And you thought (hoped) colorization was dead.... (1 Viewer)

[Barry_S]

Jeremy - Mike Nelson has never been funnier than on our upcoming titles! He has a huge fan base and after writing several books, is resurfacing in a big way. I passed on your comments to him.

 

[Charlie O.]

Mr Barry, may I ask what those "technical reasons that would likely degrade the viewing experience" were?

 

[Barry_S]

Charlie - Latency... i.e., there would be a pause for a layer change and there is no guarantee it would happen on a cut. We'd be pushing the space on the DVD beyond the max. The DVD is incredibly rich in both video and audio and all audio would have to be done twice (consequently, taking up twice the space). It was prohibitive to do the angle featue without degrading the audio and we did not want to compromise the quality we spent so much time, effort and money to restore.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The other thing to keep in mind is that alternate angles reduce the peak bitrate available to each feature. It doesn't cut it in half, but it does cut it substantially.

With the most common uses for alternate angles (credits and titles), the reduced bitrate is not a factor.

 

[Barry_S]

The Dr. Who restoration team never responded to my emails.

Barry

 

[MarkHastings]

I understand the fear, but the anger is directed in the wrong direction.

I for one don't really care for colorization, but as long as the original is preserved, I have no beefs about the colorized versions...What most people are forgetting is that not everyone out there is a "Film Buff" and is so hard core into "Directors Intent" as you are. There are lots of people who may never have been turned onto these old B&W films if not for the colorization process.

While it may not be the way you'd like it, and it may be an alteration of the film, you are not realizing the true effects of colorization. Many viewers may pass by these movies if not enticed by the colorization. Again, not everyone is a film buff and HAS to have the film in its original format. Providing these 'alternate' versions is a nice way of getting the non-film buffs to buy the product. This will ensure a broader spectrum of fans of the work. And who knows, maybe the colorization is what gets them to buy it, and maybe (after seeing the B&W), they'll agree that the B&W is better.

Again, it is ok to argue that the colorization is altering the films, but enough with the slams and bastardization comments to those who just enjoy watching movies.

Yes, it must be said that we fear the original presentations not being available (over the alternates), but that hasn't happened yet. Sure it has happened with Fullframe only films, but I seriously have to believe that, while a lot of people like fullframe video, it is not the consumers fault for having these fullframe only editions. It's the studios fault for not preserving the original film.

A lot of these nasty comments I read are more in fear of these alternates taking over the originals and that the alternates are "bastardizations" - Again, these comments reflect the consumers who don't mind the alterations. You have no right to slam these people for wanting a certain form of entertainment. Let them have the alteration, there is nothing wrong with that.

Your beef is with the studios for not preserving the originals.

I know there's a fine line in what I'm saying, but let's focus on saving the originals (which is happening in this case) because you have every right to be angry if an original film isn't being preserved, but I really have to stand my ground and disagree with those who feel the need to so violently bash P&S and Colorization when the original is being preserved as well.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Barry_S]

Mark - Thanks for the comments.

One thing that people may not realize is that the directors (in many cases) and the acting talent (in essentially all cases) made only a fraction of the money the studios made upon the original release of the films. Today only the studios realize revenue from the VHS and DVD sales of those same classic feature films. The directors and acting talent (or their estates) get zip.

Where ever we can find and attract the original director (like Ray Harryhausen) or the original acting talent (like Terry Moore in "A Christmas Wish") we contract them for their services (art direction and/or commentary) and pay them an ongoing percentage of the net revenue from the sale of the DVD.

Most people (particularly film buffs) lump all the classics as pure art. In reality most were considered little more than a profit stream for the studios. The talent behind and in front of the cameras were often paid little for their contributions and certainly did not participate in the success and future success of the feature film.

We are changing that game with the original talent (and/or their estates) who actually represent what we see on the screen. In addition to restoring the black and white in high resolution or film resolution, we are also bringing back the talent that made these feature films classics in the first place. Unfortunately many are gone but fortunately many are still with us.

