This is a discussion board, we are discussing things. Everything is calm, what makes you think otherwise ?
Not everything has to be viewed through rose colored glasses. What you call "negativity" is I would call "realistic".
Yes, it's good to provide more options . But realistically it's useless for real colorization work. It's way off the mark. This is nothing more than a toy. Yes, let him decide if it's something worth investigating. Maybe you're confusing the wrong thread but the OP didn't say anything about zero budget. He asked for shot by shot, like professional colorization tools. This is neither of those .
The script itself is pretty interesting because a few lines of code can "guess" the colors. But for actual work - not very useful
I agree colorization is terrible in general, it's not for everybody. If it's not done well it's much worse than B&W . That script produces results in that terrible category. Just my opinion
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 49 of 49
Truth be told, you're not going to find anything (even professional grade) that will automate the process to the extent you are asking. "The pros" don't do it that way, either. Footage is usually outsourced to labs in India where every object in the frame is individually rotoscoped and sent back to the studio where an artist adds color. Automation is going to give you messy results and if you want a clean image on a budget, you're going to have to do it yourself. The colorization scripts are interesting and cool to play with, but they do not provide consistent, controllable or accurate results.
Although some here disagree, the best method for colorization on a consumer level is After Effects and Mocha. Look it up and don't just bash the method without seeing how it works. I use this program almost every day and it is pretty incredible to be able to perform full motion tracking and mask creation on a laptop with no lag. Yes, it is time consuming, but look at what you are asking for. You get out of it what you put into it, plain and simple. There is not a magic button or secret trick for this. You're trying to create footage that tricks your eyes into believing you are looking at real, color footage and doing that means you will be doing a lot of detail work.
Sorry I don't mean to offend. Don't get all worked up and make it personal, I'm giving an honest review of the tool. Not you. You're not the "tool" (at least I hope...)
My comments are in the context of professional colorization work. If you've done real (accurate) colorization work with other programs, you'd realize this is hindering, not helping.
If the masks were accessible in other programs, then it would might shave of a few % of work as a starting point. As it is, it makes work harder, not easier - you have to spend time fixing problems. Maybe it can be improved, I hope it can.
Please re-read what the OP was really looking for. It's 100% definitely not this filter. To reiterate "He asked for shot by shot, like professional colorization tools." This is neither of those . As such, it's "useless" and a "toy" in that context . It really is.
This is fine for something fun and quick, pretty amazing what a few lines of code can do. But that' s not what the OP was looking for
"However, I do not want to colorize the fames one by one."
Sounds like it to me.
And FWIW, it has improved.
I read a very interesting article in an nVidia newsletter that described what I think is a neural network approach to having AI make an "educated guess" as to what color grayscale pixels are in an image based on similar color scenes. This is basically a training method for the AI where human input "teaches" the program that the sky is blue, the grass is green or a post box is red.
I was especially interested since I am trying to restore badly faded 16mm color movies. Since I have examples of what the color should be in many scenes, this method sounds promising.
Unfortunately I can no longer find any reference to this research and I seem to have lost the original article. Anyway if anyone has further info on this technique, or hopefully information on software that'll do this, please share!
Thanks for the links, at the very least it was good at exercising my French reading.
I use the Adobe CC programs so I'm a bit hesitant to invest a lot of time and effort in the software they're using. Can these things be done in After Effects?
In my situation most of the 16mm Kodacolor films have lost their Cyan and Yellow dyes leaving mainly magenta. I've fiddled around in Speedgrade, After Effects, Premiere Pro and finally Photoshop with weak results. The main problem I find is that there simply isn't enough Cyan and Yellow information left for the tools to work with. Manual colorization may be a way to re-introduce obvious colors, but I hate the tinted look and I really want it to look realistic.
I do also have a Super 8 copy of the 16mm film that was made when the dyes were in better shape, so although fading, its closer to the full color look. Unfortunately this transfer is severely cropped by around 10% around the edges of the frame.
Long story short I'm trying to blend the color from the Super 8 version with the grayscale(luminosity) of the 16mm film transfer and the results are pretty good. The tedious part is manually cloning parts of the super 8 frame to fill in the cropped areas frame by frame in Photoshop.
I'm hoping to get at least a more full color rendering at the end of this exercise, which may be better suited to more traditional color grading techniques.
It looks like you might have to learn some AviSynth in spite of yourself. Colourlike and other similar filters do exactly what you want:
Edit: Oops, too late.
I've been hearing about software called Deoldify which does auto-colourizing via the web. The only problem I see with something like this is that you can't really judge the quality of the actual resulting video, since you have to upload the video to a website.
Is there any software, such as Mocha Pro, that can do it automatically without using the internet?
You're jumping from A to C. Deoldify is a deep learning project that is far from being able to match what the best human colorists can do and on par with what's available to the general public. Which still looks like someone took a watercolor set to the original. Read this interview with the developer (90% of which goes over my head): https://hackernoon.com/interview-with-the-creator-of-deoldify-fast-ai-fellow-jason-ant...c-c0437670059b Particularly his response about the project above the pic of the woman. His "wow" moment was the that colors on the cup were cleanly rendered (though no living person probably knows what the original colors were) and acknowledging the "zombie arm" (which isn't colorized) of the woman.
Are there better colorizing programs available. Possibly. But unlike Deoldify, they're not Open Source and have a price tag to match.
For me to start getting on the automated colorization bandwagon, or even consider it more than a dalliance, I would need to have aspirants to use a large Variety series of known & publicly recognized color images (for "ground truth" reference), their completely desaturated grayscale versions as the starting point, and the results, both from their methods and from competitors. WITH reference/learning samples, so it could be recreated & tested.
Scientific method with peer review. Otherwise, it's totally subjective bias & marketed hyperbole.
I think a compromise between the fully automated "wish" and the manual way, is to have a solution which uses reference frames for each scene. In that way a human could make the decisions about how to colorize objects, applying those changes to the reference frame and the tedium of manually rotoscoping and creating masks would be up to the computer. What is interesting to me in the automated approaches is how the algorithms can separate the objects in the scene and track them automatically.
For my personal project of restoring 1930's Kodacolor movies, I have made some progress with the movies I had duped to Super 8 back in the 70's. Using Adobe After Effects CC, I was able to frame match each scene and replace the cropped areas with the content aware fill. I then use the color blending mode to restore the faded color in my HD transfer.
The huge advantage here was having the less faded copy to work from. Without that, I'm back to square one.
Just thought of something. All the samples with people I've seen are caucasian. How does manual colorization (much less automated) handle non-caucasian skin color? Are there any 'good' examples? What if there's a group of people in the shot? Do they all have the same skin tone? What color skin tone would Warner Oland who played Charlie Chan in the '40's sport?
Do B&W sources contain enough (or any) information about skin tone? How does the manual or automated process work? Does the person or automated process doing the colorization determine the skin color based on facial attributes? What if the person is an albino? What about eye and hair color?
This clip on yt may go some way to answer the question of 'color'
It also illustrates quite well everything that is good and bad about colorization techniques.
Now I have the following on dvd (it actually looks better there than here) but it also shows, without spilling the beans on the software used, how 'Holiday Inn' was colorized.