dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (12/24/85)
In article <1495@mtgzz.UUCP> ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) writes: > >You could always turn the color off on your set. (No smiley-face; I'm >serious.) The dynamic duo of Siskel and Ebert remarked on one of their shows that the colourisation process destroyed the relative intensities of the objects in the film, so that when you play a colourised film on a B&W set the shades come out different. They objected to this on the grounds that the really good directors took great care when making B&W films to make sure that the shading took full advantage of the B&W medium. Are these assumptions true, or a bunch of B. S. (bean sprouts)? (1) Does the colourisation process alter the original intensities? (2) Did directors really care that much about the shading and contrasts, so much so that the altering done by colourisation would destroy the effect? I am cross-posting this to net.sci in case anyone there knows or cares. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave)
hofbauer@utcsri.UUCP (John Hofbauer) (12/29/85)
> > (2) Did directors really care that much about the shading and contrasts, > so much so that the altering done by colourisation would destroy the > effect? You bet. That's the responsibility of the art director and set decorator. The cinematographer would also be concerned. So even if the director was "visually blind" :-) there were enough people to keep him out of trouble. I haven't really noticed colourization destroying the effect because, quite frankly, its been little more than a tint job. It is impossible to reconstruct the necessary information from a B&W print, so you get the obvious colouration: green grass, blue sky (or more frequently bald sky), pink skin tones. Everything else looks more like a sepia tint.