Barry

 

[Richard F]

Some films like Schindler's list shouldn't be colorized but others, for instance WWII films I feel can be enhanced by colorization. I obtained the colorized vhs of The Longest Day, found it much more enjoyable and realistic than the B+W version. In general I avoid old B+W films unless they are absolute classics.

 

[Kevin M]

I meant that because as technology progresses (and if these and subsequent DVD are successful financially) more and more studios will jump on the bandwagon and it is to these people I wish to make quite clear that the original presentation is to be respected.
Nowhere did you ever see me advocating keeping colorized films from people who want them in favor of my own esthetic tastes, but I still feel it is important to let these studios know that B&W isn't hated by all DVD buyers, drawing in a larger cash crowd is fine and necessary for any business but not all people (young or old) are as close minded to B&W as they seem to think.

 

[MarkHastings]

And again, you use the colorization process as a "Bandwagon". It just seems like you are trying to prove that the only way to preserve the original is to bash the alternate.

Because, let's say we destroyed all of the colorizations, maybe there'd be a B&W film that doesn't get released because there isn't a "Market" for it. Maybe the research doesn't support a worth while production of this film, yet if there was a way to entice more people to buy it, then maybe it would see the light of DVD.

It's the Fullframe people who helped support the DVD cause. If it weren't for them, we'd see less videos released and DVD's would be MUCH higher priced. Yes, it sucks when a P&S only version comes out, but it's still not right to bash the P&S version because the way I see it is, if it's only worthy of a P&S release, then maybe if we didn't have P&S DVD's there would not be a release of this movie at all.

We need to emphasize SAVING the original and not emphasize DESTROYING the alternates. I just don't think that destroying the alternates is going to save the original.

 

[Kevin M]

...nope...that bait is a little too easy and for another thread...I'll pass.

 

[MarkHastings]

I don't really think so. You immediately shrug it off like it's completely assinine, but I beg to differ. Remember when DVD's were expensive and it took the mass population to bring the price down? Remember when LD's were expensive? I don't recall low prices due to a nitch market. That's basically what I was getting at with that statement. It may not be completely true, but you can't argue that the people who like Pan and Scan are making absolutely NO affect on the DVD market. Considering the 'threat' that these people pose (as you've already expressed a concern about) there has to be SOME validity...if not, you wouldn't be worried about them.

 

[Kevin M]

...odd how you just ignore certain points I make to justify making a debate out of nothing.

It's a moot point.

You have totally misunderstood my posts (and I might point out that you seem to be the only one who did) and I am not going to defend myself yet again from your groundless accusations of....whatever, You've done this in other threads Mark and I'm not going to help drag this one down into pointless tit-for-tat bickering....again.

There is no anger in this statement Mark, I just grow tired of this (IMO) constant aggressive posture you take in many of the threads I see you join in on & I do not wish to join in on it today.
Simple as that.

 

[MarkHastings]

It's all a psychological test I do. I really feel that you think you are ok with colorization, but deep down inside you hate it no matter how much the original is preserved.

The reason I do this is because people feel the need to continue to argue my points, if you truely believed what you say (and what I responded with), then it'd be done with, but you (as others do) feel the need to argue continuosly. It's this arguing that leads me to believe that there is an underlying passion that you aren't getting across in your posts.

It's like the guy who continues to argue with his ex girlfriend that he is over her (and she also agrees that it is). If he truly was over her, he'd let it drop. It's this continuing to make a point that requires some type of passion, and he can't say that he is over her when he still has passion about the relationship.

I just seem to think there is an anger toward colorization that you're not letting out which is resulting in your passion to debate my posts.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Pardon me if I've missed it, Barry, but when you say "restoration" are you referring to film as well as the digital medium? Becuase a true restoration only occurs when the film is returned to a state as close as is possible to its original presentation, i.e. film. While cleaned-up digital copies look great on home televsion sets, unless the film itself is preserved and restored, then I don't see how you can use the term "restored".

If you are truly using the funding derived from the unnecessary color versions to preserve and restore the originals, then I applaud you. The ends, in this case, justify the means.

