alteration.

And, of course, one could ask why you continue to make new posts in this thread in support of the colorized version, since "you have expressed that feeling and your reasons for it (usually once is enough)."

Jay G.
12-03-07, 08:34 PM
Jay G. is the one saying that all fans of colourization should burn in hell.
And of course, it's mischaracterizations like this that keeps causing me to respond. I never said that I thought people who like colorization "should burn in hell," or anything remotely like it. I've simply stated that I feel that colorization is wrong, in my opinion. Anyone with an opinion to the contrary is free to have that opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to view their opinion as in any way, shape, or form as correct or valid, again in my opinion. And I feel that I should have the right to voice my opinion in this forum. Isn't it the point of this forum to voice both positive and negative opinions of a DVD release? I seem to recall someone voicing some very negative opinion regarding a certain other DVD transfer not too long ago on this forum....

Jay G.
12-03-07, 08:48 PM
A proper discussion about the merits of this DVD as far as colorization goes, would include how the colorization itself looks on the title..
By the screencaps posted in this thread, the colorization looks very well done, but not totally realistic, and of course not at all like it should look (B&W).

..how you like it...
I don't like it.

...how you dislike it...
I dislike it very much.

...why you do or don't like it...
Well, I would say why I don't like it here, but you seem to think my reasons for not liking it aren't valid.

....and if this is going to end up being a purchase for you.
It's not.

you're going way beyond your two cents here...
That's OK, because I put in a dollar, and I haven't quite reached that limit yet. ;)

Why the discussion needs to venture beyond that point until more people actually have more to say about the new colorized version after they've seen it, is beyond me.
Why should the discussion completely halt until someone else who's seen the full color version pipe in, especially considering that it's not very likely to happen?

Jay G.
12-03-07, 08:50 PM
So, has anybody actually who sat down and watched the colorized version want to share opinions? Such as if it really changes the experience for them and heightens/dampers it?
Wouldn't that discussion be, by your logic, "not a discussion of the merits of the DVD itself" though? Either discussion of the colorized version, and its advantages and faults, is valid in this thread, or it's not.

Carcosa
12-03-07, 09:26 PM
Wouldn't that discussion be, by your logic, "not a discussion of the merits of the DVD itself" though? Either discussion of the colorized version, and its advantages and faults, is valid in this thread, or it's not.

Yes, it seems to me one cannot have a discussion about the pros and cons of the colorized version of IAWL without it touching on colorization merits in general. Its going to happen and thats fine by me, although the thread is not ONLY about the colorized version.

The debate is interesting to me but without resolution ultimately

And I suspect Baracine's "burn in hell" comment was a bit tongue in cheek...

mzupeman2
12-03-07, 09:39 PM
Wouldn't that discussion be, by your logic, "not a discussion of the merits of the DVD itself" though? Either discussion of the colorized version, and its advantages and faults, is valid in this thread, or it's not.

Good lord. Can't anybody distinguish the difference? Talking about the colorized version of this film, how IT looks, how IT feels, and how IT offers an experience to you one way or the other IS pertaining to THIS film.

An open ended debate on why colorization is acceptable or unacceptable is NOT. Why is my logic on this so hard for people who seem to be intelligent to follow?

I love how members of this forum just pick things apart, phrase by phrase, and just completely forget the whole message. All I'm simply trying to say is that I'm with the people who dont' approve of the colorized version of this. My reasons may not be as 'out there' as some of the purists and the reasons those purists are against it are fine, but I think we can safely say this thread carried on more over time about the acceptability of colorization of films themselves, instead of in this one particular instance. And instead of just stating these opinions, it turned into a debate over colorization in general, again.

I can't and won't explain myself on this again. I'm just repeating myself here. Anywho, I look forward to watching my black and white edition of this film that came out last year. I got a great deal on it this year with the new edition out. With the black and white transfer being the same as in the new edition, and me having no desire for the colorized version, it was nice to save some coin.

