Talk:Film colorization/Archive 1

Untitled
Colorization is back, and supposedly much improved, if any cares to write about it. --Feitclub 22:16, 3 November 2004‎ (UTC)
 * It's not just used to colorize old movies but also war footage and stock footage used in modern films...I'll add a bit about it... Lee M 18:48, 9 December 2004‎ (UTC)

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

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

that U...
"Color" or "colour", pick one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B. Phillips (talk • contribs) 05:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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

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

should sin city be in this article at all???
Sin city was filmed in color, so many of the parts that are colorized were simply not converted to black and white with the rest of the frame. That yellow bastard was filmed in blue and converted to yellow in post processing, this is called "keying" and is a part of green screen cgi and not the same thing as colorization Tanner Wheat 06:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As soon as I deleted sin city, someone put it back, can someone please explain why it belongs in this article? Sin City does not use film colorization. First of all it isn't even shot on film, and secondly it was not shot in black and white. Tanner Wheat 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether it was shot on film or digitally isn't really relevant; Wikipedia (inexplicably) terms every movie as a "film". I'm a bit skeptical that the colors seen on screen are just "left in"; at the least they would have to be selectively and digitally enhanced to come across that bright and flat.  And completely converting blue to yellow is, if not strictly "colorization", a closely related effect of applying artificial color to a moving picture.  I'm more concerned about Pleasantville as an example, since the color in that movie appears to be the original natural colors as filmed, with selective conversion to greyscale. Tverbeek 12:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Pleasantville had very realistic colorization, but colorization none the less. (Ibaranoff24 04:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC))
 * Okay even aside from the film vs. digital thing, it was still shot in color so nothing is being colorized Tanner Wheat 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you provide sources for this assertion that "nothing was colorized"? Tverbeek 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Parts could have been filmed in black and white first and then colorized, probably not the case though. Hard to know without a source as Tverbeek has said. — Wackymacs 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the DVD for sin city you can see the pre-cg footage of the movie and it is shown in color on a greenscreen background. Certain elements that are supposedly an example of film colorization such as the yellow bastard are shown blue in the original footage and turned into yellow. According to the definition of colorization in this article itself, colorization begins with black and white footage. This movie was not shot in black and white. Tanner Wheat 20:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this acticle isn't directly about that specific form of colorization -- it is about all forms of colorization. The film Sin City was shot in color, then the color was removed digitally, and then the film was recolored using colorization technology. Hence, it BELONGS in this article. (Ibaranoff24 03:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC))
 * After reading this discussion, I have added a Color Manipulation section to the article and have moved the Sin City image, references to Pleasantville and Rumble Fish and a new reference to Young Frankenstein to this new section. I hope that this edit is acceptable and non-controversial. It represents my opinion that if we are to describe colorization in the first sentence as the process of converting a black and white image to something with color, that definition is not compatible with the opposite process. --Orayzio 00:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Young Frankenstein was NOT shot in color and released in black and white. The film was shot on black and white film. Mel Brooks had no intention of shooting the film in color. (Ibaranoff24 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

"Black-and-White-ization"
The film Good Night, and Good Luck was filmed in Technicolor and then converted to black and white; black and white archival footage of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy was also incorporated into the film. Worth a mention in this article, I think, but how? --RevWaldo 03:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The prints or processing may well have been done by Technicolor (the company), but no film in decades has been "filmed in Technicolor" (the process). Technicolor is filming method using a camera with 3 strips of B&W film, recording through red, green and blue filters. K8 fan 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Dr. Sandrew, Just wanted to let you know that the Image Sequence patent will issue next Tuesday February 29th! Please see the attached letter and issue notice. Let me know if you have any questions. The foreign patents that are based on this patent should follow suit sooner than later. Best Regards, Joe Mayo Dalina Law Group, P.C. 7910 Ivanhoe Ave #325 La Jolla, CA 92037 Main: 858.729.1927 Direct: 858.442.5877 FAX:   858.777.5425

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Sandrew (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


