8 ms·

"The colours that suddenly flood into the streets of 1910s New York aren’t drawn from the celluloid itself; that information was never captured there." I've tr

"The colours that suddenly flood into the streets of 1910s New York aren’t drawn from the celluloid itself; that information was never captured there." I've tried to make that point, but I failed many times. Let's try this crowd: We know what colors human faces have, so we can nail those, but coloring a film from, say, the 1950s the way photos from that era looked, is not what the colors back then actually looked like. That's just how camera technology was able to capture them at the time. So even if you captured color back then, it probably wasn't very realistic. I don't think people should stop experimenting, I find these videos fascinating and loved Peter Jacksons film, but the past didn't look like you think it did. You're just used to it because all the photographs from the era look a certain way but they were limited.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
People didn't look like books either, and didn't look like pottery/statue fragments with the paint washed off, but historians aren't trying to ban that. There are whole pseudo-intellectual cultures like Objectivists who think that peak of culture are statues with the paint worn off and reading scripts of plays meant to be experienced in live performance.
- djaque 6y ago
  I can empathasize with the argument to keep the film unmolested and not for snobby reasons like that. I watched Peter Jackson's "They Shall not Grow Old" which is a collection of restored WW1 footage. Was super hyped going in, but when I saw the footage itself, it just felt off. Like the colors maybe weren't quite right or the motion was super messed up and the whole thing just felt weird and made watching it unenjoyable. I would have prefered to see it in black and white. My other gripe with the film was that he also loaded it up with sound effects and even added not well mixed VFX like extra explosions and shingles falling off roofs that appear from nowhere (hence why I'm pretty sure they were added in post). Dumping that kind of cheap blockbuster action elements actually felt pretty disrepectful of the soldiers that got filmed. Kind of like they were using them as action figures to tell a story that wasn't quite what happened in reality.
  - j4nt4b 6y ago
    Remember, this footage was created using silent-era film equipment over a hundred years ago. Much of the footage used in the film is borderline unwatchable without the post-processing used: hand-crank cameras meant wildly variable framerate, volatile & unstable early film stock on the frontlines of a war exposed to smoke, dust, heat, cold and gas attacks, over/under-exposed footage caught in the heat of the moment, the list goes on. What I'm saying is, you'd probably complain a lot more if you saw the original footage, or you'd skip most of it as unwatchable in its original form. Finally, there's an education factor at play. Young people deserve the best possible chance they can get to engage with their history, especially when it offers such a tremendously impactful lesson. And like it or not, I think 90% of people are going to be more engaged, not less, by well-curated, well-produced and respectful recreations of the past. Jackson recorded the SFX using original historical weapons, and colored uniforms using historical examples.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      Here's a comparison frame: https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image/they-shall-not-grow-old-2018-003-facing-lines-of-soldiers-half-colour.jpg?itok=4WPbmKHP https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/p... https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/reviews-recommendations/they-shall-not-grow-old-peter-jackson-imperial-war-museum-world-war-one-archive-footage-revived https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/re... One criticism: "However, it’s a bizarre sight that greets us, and not just because we lose the top and bottom of each frame. The effect is initially impressive, but that soon wanes. Almost every man has a creamy, peachy skin tone, and the grass in each shot is a warm, yellowy green. The sky is blue. If it weren’t for the daubs of bright red blood, and the bomb craters, this would risk being a unnaturally prettified image of war, with remarkably consistent scenery. These are really incredible images – so homogenising them in this way does them a disservice. It’s not easy either to dispel the thought that all these colours (as well as many of the sounds) are simply guesswork: the colour of hair, blankets, signs and wildflowers having been plucked out of the air." (https://silentlondon.co.uk/2018/10/16/lff-review-they-shall-not-grow-old-honours-veterans-but-not-the-archive/ https://silentlondon.co.uk/2018/10/16/lff-review-they-shall-...)
- acituan 6y ago
  The difference with moving pictures is that it comes with the implication of photo-realism, while other art forms are self-aware about being representative or expressive rather than being high fidelity simulacra.
yokaze 6y ago
> We know what colors human faces have, so we can nail those Um, do we really?
- hedberg10 6y ago
  Well, technically you're right, but I don't think the pigments in our skin made huge evolutionary advancements in ~100 years. I'd guess people were working more outdoors, but that's it. So if you were to recolor a film you can take skin colors from today. But an advert, car color or fabric is incredibly difficult, even if you have the original, since the material will have degraded. Even if you repaint it with the original paint it will look different, since the paint will have changed, or if you use new paint the process to manufacture the paint (->led). It might as well be another universe.
