# The current state of colorizing movies **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 14, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-state-of-colorizing-movies/344390 "2006-02-14T02:27:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-state-of-colorizing-movies/344390/21 "2006-02-15T00:38:00Z")
> [@mobo85](#): > > It appears that all of the films that Legend Films has colorized thus far are in the public domain. I don’t know what this means, other than apparently, major studios have decided to shy away from colorization (probably for good reason). While I doubt you’ll see a big rush to colorize classic movies, I wonder if some of the studios would want to colorize movies like musicals? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-state-of-colorizing-movies/344390/22 "2006-02-15T04:17:24Z")
Some of the movies are in the public domain, some are not. _Heidi_, _The Miracle on 34th Street_, _The Mark of Zorro_, and the Three Stooges shorts are still under copyright. ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-state-of-colorizing-movies/344390/23 "2006-02-15T18:46:52Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Some of the movies are in the public domain, some are not. _Heidi_, _The Miracle on 34th Street_, _The Mark of Zorro_, and the Three Stooges shorts are still under copyright. I see now that they have colorized some copyrighted films for other studios, but do not sell them themselves. Legend Films does sell a collection of the four public domain Three Stooges shorts, however. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-state-of-colorizing-movies/344390/24 "2006-02-15T20:47:34Z")
> [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > Take a look at the demos and let me know what you think (even if you are opposed to the processs in general). Wow. I think it is very impressive. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-state-of-colorizing-movies/344390/25 "2006-02-15T21:11:34Z")
> [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > Now, a new company, [Legend Films](http://www.legendfilms.net/index2.html) (note: Flash-intensive site) has come up with a new process. I must say, it’s very impressive (and, no, I have no affiliation with them)… > Take a look at the demos and let me know what you think (even if you are opposed to the processs in general). I’ve got huge reservations about taking B&W films and adding colour, for similar reasons to those already mentioned. However, the sample on the Legend Films site was even worse…everything was in a brighter-than-bright glint. Fine when dancing around singing about new shoes, but the brief shot of the guy at the fireplace lost all its character once it was ‘enhanced’, and became an Ikea log cabin. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-state-of-colorizing-movies/344390/26 "2006-02-15T21:36:05Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > …the brief shot of the guy at the fireplace lost all its character once it was ‘enhanced’, and became an Ikea log cabin. That shot stood out to me as really distracting, too. The mantle, especially, looked like it was made out of plastic or something. Too bright – too shiny. Like a model fireplace. Same with everything else, really – except maybe not quite so obviously. They did a fantastic job with the _restoration._ I liked that everything was nice and crisp, and how they fixed all the problems from the chemical degradation of the print – but it would look much better, to me, if they left the chroma out of it, and just did the same thing with a nice greyscale palette. I don’t like looking at a scene and having all my attention drawn to things like “Wow, that’s a _really_ yellow suit.” ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-state-of-colorizing-movies/344390/27 "2006-02-15T21:50:03Z")
Colorizing a b/w movie works best in high-key and outdoor sunlight scenes, where it can look almost like it was really shot in color. On the other hand, scenes with low-key lighting look bad. They just haven’t gotten the color de-saturization to look right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-state-of-colorizing-movies/344390.md?page=1)