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

Nick - I feel the above was a necessary and appropriate response to inaccurate information and innappropriate edits. Now that the emotion has worn off I have toned down the above. The contents of the Article that were considered self promoting have been edited. In retrospect I agree that it was over the top though much of it was material to the subject. I have enlisted the help of the Wikipedia Information Team (Zachary Harden) to help me correct this situation. If you have any additional suggestions please contact me. Thanks.
 * Zach here. Pretty much, to keep it brief, I am one of the members of the Wikimedia OTRS team. I been in email communication with Dr. Sandrew about this article and I will help try to keep it as NPOV and free of major advertising from Dr. Sandrew. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OTRS
Under the guise of updating this page, the editor [Ibaranoff24] has made this into a "Legend Films exclusive", removing all references to Timebrush. I have added some relevant info on this most relevant colorization process in the interest of fairness and the readership.Rossham 01:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove the references to Timebrush. Don't blame me if the article seems biased. Just fix it yourself. (Ibaranoff24 03:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I am also trying to make it where, while we mention companies, we cannot really be a mouthpiece for anyone, including Legends Films. While I am still playing e-mail tag with the officials at the company sorting this artilce out, I think it looks better than how I originally found the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Zscout has done a great deal toward making this article less of a marketing vehicle and more of an information tool. As an offender I've worked with Zscout and have made a concentrated effort to add and edit only factual information. I also never touch another companys contributions but do report issues I find objectionable and self serving to the Wikipedia Information Team for their opinion. We all have to watch what we include here and in particular, not take credit for projects we haven't actually produced as one contributor consistently does. We also should stop using subjective terms to describe any particular company. If anyone has any objections to the Legend Films additions please let me know bsandrew@legendfilms.net and I'll seriously consider the objection and change it if it appears self serving, calling on Zscout and others for their unbiased opinions. I would hope that all contributors here will be as responsible so this doesn't become more of an unruly sandbox than it already is. Lighten up everyone and contribute facts. Colorization is a fascinating topic. Lets work to keep it that way so that we don't turn off the readers. Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D. 12:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry Ibaranoff24; I suppose, I did jump the gun a bit :-) - well somebody certainly did remove Timebrush stuff, and being an Aussie, and Timebrush being a sort of Aussie icon in this arena, I felt kind of put off. I read the detailed (and good) account re how you had rewamped the page, and since there were no other logs to point in any other direction...I shouldn't have, and I apologise. Rossham 00:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem (btw, it was me who removed it). Now that I know that Timebrush is an Aussie business, I can see why I did not know about it. I think the addition is fine now, but I just hope that you, Dr. Sandrew and the others who operate a company that performs film colorization understand that Wikipedia doesn't need to be a public relations service for your company. I hope most of the POV issues are solved. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia is a great source of factual information, and we should all work to preserve its authenticity, and to make it as obective and fair as possible - it should not become anyone's personal domain - hope you agree. Rossham 00:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rossham I believe one thing we should attempt to do is not use the words "newer", or "superior", etc. Legend films has only in the last two months recieved patents on its core technology yet some have claimed that it is using technology from 1993 which of course is a cheap shot and unsubstantiated. I think it would be appropriate for us not to use the word "newer" to describe any technology since that is a direct comparison with other companies and needs to be substantiated. I'm working to avoid these things in my own additions. While I believe that Legend Film's technology is significantly automated relative to all the other processes (and I've tried all the technology of the contributors to this Article), I would take the word "automated" out of the text I've contributed if some people find that objectionable and somehow misleading. I think we all have to be respectful of each other in this article and possibly even make concesstions. There is one contributor here making claims that they color-produced some notable television series. However in reality that work was produced by the now defunct Dynacs Digital in the late 90's (which I just confirmed with the management of Dynacs Digital which is now Uno/Legend. Though some of the staff of the contributor to this article were once employed by Dynacs Digital the contributor feels he can claim credit for those TV series.  Indeed, some of the Legend Films staff were also involved in those particular work, so using the logic of the contributor to this Article Legend Films can claim the same TV series as well as the 300 films produced by American Film Technologies which I founded in 1986.  Now wouldn't that be confusing to readers! Consequently, Legend Films chooses to claim only work that was completed since the inception of the company in 2001 and not ancient history color-production that was actually color-produced by another facility. We have to watch things that distort the truth. Again, rather than use this talk page as a forum for such problems I would hope that we can communicate amongst ourselves to resolve problems and use this forum only if resolutions cannot be found. My email is published here and I hope others will share theirs as well. Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D. 4:30 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and yes, I agree that we could offline this chat - though I am confused who the below post is from...Ibaranoff24? zscout? Rossham 11:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