  - untog 6y ago
    which skin colour is a question here as well. There are a lot of variations and I'm not sure that a black and white film is going to contain enough information for you to know. There's a danger of white-washing (or the reverse!) history by mistake.
    - kderbyma 6y ago
      true - but we could just recolour it if needed
      - Raphmedia 6y ago
        Not all shades of skins are the same within one specific demographic. Unless there's also a way to accurately extract the specific hue, you will never get anything accurate. Anyone that ever wore foundation can tell you that human skin has tones, undertones, different reflective qualities, etc. Just look at https://www.temptalia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/summer-2018_tarte-shade-extensions_002_promo.jpg https://www.temptalia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/summer-... or https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0009/0000/5932/files/Shade_Finder_-BOUNCE_CONCEALER_FULL_RANGE.jpg?v=1594925195 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0009/0000/5932/files/Shade... or this https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_zp3U1XAAAk4Iz?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_zp3U1XAAAk4Iz?format=jpg&name=...
JKCalhoun 6y ago
Yes, and we have artifacts (I believe they're called antiques :-)) from that time too that tells us what color clothes were, signs, etc. So we should be able to do alright.
- DanBC 6y ago
  We also know what chemical and natural dyes were in use so we have a good idea what colours looked like. We have old colour charts too. https://www.c82.net/werner/ https://www.c82.net/werner/ eg, this blue: 24. Scotch Blue Throat of Blue Titmouse. Stamina of Single Purple Anemone. Blue Copper Ore. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/natures-colours-page-paint.html https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/natures-colours-page-paint.ht...
  - hedberg10 6y ago
    This is great, thank you.
- manuelabeledo 6y ago
  And being such artifacts the means used by historians to reconstruct the past, while they deny others the same rights to interpret it, is quite ironic.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > And being such artifacts the means used by historians to reconstruct the past, while they deny others the same rights to interpret it, is quite ironic. Maybe that's because those others are more likely to do a bad job, because they lack the training to do a good one. Sort of like how sci-fi filmmakers have taught millions of people that you can hear explosions in space and that lasers make a "zap" sound.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      or that highly advanced space-faring civilizations are doomed to forever fight WWII naval battles over and over... BTW, if you want to support some folks that actually try to get it right, check out the expanse.
jedberg 6y ago
I don't mind the colorizations, but to give you some additional ammo for your argument, check out the TV show "The Munsters" and "The Addams Family". If you're not familiar, they're supposed to live in creepy dark houses, and in black and white, the houses do indeed look dark and creepy. But in reality, those sets were bright pastels. Actual dark walls and floors didn't show up well on film. Which makes me wonder how right we are with some of our other colorizations. You can google [what did the munsters set actually look like] to get some great examples.
- TylerE 6y ago
  Another example is the "TV Yellow" paint used on many early gibson electric guitars. https://gbmedia.azureedge.net/aza/user/gear/1961-gibson-les-paul-special-tv-yellow-ygoL1Kt.jpg https://gbmedia.azureedge.net/aza/user/gear/1961-gibson-les-... Actual white guitars would look like blown-out blobs on black and white TV. TV Yellow would "look" white on TV.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Fascinating! That's such a classic color for an electric guitar, I had no idea where it came from.
    - TylerE 6y ago
      I mean, it kinds makes sense. It's basically caucasian skin tone as paint.
      - damoe 6y ago
        I think you need to get your eyes checked, that is Simpson’s skin tone.
- ChrisKingWebDev 6y ago
  Similarly, the first Superman wore a grey suit, because it was captured better by the black and white cameras.
TylerE 6y ago
It absolutely was possible, although certainly not readily available. Most notably the work of Russian chemist Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, who took absolutely stunning color photos around 1910. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%...
- jborichevskiy 6y ago
  Thanks for linking - that was really cool!
- ISL 6y ago
  These are incredible. Thank you for sharing.
shard 6y ago
Another point is that displays can never provide real color representation anyway. The process flow goes from converting the full spectrum lights in nature into color filtered photons captured on a camera sensor with an artificial color profile, it's own resolution and pixel arrangement, and its own lens specifics, then converted to another limited color palette with another artificial color profile and it's own resolution and pixel arrangement that is the display, in order to simulate the colors of nature as detected by yet another set of filtered detectors with it's own color profile, resolution, neuron arrangement, and lens specifics that is the human eye. There is already no such thing as objective truth when it comes to photography, every step involves heavy interpretation.

