How could it get "better"? No, I think that films shot in black and white should remain so. They look how the filmmakers made them.
Pragmatically speaking, I think you would lose a tremendous amount of the spookiness of the show - especially Christmas Future, the graveyard scene, Marley and the Wailers, etc.
The short answer is yes if we're comparing it to it's equivalent B&W version in VHS "quality". The long answer is the Blu Ray B&W version is far better than the color version.
I've been watching this version for 50 years, and most of those were poor transfers that showed no detail in the shadows and little detail in the brighter scenes. They probably used a good quality standard def copy to make the color version, but it is only standard def. Still, when I acquired the color version, I watched that because the detail was so much better. Seems the colorizing process itself brought out some subtle detail.
The Blu Ray B&W however is beautiful. There's a little bit of grain that could be either a transfer issue or the original film grain, but the details in the dark scenes just pop, and there's an overall detail to this version that eliminates the smear of the original B&W that aired on TV forever.
I have no problems with colorized movies and think some actually should be, such as 1947's Miracle on 34th street. This movie, because of it's ghostly qualities, is better in B&W in my opinion.
So, if I had the choice of which version to watch, my preferences from worst to best would be the original low resolution TV version B&W, followed by the colorized low res version, and then the HD Blu Ray in black and white.
If you're a fan of this version, the B&W Blu Ray is a must have.
If you're a fan of this version, the B&W Blu Ray is a must have.
I've never felt like any B&W film works better in color and in fact they usually work worse. The biggest offense is that the color simply looks artificial. If they could make a film that appears as if it was shot in color in recent years, as a period piece, then it would work, but as it stands colorization mostly has not reached this state.
I don't necessarily reject colorization on principle, but I do reject nearly every instance I've seen of it.
The strange thing is that what would appear to be the biggest obstacle: getting the border fit right, is no longer an issue. I remember the first efforts to colorize in the 1980s showed peoples skin tones on their faces bleeding into their hairline, and vice versa. Today, the fit is pretty much not an issue.
The easier part in my opinion would be assigning color values. But what we've seen in the past are odd pastel hues that don't look like anything I've seen man made or in nature.
But, the newest gen is solving the weird color choices. Check out the following link for a recently colorized Lucy episode. Notice for the first time a red shirt is actually red, not some weird rust color.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raABIyi0xI0
That's one of the better colorizations I've seen, though it still has more of an Technicolor look than a modern color film stock look.
I have seen some recent still photos though that look perfect--just as if they were shot yesterday. Check these out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzYq8_67nBA
If they could manage results like that with B&W films then I would definitely be interested in seeing more colorizations. But they just can't seem to get to that level.
Wow, some of those look recently shot.
My understanding is that for any given scene, only the first frame need be colorized and the computer keeps going until something new enters the frame. I'm sure at some point colorized movies will be as good as these stills.
Since we're on the subject of colorization, have you seen the trailer for Peter Jackson's new WWI documentary?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrabKK9Bhds
Just judging by the clips we see there, I think some of it looks really good and relatively natural while other shots look clearly colorized. But I am interested in seeing it to see how well it's done overall.
Thanks for that. I bookmarked it and just got a chance to see it. Some of those look like they were shot in color.
As computer and software technology advances, I have no doubt that there will come a day when anyone could do this at home with bundled software from their PC or Mac.
black and white is the better version.
shareQuality of colorization isn't really the issue. It doesn't matter how perfectly convincing it is, it's still wrong. It also doesn't matter if the movie was shot in black-and-white for budgetary, not artistic reasons. It was still shot in black-and-white, with all the technical considerations--lighting, makeup, etc.--that medium required. Black-and-white isn't a defect requiring correction.
share
We all see things differently and as a result, we have a choice. If they were to physically destroy every copy of B&W to make a color version I would fight to the death to stop the travesty, but since watching it colorized is an optional activity that destroys nothing, I have no problem with it.
Let me get this out of the way since we're on this particular thread - 1951's Scrooge with Sim is simply better in B&W - not because of the technical aspects, but the film and subject just works better in B&W, and I've seen both. Now that I own the restored blu ray of this film, I wouldn't watch this version in color if you paid me.
I've also seen 1947s Miracle on 34th Street colorized and it is flat out better in color despite the questionable hues used in the transfer. I have zero doubt that if they could have budgeted for it, Miracle would have been in color. If 1951s Scrooge could have been shot in color if they had the budget, it wouldn't be as good IMO.
But if anyone has a problem with colorization, the answer is to not to watch it in color.
I most certainly never do. No black-and-white movie is "better" in fake color.
share