btw: I am contactable at rosshamiltonoffers@yahoo.com, and do not own the colorization business as someone suggested below. Rossham 00:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Accurate information on copyrighted colorized images displayed in the Article
The image of Laurel and Hardy in the Article has a Legend Films 2006 copyright with the title March of the Wooden Soldiers. The image should state the correct copyright title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D. 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
 * We already do, see the text at Image:Laurel & Hardy Babes in Toyland.JPG. Generally, we do not add a copyright byline within the article itself. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a copyright byline. The jpg should read March of the Wooden Soldiers for that image because that is the copyright of that image. It is not Babes in Toyland. Just get the title right. Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D. 11:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dr. Sandrew, the original title of the movie is Babes oin Toyland, so I assume that is why the jpeg is named that way. I know it was released under a different name in the 1940's, but whoever uploaded that photo decided the original name would be the best. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The jpeg was originally March of the Wooden Soldiers. It was changed only last week to Babes in Toyland. No matter what the original release was, the colorized image in the Article is Copyrighted by Legend Films under the tite March of the Wooden Solders and must stay that way or find another shot from a previous version. I have an obligation to reinforce our copyrights and while I don't mind not having the copyright byline, I do insist that the correct copyrighted title be used. Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D. 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I put an entry for the colourisation.net research project into this page some time ago, so it has been re-entered as is quite relevant.

The BBC Dr Who references I feel has been stripped out extensively and would like to see some of this restored as it goes into specific techincal detail. Please consider re-extending this.

The Sin City reference, I agree, is not 'pure colourisation' in that it was originally shot in color and reworked in post. Nevertheless the techniques used are very relevant and I think also worthy of re-adding.

Kind regards,

Matthew Bennett Mattybennett 09:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No Blatant Self Promotion
'''CERULEAN - WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF YOUR CORPORATE PUBLIC RELATIONS. WE ARE ALL ATTEMPTING TO TEMPER THIS URGE TO PROMOTE AND ONLY PROVIDE OBJECTIVE, INFORMATIVE EDITS!!! IF THIS BLATANT SELF PROMOTION CONTINUES THE SITE WILL TRULY TURN INTO AN UNRULEY SANDBOX WITH LITTLE CREDIBILITY! I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND!''' If you wish to contribute constructively I suggest you contact Ross Hamilton or me via our emails (listed below) so we can collaborate to make this Article all it can be. Zscout and Ibaranoff24, your input here is very welcome. I'm hoping to revamp the site so that company attributes are in one place to be used as footnotes rather than incorporation within the text. There should be no comparisons of technology in any form. This Article should be informative, not promotional. I for one am making a concentrated effort to abide by the rules as is Ross Hamilton and the guys at Timebrush. Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D. 04:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking maybe maybe we can do a "See also" section at the bottom of the article to lists the specific processes mentioned, so if people want to read about it, they can. We could also list companies there, but I will think that will come later. The only requirement I ask is that the article on the process or company must be existing on our servers, since I kinda do not want the article to be full of red links (red links, on Wikipedia, denote that the link doesn't exist). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Zscout - I'm trying to find the time to do the entire site over after which I'll submit for approval. It will provide only factual information with suitable references to legitimate articles. No one company will be promoting anything other than notable accomplishments that are not specifically self serving. At the end there will be links to each of the companies broken down into countries and specialties which I hope they will supply. There will be no reference to best, better, awsome, most sophisticated, latest, etc, etc. If I transgress please let me know. Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D.

Fair use rationale for Image:Handschiegel.JPG
Image:Handschiegel.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Make-overs sections
The two "Make-overs" sections seem to be excessively negative about the subject. — Loadmaster 03:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty neutral to me. (Ibaranoff24 04:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm referring to the statement "yet the use of artificial color in a documentary could also be regarded as misleading or even fraudulent". Considered so by whom? — Loadmaster 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed that one. You're right. I clipped the sentence. (Ibaranoff24 02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC))


 * This article was brought to my attention by Barry Sandrew. It contains some interesting info on early reactions to colorization. I'll try to work the info into the article. (Ibaranoff24 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Link is wrong
The link near the end 'The Greatest Game Ever Played' leads to the wrong content, namely a film over a golf player. Potentially the disambiguation page came after the link was build.