srtjstjsj 6y ago

People didn't look like books either, and didn't look like pottery/statue fragments with the paint washed off, but historians aren't trying to ban that. There are whole pseudo-intellectual cultures like Objectivists who think that peak of culture are statues with the paint worn off and reading scripts of plays meant to be experienced in live performance.

djaque 6y ago
I can empathasize with the argument to keep the film unmolested and not for snobby reasons like that. I watched Peter Jackson's "They Shall not Grow Old" which is a collection of restored WW1 footage. Was super hyped going in, but when I saw the footage itself, it just felt off. Like the colors maybe weren't quite right or the motion was super messed up and the whole thing just felt weird and made watching it unenjoyable. I would have prefered to see it in black and white. My other gripe with the film was that he also loaded it up with sound effects and even added not well mixed VFX like extra explosions and shingles falling off roofs that appear from nowhere (hence why I'm pretty sure they were added in post). Dumping that kind of cheap blockbuster action elements actually felt pretty disrepectful of the soldiers that got filmed. Kind of like they were using them as action figures to tell a story that wasn't quite what happened in reality.
- j4nt4b 6y ago
  Remember, this footage was created using silent-era film equipment over a hundred years ago. Much of the footage used in the film is borderline unwatchable without the post-processing used: hand-crank cameras meant wildly variable framerate, volatile & unstable early film stock on the frontlines of a war exposed to smoke, dust, heat, cold and gas attacks, over/under-exposed footage caught in the heat of the moment, the list goes on. What I'm saying is, you'd probably complain a lot more if you saw the original footage, or you'd skip most of it as unwatchable in its original form. Finally, there's an education factor at play. Young people deserve the best possible chance they can get to engage with their history, especially when it offers such a tremendously impactful lesson. And like it or not, I think 90% of people are going to be more engaged, not less, by well-curated, well-produced and respectful recreations of the past. Jackson recorded the SFX using original historical weapons, and colored uniforms using historical examples.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Here's a comparison frame: https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image/they-shall-not-grow-old-2018-003-facing-lines-of-soldiers-half-colour.jpg?itok=4WPbmKHP https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/p... https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/reviews-recommendations/they-shall-not-grow-old-peter-jackson-imperial-war-museum-world-war-one-archive-footage-revived https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/re... One criticism: "However, it’s a bizarre sight that greets us, and not just because we lose the top and bottom of each frame. The effect is initially impressive, but that soon wanes. Almost every man has a creamy, peachy skin tone, and the grass in each shot is a warm, yellowy green. The sky is blue. If it weren’t for the daubs of bright red blood, and the bomb craters, this would risk being a unnaturally prettified image of war, with remarkably consistent scenery. These are really incredible images – so homogenising them in this way does them a disservice. It’s not easy either to dispel the thought that all these colours (as well as many of the sounds) are simply guesswork: the colour of hair, blankets, signs and wildflowers having been plucked out of the air." (https://silentlondon.co.uk/2018/10/16/lff-review-they-shall-not-grow-old-honours-veterans-but-not-the-archive/ https://silentlondon.co.uk/2018/10/16/lff-review-they-shall-...)
acituan 6y ago
The difference with moving pictures is that it comes with the implication of photo-realism, while other art forms are self-aware about being representative or expressive rather than being high fidelity simulacra.

yokaze 6y ago

> We know what colors human faces have, so we can nail those Um, do we really?