They probably could have saved the money on the restoration process and colorization, released yet another new edition for this year with some gimmicky packaging, and made a better profit. There are so many people that grew up with this film, I wonder how much money they'd make simply based on the fact that the color version is now available. You think people would have picked up this set as a two discer with special features minus the colorized version anyways? I'm betting on 'most likely'.

baracine
12-04-07, 04:53 AM
I seem to recall someone voicing some very negative opinion regarding a certain other DVD transfer not too long ago on this forum....

Yes, on a DVD I had seen. Why do you keep missing the point?

PatrickMcCart
12-04-07, 07:35 AM
I have seen the colorized version and other works by Legend Films. There's no arguing whether or not they did a nice job. The colorization for It's a Wonderful Life looks great.

It was just unnecessary. Just as much as would a DTS 5.1 remix had it been included on the DVD. Maybe I'm not as demanding... If it's cleaned up as best as it can be, that's good enough for me. I don't need color to enjoy B&W classics.

Jay G.
12-04-07, 07:59 AM
Good lord. Can't anybody distinguish the difference? Talking about the colorized version of this film, how IT looks, how IT feels, and how IT offers an experience to you one way or the other IS pertaining to THIS film.

An open ended debate on why colorization is acceptable or unacceptable is NOT. Why is my logic on this so hard for people who seem to be intelligent to follow?
Because your logic is very illogical. It's like suggesting that a discussion of a P&S transfer shouldn't bring up OAR. Discussing the colorization of this film is of course going to bring up those who oppose it on principle, because that's one of the major reasons why people aren't going to like/want this specific colorized film. Discussing just whether or not one person subjectively finds it better or worse is just one way to look at it, and for those opposed to it on principle, beside the point. It's not about what image is best, something completely subjective and thus not really defensible on either end, it's about what image is correct, which one only has to refer to how it what was originally shot to determine.

Jay G.
12-04-07, 08:02 AM
Yes, on a DVD I had seen. Why do you keep missing the point?
I've seen it too, you posted screenshots a few pages back.

And why do you keep missing my point that I don't have to see the whole colorized version, or see it at all to pass judgment on it? I don't have to see a FS transfer of a WS film, or a dubbed version of a foreign language film, to know that it's not the way I want to see the film. I don't see why it has to be any different for colorization.

baracine
12-04-07, 08:38 AM
I've seen it too, you posted screenshots a few pages back.

And why do you keep missing my point that I don't have to see the whole colorized version, or see it at all to pass judgment on it? I don't have to see a FS transfer of a WS film, or a dubbed version of a foreign language film, to know that it's not the way I want to see the film. I don't see why it has to be any different for colorization.

What you are effectively saying is that there should never be any intelligent discussion of the technical or artistic merits of colourized films on DVD because you and others have decreed they are evil. All threads on the subject should only serve as a platform for the nay-sayers to endlessly repeat their sanctimonious condemnations. By the same logic, there should never be any threads on torture porn flicks because I personally find them "abhorrent" and evolution should not be taught in American schools (which it wasn't for the longest time).

Alfred Bergman
12-04-07, 11:11 AM
What about you folks relax a bit with a nice comedy ? [ in color now :-) ]

I Love Lucy and Bob Hope:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSmu7FjuS4Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4VCwapBsbI&feature=related

I Love Lucy Desilu Studios

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeIPIYBQ_68&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYDS2YdvDHw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaFjqPTAilI&feature=related


Split scren demo: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/ny-ettube1203,0,7612540.story

Would be bether if Lucy's hair was blonde??????????
We know she had red hair, but if they budget to shot the show in color film, would they keeped the red hair?