It should be corrected to go to the NFL game instead, but I don't know how. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.155.193 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Other colorized films
What about other colorized films that were originally black & white like Camille and Ninotchka? And the irony that Garbo's comeback movie that never materialized would have been in color? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Crayons
When did Orson Welles make his "Keep Ted Turner and his damn crayons away from my movie" comment? It would have to have been some time in 1985, I assume? Drutt (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Welles never made any such statement. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

grammar
The grammar in this article is so bad, im guessing it was not written by a native english speaker. I dont have the time to make all of the necessary edits right now, but if we all pitch in, it will be better. Its so bad now, that it is hardly readable. Crd721 (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How to convert Black & white movie to colour format movie ???
Hi, How to convert Black & white movie to colour format movie ??? Anybody know how to do that, and let me know where to download free sofware.Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.229.158 (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

moving pictures only?
Various forms of still photograph colourisation link her (eg Photochrom).--82.69.17.150 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a note about still image colourisation to the top of the article, however, the link in the photochrom article was wrong so I've changed it for one to Hand-colouring. Richerman (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Night of the living dead examples
The examples are not properly discussed in the article.

They appear to make the case that colorization has improved, based on the marked improvement from the older colorization to the newer one. This may be a very valid point, however the examples cannot support it. The older colorization was pulled from youtube, and looks to be a scan from VHS. The original quality of night of the living dead is not as poor as the representation suggestions. A casual reader will assume that the 2004 attempt dramatically improved the overall image quality of the print, which it cannot have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.145.24.20 (talk • contribs)


 * I think it shows that the quality of the color is better, thus serving its purpose. As far as print quality goes, it obviously goes without saying that two different prints were used for the individual colorized versions. I don't think that the reader will assume that new colorization technology improves the quality of the print; these are completely different subjects altogether. As a side note, the print Legend Films used for their colorized version was significantly better than the print used for the previous version, but it wasn't as good as, for example, the prints used in Romero-authorized editions of the film. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Colorization™
I thought that "Colorized" or "Colorization" were terms that had been trademarked by American Film Technologies and applied only to films that had been colored by the Colorization™ process. Any film can be colored or tinted, but only AFT films are Colorized™. Or am I looney? --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Film colorization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150914065916/http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19850518&id=0tcTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4gYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6540,1564442 to http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19850518&id=0tcTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4gYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6540,1564442

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Film colorization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060522113108/http://cztoondb.tripod.com:80/cztoondb/laddqaart.htm to http://cztoondb.tripod.com/cztoondb/laddqaart.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131206213117/http://babelcolour.com/pertwee-dvd/ to http://babelcolour.com/pertwee-dvd/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about digital colorization of black-and-white live-action films and Looney Tunes cartoons
Why is it wrong to digitally colorize black-and-white live-action films but perfectly fine to digitally colorize black-and-white Looney Tunes cartoons? I know that the redrawn colorized versions of B&W LT cartoons were often criticized for their inferior animation and odd color choices and I know that the digital colorized versions preserve the original animation, but I'm just wondering why people didn't complain about the digitally colorized versions of B&W LT cartoons when people complained about B&W live-action films being digitally colorized. For one thing, the colors in the digital colorized versions (produced in 1990, 1992, and 1995 respectfully) of B&W LT cartoons (produced from 1935 to 1943) look nothing like the colors in the 1935-1943 Merrie Melodies/Technicolor Looney Tunes cartoons. 71.95.61.24 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Colorization high video quality

 * http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/12/dick-van-dyke-coast-to-coast-big-mouth-carl-reiner
 * http://nypost.com/2016/12/08/how-producers-brought-dick-van-dyke-into-living-color/

Two episodes of The Dick Van Dyke Show (IMDB) were broadcast on December 11, 2016 in a colorized version. Aside from the added color, the video quality seemed impressively sharp and perfect. Was this derived from special original sources, or generated by modern computer processing?

What level of image-improvement (of what types - sharpness, stabilization, noise/flaw removal, etc) is a common part of modern colorization processing?-71.174.190.122 (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)