In any case, I do appreciate your presence on this forum and your willingness to discuss such a controversial topic with honesty and courtesy.

 

[Barry_S]

Brian - as a general rule, economics drive the restoration process for the studios. There are many films that will likely never again see the light of day because they simply don't have sufficient market value. Others will be slapped onto DVDs and VHS for distribution without much cleanup. Economics definitely drives the restoration of the deep catalog libraries of the studios and since the studios are not planning to theatrically re-release the great majority (if any) of their black and white classics, the cost of restoring the original film is typically not a consideration.

You're right when you mention that the preferred method of restoration would not be accomplished digitally but rather would be done on the original negative or for safety sake a dup negative off the original negative. This method is somewhat limited depending on the condition of the original elements. Furthermore negs or dup negs rarely exist. When a dup negative does exist it is best to use film methods of restoration rather than digital methods. However digital is the cheaper route and the one that is most often used. The studios use fine grain prints when available. Sometimes it's even necessary to reconstruct films from the best pieces of release prints controlled by private collectors who as a group represent a unique subculture (another topic of discussion).

The studios archive their prints and film negatives but today they generally restore those films that have market value on High Def tape. The original prints or dup negs are cleaned to remove dust and are then telecined (transferred from 35mm to High Def) using the best equipment. Where available, this involves wet gate to eliminate most scratches and steady gate to minimize film weave.

Unless a classic black and white film has unique market value, studios will rarely if ever restore the elements back to film. There are institutions such as UCLA which do some wonderful restoration work to many of the classics without regard to financial incentive.

What I tried to make clear is that Legend Films has the capability of digitally restoring feature films at the highest film resolution available today and consequently our restoration could then be digitally transferred back to film. Since we are not considering re-releasing any of these films theatrically, it is not in our financial interest to go back to film. Our digital files are easily archived and backed up onto high capacity digital tape (SDLT). For release we can down res the films to high definition, PAL or NTSC. We have done some work for studios at High Def that looks outstanding (I'm biased). We've also done some restoration and colorization work for some new feature films in which we have incorporated scenes from classic black and white films.

If a studio partners with us on a feature film for film resolution restoration and colorization we would definitely create a new negative from the restored digital black and white master data if they requested it and it was in their budget. However, even with a digitally remastered negative, the original negative with all it's dirt and scratches, splices and sprocket damage would still be archived in their vaults.

Brian - I hope this clarifies things.

 

[Kevin M]

Oh, I don't like colorization, but then again I've never stated otherwise, and if you in fact had bothered to take the time to actually read my posts Mark that would be clear, however just like P&S I also do not condone locking it out for others who want it...I also made this point clear in my posts that you clearly did not read throughly.


No Mark I simply am weary of people such as yourself coming into these threads and picking baseless fights with various people in (IMO) an adolescent attempt to stir things up and eventually resulting getting the thread closed.

Passionate discussion and debate are one thing however it is obvious hypocritical statements such as this.....that convince me at least that you do not truly care to honestly debate anything, you simple want to start fights and aggravate people. I've seen you do this same thing in thread after thread after thread.
It is turning this wonderful place into just another chat room and it saddens me.

I'll not talk to you again Mark, the "points" you try to "make" in these endless fights you pick are in my opinion almost never grounded in reality and thoroughly pointless...for the very first time I am actually thinking of using the "ignore" feature....it's a true shame.

 

[MarkHastings]

I'm sorry if I upset you Kevin, but your last post was quite hard to read. Those are stabbing words and they've actually hurt me pretty bad.

Again, I'm deeply sorry and will bow out now.

 

[Kevin M]

Sorry if I hurt your feelings Mark but your constant attacks upon me and others have hurt my feelings as well...it doesn't matter anymore, you are "ignored" as of this post so we won't have to drag this thread or any other thread off course ever again.

I apologize to the thread starter. Problem solved.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Barry,

Thanks for you detailed and honest reply which was sadly sandwiched in between petty bickering. Although I will never agree with the idea of colorizing films, I await the chance to see the work you have put into your black and white transfers.