-

baracine
12-04-07, 01:04 PM
Alfred, if you're going to interrupt with silly comedies, you might as well make it an example of fine French colourization (La cuisine au beurre, 1963) with Fernandel:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q-TyVnD5sT0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q-TyVnD5sT0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nm3Ly58n96I&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nm3Ly58n96I&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Alfred Bergman
12-04-07, 07:26 PM
Alfred, if you're going to interrupt with silly comedies, you might as well make it an example of fine French colourization (La cuisine au beurre, 1963) with Fernandel:


Don't take me wrong in such negativism. Why not relax a a bit?
Seens like you folks are taking the discussion too seriously.

Alfred Bergman
12-04-07, 07:28 PM
By the way the videos from this french comedy are looking a bit worse than the old screen captures you did, Baracine :-)

Jay G.
12-04-07, 09:42 PM
What you are effectively saying is that there should never be any intelligent discussion of the technical or artistic merits of colourized films on DVD because you and others have decreed they are evil.
No, I'm saying that trying to have "any intelligent discussion of the technical or artistic merits of colourized films," while at the same time trying to silence the negative opinions based on artistic principle, is oxymoronic and absurd. The opinions of those opposed to colorization are just as valid as those in favor of it.

I never said nobody could discuss whatever they wanted in this thread, and in fact I haven't tried to stop anyone. I've just been responding to the comments that I felt needed addressing. That you mischaracterize what I've said so egregiously speaks more about your own feelings towards free speech than it does mine. From my vantage point, the only ones trying to be silenced are the naysayers.

Carcosa
12-04-07, 11:04 PM
-popcorn-

Alfred Bergman
12-05-07, 07:30 PM
Folks, now without intention to be anoying, but I think that's perfectly possible to discuss the polemic about film colorization if both sides, the color favorables, and the againt it, could discuss with more open minds, instead of just fervorous try to make the point on the discussion.
No ofense to anybody... I respect both sides , which have had interesting points of view. I just think you both could try to understand more the motives of the each other.

Alfred Bergman
12-08-07, 01:34 PM
Very early color photography: http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=28y64Y6vlIo

Alfred Bergman
01-10-08, 01:13 PM
New colorization but with weird skin color:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews34/earth_vs_the_flying_saucers.htm

Legend tends to get weird skin color for B Films. I don't know why.

I did a modification in this capute to try get a bether skin color for the woman on the left.

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1174/flyingsourcesmodificatizd7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The DVD authoring seens wrong since the image detail levels seens lower compared with the anterior version. But the authoring wasn't made by Legend Films. I presume the colorized master HD from Legend films have the bether image quality than any other.

PatrickMcCart
01-10-08, 08:16 PM
Having seen the entire B&W version over the holiday, it's easily one of the best B&W DVDs out there. Here's to hoping a BluRay eventually comes out since it should look even better than Casablanca (which didn't have a nearly complete nitrate camera negative like IAWL). The original mono sound was amazingly clear, too.

More proof how all a black and white classic needs is a cleaned untampered transfer without the silly needless effort of color and 5.1 remixing.

islandclaws
01-10-08, 08:23 PM
My father and I usually watch IAWL every X-mas eve. This year we decided to try out the bastardi, er... colorized version. Well, about 6 minutes in I said we had to change it. I don't care how good of a job they do colorizing a film like that, you just aren't capturing the essence of the film and the emotional impact it possesses unless you're watching it in glorious black and white. It was fun to watch as some kind of weird experiment but I can safely say it will never touch my player again.

Alfred Bergman
03-09-08, 02:11 PM
Does anybody have access top Getty Images files without watermark?

There are grat images there, but I can't get the versions without watermark to colorize:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7163/lombardsunwithglasses3nl5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


This is the famous screwball comedies actress Carole Lombard

Alfred Bergman
03-25-08, 11:45 PM
Here a colorization I did from a early Photography of the young Jimmy (James) Stewart.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/462/jamesstewartcolorizedloeo9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Alfred Bergman
03-30-08, 06:31 PM
Finally a colorization of Charles Chaplin, as Carlitos:

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/1391/chaplinlaughingincolorsrb7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)