hedberg10 6y ago
Well, technically you're right, but I don't think the pigments in our skin made huge evolutionary advancements in ~100 years. I'd guess people were working more outdoors, but that's it. So if you were to recolor a film you can take skin colors from today. But an advert, car color or fabric is incredibly difficult, even if you have the original, since the material will have degraded. Even if you repaint it with the original paint it will look different, since the paint will have changed, or if you use new paint the process to manufacture the paint (->led). It might as well be another universe.
- untog 6y ago
  which skin colour is a question here as well. There are a lot of variations and I'm not sure that a black and white film is going to contain enough information for you to know. There's a danger of white-washing (or the reverse!) history by mistake.
  - kderbyma 6y ago
    true - but we could just recolour it if needed
    - Raphmedia 6y ago
      Not all shades of skins are the same within one specific demographic. Unless there's also a way to accurately extract the specific hue, you will never get anything accurate. Anyone that ever wore foundation can tell you that human skin has tones, undertones, different reflective qualities, etc. Just look at https://www.temptalia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/summer-2018_tarte-shade-extensions_002_promo.jpg https://www.temptalia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/summer-... or https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0009/0000/5932/files/Shade_Finder_-BOUNCE_CONCEALER_FULL_RANGE.jpg?v=1594925195 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0009/0000/5932/files/Shade... or this https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_zp3U1XAAAk4Iz?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_zp3U1XAAAk4Iz?format=jpg&name=...

JKCalhoun 6y ago

Yes, and we have artifacts (I believe they're called antiques :-)) from that time too that tells us what color clothes were, signs, etc. So we should be able to do alright.

DanBC 6y ago
We also know what chemical and natural dyes were in use so we have a good idea what colours looked like. We have old colour charts too. https://www.c82.net/werner/ https://www.c82.net/werner/ eg, this blue: 24. Scotch Blue Throat of Blue Titmouse. Stamina of Single Purple Anemone. Blue Copper Ore. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/natures-colours-page-paint.html https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/natures-colours-page-paint.ht...
- hedberg10 6y ago
  This is great, thank you.
manuelabeledo 6y ago
And being such artifacts the means used by historians to reconstruct the past, while they deny others the same rights to interpret it, is quite ironic.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > And being such artifacts the means used by historians to reconstruct the past, while they deny others the same rights to interpret it, is quite ironic. Maybe that's because those others are more likely to do a bad job, because they lack the training to do a good one. Sort of like how sci-fi filmmakers have taught millions of people that you can hear explosions in space and that lasers make a "zap" sound.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    or that highly advanced space-faring civilizations are doomed to forever fight WWII naval battles over and over... BTW, if you want to support some folks that actually try to get it right, check out the expanse.

jedberg 6y ago

I don't mind the colorizations, but to give you some additional ammo for your argument, check out the TV show "The Munsters" and "The Addams Family". If you're not familiar, they're supposed to live in creepy dark houses, and in black and white, the houses do indeed look dark and creepy. But in reality, those sets were bright pastels. Actual dark walls and floors didn't show up well on film. Which makes me wonder how right we are with some of our other colorizations. You can google [what did the munsters set actually look like] to get some great examples.

TylerE 6y ago
Another example is the "TV Yellow" paint used on many early gibson electric guitars. https://gbmedia.azureedge.net/aza/user/gear/1961-gibson-les-paul-special-tv-yellow-ygoL1Kt.jpg https://gbmedia.azureedge.net/aza/user/gear/1961-gibson-les-... Actual white guitars would look like blown-out blobs on black and white TV. TV Yellow would "look" white on TV.
- jedberg 6y ago
  Fascinating! That's such a classic color for an electric guitar, I had no idea where it came from.
  - TylerE 6y ago
    I mean, it kinds makes sense. It's basically caucasian skin tone as paint.
    - damoe 6y ago
      I think you need to get your eyes checked, that is Simpson’s skin tone.
ChrisKingWebDev 6y ago
Similarly, the first Superman wore a grey suit, because it was captured better by the black and white cameras.

TylerE 6y ago

It absolutely was possible, although certainly not readily available. Most notably the work of Russian chemist Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, who took absolutely stunning color photos around 1910. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%...

jborichevskiy 6y ago
Thanks for linking - that was really cool!
ISL 6y ago
These are incredible. Thank you for sharing.

shard 6y ago

Another point is that displays can never provide real color representation anyway. The process flow goes from converting the full spectrum lights in nature into color filtered photons captured on a camera sensor with an artificial color profile, it's own resolution and pixel arrangement, and its own lens specifics, then converted to another limited color palette with another artificial color profile and it's own resolution and pixel arrangement that is the display, in order to simulate the colors of nature as detected by yet another set of filtered detectors with it's own color profile, resolution, neuron arrangement, and lens specifics that is the human eye. There is already no such thing as objective truth when it comes to photography, every step involves heavy interpretation.