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.

--

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...

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.

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).

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.

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!

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

:-) Never fails to amaze me.

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.

.

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.

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?

.

I don't allude to it being 'bad' Barry; I intimate rather that it's the prime motivator, rather than 'freedom' or 'choice'.

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...

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.

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....

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:


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/manwh...herecolour.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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....